|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Nov 15, 2010 6:42:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Nov 15, 2010 6:43:50 GMT -8
BOSTON (MarketWatch) — When it comes to retirement, we here in the U.S. can celebrate the fact that we’re not France. We presumably don’t have as much reason to riot in the streets. Then again, given the results of some research just released, we have no reason to be dancing in the streets, either. The U.S. has the 10th best retirement-income system in the world. That’s the good news. The bad news is that, one, there were only 14 countries studied in the second annual Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index and, two, the U.S. had the sixth best retirement system in the world in last year’s study. www.marketwatch.com/story/us-retirement-system-ranks-10th-out-of-14-2010-10-29?reflink=e2eyahoo |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 15, 2010 8:31:36 GMT -8
All of that sounds reasonable to me. Not happy about it, but small changes put in place over time can correct this situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Nov 15, 2010 11:39:34 GMT -8
All of that sounds reasonable to me. Not happy about it, but small changes put in place over time can correct this situation. Sadly, the overwhelming majority of people retire on Social Security alone. That ain't good if we are going to reduce their benefits. Again, this is a projected decrease in benefits that will only hurt the poor. That is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 15, 2010 12:24:17 GMT -8
Sounds like a sound start to me. I would tax 100% of the employees half and then figure out some lower level for employers. Lets not be unreasonable with the cost to business. I don't mind paying my half.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 16, 2010 21:35:22 GMT -8
Raise the income ceiling for Social Security taxes to at least a half million dollars, have a means testing so that the rich don't get social security checks, and raise the retirement age to 69 for those now under 40 and we're good to go.
Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Nov 18, 2010 10:17:50 GMT -8
Raise the income ceiling for Social Security taxes to at least a half million dollars, have a means testing so that the rich don't get social security checks, and raise the retirement age to 69 for those now under 40 and we're good to go. Problem solved. Gosh, you make me feel guilty, Eric. I took Social Security as soon as they allowed after I turned 62. Now you want to tell all of my children who were born in the United States that they can't retire until they are 69. Something like that seems wrong. For my children only, they should be allowed to retire at my retirement age. Remember , I am at heart an 'I've got mine, so fug you" Republican. Being old fashion GOP, my children should be grandfathered to the same benefits that I have. As long as my children get it I'm OK with that as it fits right in with "I've got mine, so fug you" mentality. Right? Of course, Right!!! |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 18, 2010 20:25:01 GMT -8
All of that sounds reasonable to me. Not happy about it, but small changes put in place over time can correct this situation. Sadly, the overwhelming majority of people retire on Social Security alone. That ain't good if we are going to reduce their benefits. Again, this is a projected decrease in benefits that will only hurt the poor. That is wrong. The aged are simply not productive enough for the conservatives. There is no excuse for them getting old and becoming parasites. Pauperism is their just dessert. Why should a conservative support anyone but themselves? Old age is traitorous behavior.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 19, 2010 6:46:05 GMT -8
Sadly, the overwhelming majority of people retire on Social Security alone. That ain't good if we are going to reduce their benefits. Again, this is a projected decrease in benefits that will only hurt the poor. That is wrong. The aged are simply not productive enough for the conservatives. There is no excuse for them getting old and becoming parasites. Pauperism is their just dessert. Why should a conservative support anyone but themselves? Old age is traitorous behavior. Man, you really are full of venom towards conservatives. It's really kind of sad - primarily because your take on conservatives is just so wrong. It is FOOLISH to live your entire working life without doing anything to set up some sort of retirement income. MOST people can - they just have to put in the time and effort to do it. Even people making very little money can take the time to research it and come up with a strategy. Part of the problem is that people become comfortable with their current conditions and don't think about the future. It would be better if everyone was taught about retirement planning at an early age. It's just as important as learning how to balance a checkbook/bank account and paying bills. Teach people how to do it, and lay down some expectations that they WILL do it and people will rise to the occasion. Don't insult large groups of people by assuming that they are incapable of doing basic life planning tasks. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 19, 2010 9:43:10 GMT -8
The aged are simply not productive enough for the conservatives. There is no excuse for them getting old and becoming parasites. Pauperism is their just dessert. Why should a conservative support anyone but themselves? Old age is traitorous behavior. Man, you really are full of venom towards conservatives. It's really kind of sad - primarily because your take on conservatives is just so wrong. It is FOOLISH to live your entire working life without doing anything to set up some sort of retirement income. MOST people can - they just have to put in the time and effort to do it. Even people making very little money can take the time to research it and come up with a strategy. Part of the problem is that people become comfortable with their current conditions and don't think about the future. It would be better if everyone was taught about retirement planning at an early age. It's just as important as learning how to balance a checkbook/bank account and paying bills. Teach people how to do it, and lay down some expectations that they WILL do it and people will rise to the occasion. Don't insult large groups of people by assuming that they are incapable of doing basic life planning tasks. I hope Joe doesn't pee his pants from laughing when he reads this post.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 20, 2010 7:23:53 GMT -8
