fordy said:
Kasz216 said:
fordy said:
Kasz216 said:
fordy said:
badgenome said:
fordy said:
And who pays the employee? What I've said before is if something doesn't come around that replaces social security as a mandatory savings for retirement, employers are going to aim for the 10% unemployed who are willing to work for the wage minus the payroll tax. so if the government no longer gets it, and the employee no longer gets it, where do you think it goes to?
This is the problem with conservatives, in particular American conservatives, who pay some of the lowest taxes in the western world, yet they believe they have the right to whinge that they're getting raped by the government. Do you honestly believe government services are run by unicorns and pixie farts? Why don't you take a look at the good and honest battlers who are taking it tough to make ends meet and then come back with a serious face and tell me that you believe the rich are right to whinge about paying too much.
|
Uh... the employer pays the employee? I'm still not getting you here. I make whatever I make, and the government steals a certain amount of that. Then they demand that my employer matches that coerced contribution. The employer knows this is going to happen in advance, so they take it into consideration as the cost of hiring an employee to begin with. This, of course, affects what they're able or willing to pay an employee. So essentially, the worker ends up paying both his share and the employer's anyway. Sounds to me like you're insinuating that if social security is scrapped, wages will collapse or some such nonsense. If it were done away with, I imagine that at worst I would simply keep the amount the government has been taking from me all these years. At best, I could even see a raise if my boss appreciates me and just gives me what they've been paying to the feds. I'm sure you find that far-fetched, but it's less far-fetched than the idea that social security will not have collapsed by the time I reach retirement age.
Anyone who is forced to pay into a broken system that won't be there for them when they retire has a right to complain about it, I should think. This is the problem with leftists: they insist it is a fucking moral imperative that the government handle everything but never seem to get exercised when the system is wildly inefficient or downright broken. Whereas conservatives and libertarians, who don't even believe it is the place of the government to begin with, are the only ones who seem to think that if the government is going to stick its nose where it doesn't belong, it should at least do a halfway competent job at it. Do you not understand this? I don't think the government should run its services on unicorns and pixie farts; I think it shouldn't run most of them at all, at least not at at the federal level. This idea that the government is on the side of the little man is absolutely fucking laughable.
|
You honestly don't think any of the 10% unemployed would step up and say they'd be willing to work for the same amount minus the payroll tax reimbursement? A lot of people ARE living for here and now, mainly because they only have the means to do that. Very few have more than $1000 in savings. They're doing it tough. The jobs aren't around, and this whole capital gains tax cut crap has proven that it's not from a lack of investment, but a lack of people able to buy shit!
See, now youre grouping two things together. Just because I'm standing up for social security doesn't mean I want it to be inefficient. Government services can be up for independent audit just like private business, so don't go lumping those together, please.
I find your confidence in the American voting system interesting. So why aren't they for the little man? Could it be the allowance of undisclosed vast amounts of donations able to buy out your politicians, effectively turning your system into a Plutocratic Oligarchy? It would be interesting to see which party would be the first to veto a proposal to limit or eliminate private donations to political parties altogether.
But at least the government is up for scrutiny via frequent election. If you guys decide to vote someone corrupt in well, not anyone's fault but yourselves. When corporations get big enough, they REQUIRE the government to step in in order to stop it. Need I remind you of the monopoly of Standard Oil? Now, which side of politics would be against government intervention again?
Perhaps you require something more....recent? Take the Australian election of 2007. The conservative party just introduced a work relations reform bill called WorkChoices, promising "we've given the businesses more say in wage negotiations, but we assure you that they wont go too far". Guess what? As soon as the act passed into law, the media was reporting SIGNIFICANT wage cuts, with threats to legally dismiss employers unfairly. Now, you could say that it was the government's fault for relaxing regulations, but that govrnment got its ASS KICKED in the 2007 election. Even the Prime Minister lost his electorate, the first to happen since the 1910s. The subsequent government tore WorkChoices up. So from this example, are you seriously going to stand up and say business can be trusted over government? Give business an inch and they'll take a mile. Give government an inch, and if they take a mile, they'll be out.
|
You know, you could just get rid of the awful awful system that is social security and then just pass a law mandating that employers have to match up to the social security tax when put into retirement funds. Would be waaaaay better.
