elko-mike Wrote:
Jan 22, 2013 1:01 PM
Yes, but it creates a moral hazard and disconnects individuals from the cost of their decisions. That recipe creates bad signals to markets and with politicians controlling the checkbook rapidly becomes inefficient, wasteful, and too expensive. As a matter of fact more than 30 countries have found that it is best to let people earn their benefits rather than bestow them from government, and thus they've privatized their systems. See http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/10/the-real-reason-why-democrats-do-not-want-to-privatize-social-security/