Man, you really are full of venom towards conservatives. It's really kind of sad - primarily because your take on conservatives is just so wrong. It is FOOLISH to live your entire working life without doing anything to set up some sort of retirement income. MOST people can - they just have to put in the time and effort to do it. Even people making very little money can take the time to research it and come up with a strategy. Part of the problem is that people become comfortable with their current conditions and don't think about the future. It would be better if everyone was taught about retirement planning at an early age. It's just as important as learning how to balance a checkbook/bank account and paying bills. Teach people how to do it, and lay down some expectations that they WILL do it and people will rise to the occasion. Don't insult large groups of people by assuming that they are incapable of doing basic life planning tasks. I hope Joe doesn't pee his pants from laughing when he reads this post. But, see, this is a great example of how liberals look down on people while conservatives don't. Liberals don't think people can take care of themselves. They think that almost everyone needs the government to hold their hands to do anything important in life. Conservatives, on the other hand, think almost everyone is capable of being self-sufficient and handling the challenging issues in life themselves. That's a major difference in philosophies. I find the liberal point of view insulting. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 20, 2010 7:46:31 GMT -8
I hope Joe doesn't pee his pants from laughing when he reads this post. But, see, this is a great example of how liberals look down on people while conservatives don't. Liberals don't think people can take care of themselves. They think that almost everyone needs the government to hold their hands to do anything important in life. Conservatives, on the other hand, think almost everyone is capable of being self-sufficient and handling the challenging issues in life themselves. That's a major difference in philosophies. I find the liberal point of view insulting. Liberals (I) believe that people need help to face forces that buffet them like dried leaves. I think conservatives look down on people who are not productive, by their standards. If any conservative can show that a person can really hold their own against economic forces, on their own. I would like to be convinced. All of your comments have not done so. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 20, 2010 7:55:46 GMT -8
The aged are simply not productive enough for the conservatives. There is no excuse for them getting old and becoming parasites. Pauperism is their just dessert. Why should a conservative support anyone but themselves? Old age is traitorous behavior. Man, you really are full of venom towards conservatives. It's really kind of sad - primarily because your take on conservatives is just so wrong. It is FOOLISH to live your entire working life without doing anything to set up some sort of retirement income. MOST people can - they just have to put in the time and effort to do it. Even people making very little money can take the time to research it and come up with a strategy. Part of the problem is that people become comfortable with their current conditions and don't think about the future. It would be better if everyone was taught about retirement planning at an early age. It's just as important as learning how to balance a checkbook/bank account and paying bills. Teach people how to do it, and lay down some expectations that they WILL do it and people will rise to the occasion. Don't insult large groups of people by assuming that they are incapable of doing basic life planning tasks. All I will say is that private market based retirement planning is subject to chance as well as effort. the investment vehicles you place your faith in periodically pauperize people. Since society pays for these losses as well as the individual, government has a place in maintaining at least some floor on the standard of living. I find it ironic that we work harder than most of the world and get less support. We die sooner are pauperized by illnesses and we have decreasing economic mobility. Most people never make enough money to save a significant amount of money in investments. Yet, conservatives would begrudge them(or significantly modify) the one truly successful program, one that has moved an entire class of people out of poverty. It is not conservatives that I hate (although there are a few, well no matter). I think conservative ideology is at its base cruel. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 20, 2010 8:06:24 GMT -8
But, see, this is a great example of how liberals look down on people while conservatives don't. Liberals don't think people can take care of themselves. They think that almost everyone needs the government to hold their hands to do anything important in life. Conservatives, on the other hand, think almost everyone is capable of being self-sufficient and handling the challenging issues in life themselves. That's a major difference in philosophies. I find the liberal point of view insulting. Liberals (I) believe that people need help to face forces that buffet them like dried leaves. See, you don't believe that people are capable of taking care of themselves - of being self sufficient. That's insulting and demeaning. I am an example. I have no college degree (76 units with a 3.5 gpa, but no degree), and I make up 85% of my household income and we have taken ZERO money from the government to get by. I have a retirement plan in place, and am contributing to it every two weeks. Not in big chunks but a little bit out of every paycheck. I don't need the government to hold my hand and treat me like a child. Very, very few people really need that kind of hand holding. The government is not mommy and daddy, nor should it be. People live up or down to expectations. Ask any coach about that... (People can be more resourceful than you seem to think they are.) |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 20, 2010 8:08:52 GMT -8
Let's repeat a key point - Social Security as originally designed is a PONZI SCHEME. As the birth rate has plummeted the scheme is unravelling.
Individual accounts would have prevented this problem. You wouldn't even have to invest in stocks - you could put it in bonds or money market accounts if you're afraid of risk. OR you could do the prudent thing (like I do with my 401K) and have a good MIX to realize gains, but protect your account from too much loss at once.
The current Ponzi scheme is blowing up in our faces...
