fordy said:
|
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.
Kasz216 said:
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?
fordy said:
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.
| fordy said:
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. |
I just don't see why it would significantly change the market. Instead of just assuming that all employers are Dickensian villains, put yourself in their shoes and think logically: if you have a reliable employee, are you really going to replace them with someone new and unproven just because you can pay them a few bucks less a month? Of course not. And strictly from a standpoint of cost, if you have invested anything at all in training your employees, it wouldn't even be close to worth it.
Need I remind you of Microsoft? When they were simply giving away software (oh, what a crime), they were villainized beyond belief as some kind of evil monopoly. Now that they just hire lobbyists like everyone else, no one really gives a fuck about them. I assume you think it's Republicans who are in the pockets of big business, but why is it Democrats who receive the most money? In particular that shining white knight Barack Obama, who is planning to raise $1 billion for his reelection: that money isn't going to all come from small donors, especially not in this economy. Big business is totally cool with big government, because they can generally nudge regulations in the direction that they want, and who really cares when you have a department of compliance bigger than most other companies? The only people who find regulations truly limiting are small businesses.
By the way, it's not as if this stuff is undisclosed like you suggest. It has to be disclosed, but... what does that mean? It's not like the media does a great job informing people, even when it doesn't have an agenda. So the information is out there, but unless you dig it up yourself or the media decides to slap you in the face with it, you'll probably never know about it. It's transparency without transparency.
Again, I submit that the only way to really deal with the problem is to devolve power back to the states. Why should someone who lives on the ass end of the country have to follow all the ins and outs of some shitty little city on the eastern seaboard just to be able to make an informed decision when he goes to vote? Hooray for Australia and all that, but 310 million wildly diverse people cannot fucking be centrally governed.
badgenome said:
I just don't see why it would significantly change the market. Instead of just assuming that all employers are Dickensian villains, put yourself in their shoes and think logically: if you have a reliable employee, are you really going to replace them with someone new and unproven just because you can pay them a few bucks less a month? Of course not. And strictly from a standpoint of cost, if you have invested anything at all in training your employees, it wouldn't even be close to worth it. Need I remind you of Microsoft? When they were simply giving away software (oh, what a crime), they were villainized beyond belief as some kind of evil monopoly. Now that they just hire lobbyists like everyone else, no one really gives a fuck about them. I assume you think it's Republicans who are in the pockets of big business, but why is it Democrats who receive the most money? In particular that shining white knight Barack Obama, who is planning to raise $1 billion for his reelection: that money isn't going to all come from small donors, especially not in this economy. Big business is totally cool with big government, because they can generally nudge regulations in the direction that they want, and who really cares when you have a department of compliance bigger than most other companies? The only people who find regulations truly limiting are small businesses. By the way, it's not as if this stuff is undisclosed like you suggest. It has to be disclosed, but... what does that mean? It's not like the media does a great job informing people, even when it doesn't have an agenda. So the information is out there, but unless you dig it up yourself or the media decides to slap you in the face with it, you'll probably never know about it. It's transparency without transparency. Again, I submit that the only way to really deal with the problem is to devolve power back to the states. Why should someone who lives on the ass end of the country have to follow all the ins and outs of some shitty little city on the eastern seaboard just to be able to make an informed decision when he goes to vote? Hooray for Australia and all that, but 310 million wildly diverse people cannot fucking be centrally governed. |
Well there is one guy who writes a book for the Presidents, or at least he used too, not sure if he does anymore.
I got it during the Bush vs Gore election. Or Bush vs Kerry... was fun.
The best candidate in retrospect was Chris Dodd.
