rement goes tohelping that taxpayer retire (not others). It ensures the money paid intaxes is invested and grows. It also gives taxpayers choices over theirplans and the age at which they want to retire. If the US were to adopt a system like Chile's, we could save our ownfailed Social Security system and provide real security and peace of mindto everyone. The money paid into these individual retirement accounts isinvested, meaning more capital is available to the business sector forinvestment. An individual would have their very own pension, with theirname on it. The government would no longer control the money that theindividual paid in to it. It is the individual's account, just like anIRA. It is essentially a government mandated IRA. Only difference is yourtax payment goes into an individual’s account instead of going to thegovernment. Your income would not change because you already pay the tax.You would simply redirect the payment into an IRA. People would be livingoff their investment income and not a transfer payment funded througheconomic growth-slowing taxes. The government would only need to coverthose people whose pension did not provide an adequate income. This wouldbe a much lower percentage than the current system of near 100 percent. Politicians have been extremely reluctant to change Social Securitybecause any misstep could provoke explosive reactions from the program's43 million beneficiaries. Even Ronald Reagan at the peak of his popularitypledged a defense of the present public system and in 1983 signedbipartisan legislation to shore it up. But this year the issue has surfaced in political debates. It provokeda bitter exchange between the two candidates for the Republicanpresidential nomination, Steve Forbes and Sen. Bob Dole. When Forbes suggested that a part of younger workers' payroll taxes gointo private retirement accounts, Dole ran television advertisementsdenouncing the idea as "a radical unte...