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 20, 2010 8:12:32 GMT -8
Man, you really are full of venom towards conservatives. It's really kind of sad - primarily because your take on conservatives is just so wrong. It is FOOLISH to live your entire working life without doing anything to set up some sort of retirement income. MOST people can - they just have to put in the time and effort to do it. Even people making very little money can take the time to research it and come up with a strategy. Part of the problem is that people become comfortable with their current conditions and don't think about the future. It would be better if everyone was taught about retirement planning at an early age. It's just as important as learning how to balance a checkbook/bank account and paying bills. Teach people how to do it, and lay down some expectations that they WILL do it and people will rise to the occasion. Don't insult large groups of people by assuming that they are incapable of doing basic life planning tasks. I hope Joe doesn't pee his pants from laughing when he reads this post. Your worry is misplaced! Joe wears Depends! |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 20, 2010 8:18:58 GMT -8
Sadly, the overwhelming majority of people retire on Social Security alone. That ain't good if we are going to reduce their benefits. Again, this is a projected decrease in benefits that will only hurt the poor. That is wrong. The aged are simply not productive enough for the conservatives. There is no excuse for them getting old and becoming parasites. Pauperism is their just dessert. Why should a conservative support anyone but themselves? Old age is traitorous behavior. I am surprised that you would have such a cynical view. Conservatives have the same concerns for the most part as do liberals. Where we differ is how to solve problems. Conservatives think that Government should take a much smaller role in providing basic safety net needs. Private resources like Churches can do the job much better, faster and cheaper. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 20, 2010 8:34:33 GMT -8
Liberals (I) believe that people need help to face forces that buffet them like dried leaves. See, you don't believe that people are capable of taking care of themselves - of being self sufficient. That's insulting and demeaning. I am an example. I have no college degree (76 units with a 3.5 gpa, but no degree), and I make up 85% of my household income and we have taken ZERO money from the government to get by. I have a retirement plan in place, and am contributing to it every two weeks. Not in big chunks but a little bit out of every paycheck. I don't need the government to hold my hand and treat me like a child. Very, very few people really need that kind of hand holding. The government is not mommy and daddy, nor should it be. People live up or down to expectations. Ask any coach about that... (People can be more resourceful than you seem to think they are.) Insulting my pimply butt. You are absolutely incapable of seeing that people originally coalesced into societies to spread risk and specialize-thereby making the whole more productive. If that is not the case please explain why humans did it. The greatest advancements in humanity's history occurred when they began looking after their old people. You do not like to pay taxes and do not want to help people who are less well off, blaming their failure on their personal shortcomings. You refuse to admit the absolutely obvious-- that there are circumstances beyond people's control. If that were not true, mortuaries would have to do much more advertising. Government needs to help when circumstances are beyond people's control. If there are no jobs, you won't find one. Effort will not help. You are insulting when you assume people will not work. How is assuming people are lazy not insulting? I only assume some things are beyond our control. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 20, 2010 8:48:17 GMT -8
See, you don't believe that people are capable of taking care of themselves - of being self sufficient. That's insulting and demeaning. I am an example. I have no college degree (76 units with a 3.5 gpa, but no degree), and I make up 85% of my household income and we have taken ZERO money from the government to get by. I have a retirement plan in place, and am contributing to it every two weeks. Not in big chunks but a little bit out of every paycheck. I don't need the government to hold my hand and treat me like a child. Very, very few people really need that kind of hand holding. The government is not mommy and daddy, nor should it be. People live up or down to expectations. Ask any coach about that... (People can be more resourceful than you seem to think they are.) Insulting my pimply butt. You are absolutely incapable of seeing that people originally coalesced into societies to spread risk and specialize-thereby making the whole more productive. If that is not the case please explain why humans did it. The greatest advancements in humanity's history occurred when they began looking after their old people. You do not like to pay taxes and therefore do not want to help people who are less well off. You refuse to admit the absolutely obvious-- that there are circumstances beyond people's control. If that were not true, mortuaries would have to do much more advertising. Herein lies the basic misconception. Being tax adverse does not mean that you do not tithe or contribute to other social causes. Here is an idea for you to think about. Is it better to pay a dollar in tax in order to get it filtered through many bureaucratic hands and provide a nickels worth of bread to a homeless man or would it be better to hand that man a dollar out the window of our car at a stop sign? Even if that dollar out the window went to buy fortified wine, it is better spent. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 20, 2010 8:53:05 GMT -8
I hope Joe doesn't pee his pants from laughing when he reads this post. But, see, this is a great example of how liberals look down on people while conservatives don't. Liberals don't think people can take care of themselves. They think that almost everyone needs the government to hold their hands to do anything important in life. Conservatives, on the other hand, think almost everyone is capable of being self-sufficient and handling the challenging issues in life themselves. That's a major difference in philosophies. I find the liberal point of view insulting. I am not aware that Joe is a liberal. If you go back to when Joe posted first on this board he told everyone he was going to post as a liberal for his amusement. It seems you have forgotten that. I am sure he is very amused. |
|
