 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
- Say there are too many old people in a public system. The system either reduces pensions (=withdraws its promise of retribution), or taxes the economy like hell to sustain it.
- Now, say there are too many old people in a private system. The pension funds will either have to reduce pensions (=withdraw its promise of retribution, which will be a breach of contract), or demand more and more ridiculous dividends from the companies they own and draw money from.
- Same with the banks: when too many old people demand their money back, the only way the banks can give this money will be to raise loan interest rates, to have sufficient income to pay all those old people, like they rightfully claim.
The belief a private system is more long-term viable than a public one is false. In both cases, you have more and more people getting paid by doing nothing (the retirees), more and more people getting paid by not producing wealth. And thus, in both cases, you have more and more people leeching off the economy.
Whether the redistribution of money -from those who work to those who don't- is made publicly or privately doesn't change anything wrt viability: one day, the economy isn't able to sustain all those old people.
|
Good point Spiffor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
- Say there are too many old people in a public system. The system either reduces pensions (=withdraws its promise of retribution), or taxes the economy like hell to sustain it.
- Now, say there are too many old people in a private system. The pension funds will either have to reduce pensions (=withdraw its promise of retribution, which will be a breach of contract), or demand more and more ridiculous dividends from the companies they own and draw money from.
- Same with the banks: when too many old people demand their money back, the only way the banks can give this money will be to raise loan interest rates, to have sufficient income to pay all those old people, like they rightfully claim.
The belief a private system is more long-term viable than a public one is false. In both cases, you have more and more people getting paid by doing nothing (the retirees), more and more people getting paid by not producing wealth. And thus, in both cases, you have more and more people leeching off the economy.
Whether the redistribution of money -from those who work to those who don't- is made publicly or privately doesn't change anything wrt viability: one day, the economy isn't able to sustain all those old people. |
I don't know why you agree with this Kid, it basically states SC is unsolvant no matter what, and is just the current gernation screwing the new ones. I guess you only care about current poor people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Albert Speer
instead of taxing only the first $68,400 of income at 12.4%, why not keep taxing beyond this relatively low 68K?
wouldn't that generate enough revenue to at least partially fund soc. security?
(not the mention the fact that the present situation makes soc. security taxes an unfair burden on the poor) |
I agree
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
This is a misconception. This kind of misconception is very common, and I have to explain it often. This misconception comes from the idea that banks / stocks etc... manage YOUR money, and that it remains YOURS from the beginning to the end.
They don't. They invest that money in various things that are more or less risky. Your money basically disappears immediately, as it is used in some investment made by the fincancial institute, or as it is used to pay wages, or dividens for other people, etc.
|
I thought pensions were often what is called 'unit' based. When you make a contribution you buy a certain number of units. The value of a unit is based pretty much on the value of the shares or investments that make up the fund you are buying into.
I would think the money goes to buying the investment item that makes up the fund, the liability raised by giving out your money is matched by an asset created by the increased capital portfolio of the fund. There is of course an intrinsic risk associated with what you are buying, but when you buy it you are informed of the risks involved, and you choose high risk high return or low risk low return schemes. Effectively you are investing in a kind of stock market, but the point is you are investing in your future with a level of control over what you invest in - you can invest in foreign and growing economies for example. A state scheme does not invest, or attempt to grow the money in home or foreign markets, and as a result you get a worse return on investment, especially in countries where the population is aging.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-08-2004 21:07
Arrian, it's a good attempt, but I've never seen Kid unsuccessfully jack a thread.....
)
|