This is by the way what republican candidates have been proposing not... "OMG DESTROY SOCIAL SECURITY WITH FIRE".
|
All sounds well and good....until the employers get caught for not paying their share. And don't say it wouldn't happen. We've had quite a few incidents here where companies didn't pay into superannuation for a couple of decades. Those companies only got caught out once the company went bankrupt and employees lost their life's worth of superannuation. So what would you use to fix that? More government regulation? I thought that was something conservatives were against.
|
How wouldn't it? If the employer doesn't put it in, all the employee has to do is report them. This afterall a retirement fund of the EMPLOYEES chooisng.
As in the employee picks his own retirement fund manager, gives the info to his bosses and when he pays into it, the company gets notice and has to pay into it too....
and since the employee can check his status at any time, it'd be a pretty easy thing to see. This is what the republicans wanted, and Democrats didn't want.
|
And the pensioners who do not save enough for a retirement? What happens when the superannuation runs out? will there be some kind of underlying entitlement for those, or are people who only have decent paying jobs allowed to live in retirement?
If you're going to go into the point of privatising superannuation, who not bring up your past accomplishments, such as privatising electricity, which increased threefold afterwards, or the case of privatising telecomunications. Over here it created a monopoly that set our telecommunications industry back 15 years. Then there's always the laughable sight of privatised health insurance. You might as well give them half of your paycheck. Privatised prisons? Now we're getting judges accepting bribes to convict more people for these places. Tell me, how far does Wall Street want to go sticking their grubby little fingers into everything the people own
|
Lets work from the back foward but adress healthcare last before getting back on topic.
First off, we had a total of two judges in who have been arrested for that... which is such a small number it's ridiculious to pretend it's anything signifcant vs significant corruptuion in all court systems.
Secondly, why do you blame that on privatisation exactly? Didn't the government have a monopoly when they controlled it? In the US we DON'T have monopolies, works out quite well for us, due to less government regulations.
Thirdly, as for electircity privatisation, well that would be your own fault for having too many government regulations... in the US private electricity works fine and is working better as we deregulate and allow more competition into the markets.
Fourthy, the vast majority of medical technology comes from the US specifically because of our healthcare sysetm which drives 80% of all healthcare R&D research. If we had public healthcare like everyone else the healthcare industry would be set back 15+ years. Hell think how much father along we'd be if everyone had the healthcare plan as us. The high end stuff now would probably be what the poor could get for cheap, and EVERYONES health would be better. Rather then just Europe and the rest sitting leaching off US tech once it becomes affordable enough for governments at a cheaper price.
Now, to get back on topic. What happens if he doesn't save enough? The same thing that's going to happen anyway. He's going to be on Welfare, just like if he had social security, because social security is doomed to failure.
Heck, if your going to argue that most people won't get enough to reitre, well that certaintly shows a problem doesn't it? We're putting in less then we're getting out, kinda reenforces the whole "Medicare is going to collapse and it's just a matter of who it collapses on" statement isn't it? I mean, if you can't get enough retirement out of an IRA that gets an average yield 3-7% higher then the 5% that the government bonds have listed... I mean... seriously... the system is screwed.
Even more so when you consider the fact that the 5% interest rate number is fictional. It's the US spending $100 now and promising $105 later... well apparently unless the government is about to default on it's obligations, then your the very first people that are going to be cut out.
As what happened in the recent Debt Debate, where Obama through Social Security and Medicare recpients under the bus right away.
Also, i mean.... you know not everyone gets social security right? For example, my mom didn't qualify because she didn't work 10 years. So how does this help all "People have money when they are old and can work?" It doesn't.
What's the difference between someone who works a crappy job his entire life or even a good one and doesn't save enoguh, and someone who can't find employment enough for his whole life to earn social security? Other then the fact that the first group had a chance, while the second group didn't?
If you want some national federal assistance for the elderly, that's one thing, but social security most definitly isn't that. It was a poorly designed investment scheme meant to get more money spending by FDR that expanded into a poorly run, poorly set up, grand retirement fund for those who work. If anything, if you wanted to do it "right" you would give everyone over a certain age, who makes under a certain amount of money, money every year, deducted from the regular budget, and regular taxes. Not fantasy payroll taxes that pretend your saving for your future that don't count as part of the federal budget so presidents can pretend their deficits are lower, or in the case of Clinton pretend they have a surplus.
Social Security is worse then both that, the republican plan AND just letting people keep what they wanted. I'm sick of the worst case scenario being advocated simply because people don't like a better option ideologically.