The Dodd Frank act is amusing when you find out he was the presidential candidate who received the most donations from Wal-Street and Big Banks on either side. Which is espiecally telling considering he was never a real contender.
| Kasz216 said: 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. You mean besides all the lobbying going on about getting tougher on petty crimes in order to fill these jails up? Two judges is still two judges too many, especially considering the miniscule number of states privatising prisons. 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. No monopolies huh? Oh how they forget about the workings of Standard Oil. And who helped out there to split them up? Oh right....the government. The one that you're pushing not to get involved in corporate affairs. 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. Oh I LOVE it when they use this excuse. It's not due to the fact that electricity companies here turn in profits of billions annuallly, it's because the government is twisting their arms. That's the problem with conservative ideology. Even the most efficient private service cannot outperform the most efficient public service, due to the fact that investors are expecting a return. 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. Oh wow, where would we be without the Americans to take all the credit for medical breakthroughs. Well, let's take a look at some of the major breakthroughs lately, shall we? Penicillin: Most likely the most important medical breakthrough of our time......was an Australian/Scottish/English discovery MRI: Developed at the University of Nottingham, England. Pacemaker: Saved thousands of lives and.....oh wait. Another Australian invention. Anaesthesia: Was first used in Germany DNA: First traces go back to the Unversity of Cambridge CT scan: First proposed by an Italian. Commercially viable thanks to the UK Chemotherapy: Well what do you know? Here's one made by Americans. Oh...but it was developed by the US Army. That's government owned, right? Vaccinations: These are from various locations, not just the United States. The most recent vaccine against HPV the cause of most cervical cancers, came from the University of Queensland. I'll give you one concession. Your advances to medical breakthroughs aren't by your privatisation, but by your large consumer base. As for your question of where we would be? Well, if I do recall, it was the US that banned cloning and stem cell research initially, almost like it doesn't wish to dominate in medicine, merely take the credit when somebody else discovers it. 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. Though does Social security keep tabs on who puts in what? If not, then surely that shows the underprivilidged are better off on social security. If not, then how exactly would the private option be better? You dug yourself into a bit of a hole there. 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. So why not put in more to the existing system? Once again, how is privatisation going to change this? The idea of a mandatory scheme like social security is promised revenue that can accrue interest, enough to offset extra burden, especially with the boomers in retirement. A current "straight in-straight out" system only works when you don't have an aging population. The system itself isn't broken. It's the way that you executed it that was broken. 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. Interesting. I'm getting 6% on my savings and that's just a generic savings account. I'm sure if I actually tried and invested in something like property or term investment, even safe investment could yield at least 12%. As what happened in the recent Debt Debate, where Obama through Social Security and Medicare recpients under the bus right away. As what's expected by a conservative president......wait.....you mean he's not? Must be nice to give his opponent 100% of what they wanted and still call it a fair compromise. 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. That sounds like social security being too right-leaning, not being too socialist. I mean god DAMN, how screwed up is the welfare there? |
I mean honestly, are you going to give me some points to stump me, or do I have to keep shooting holes in your flawed ideology? Privatisation of public services is a FAILURE, especially if you can say that regulation is what keeps costs up, despite billions in profits generated by these guys. Trickle down economics is pure theory (in fact, theory often has some logic behind it, so let's just move it to 'myth' instead), as can be seen by the state of your economy now. Too much focus on giving tax breaks to promote jobs, but the truth is NOBODY IS WILLING TO EMPLOY IN AN ECONOMY WHERE NOBODY CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO BUY SHIT.
badgenome said:
I just don't see why it would significantly change the market. Instead of just assuming that all employers are Dickensian villains, put yourself in their shoes and think logically: if you have a reliable employee, are you really going to replace them with someone new and unproven just because you can pay them a few bucks less a month? Of course not. And strictly from a standpoint of cost, if you have invested anything at all in training your employees, it wouldn't even be close to worth it. So you only spend a few bucks a month on social security? And you're seriously wondering why it's going dry? For gods sake, add a bit more to your retirement, you tightwads! Need I remind you of Microsoft? When they were simply giving away software (oh, what a crime), they were villainized beyond belief as some kind of evil monopoly. Now that they just hire lobbyists like everyone else, no one really gives a fuck about them. I assume you think it's Republicans who are in the pockets of big business, but why is it Democrats who receive the most money? In particular that shining white knight Barack Obama, who is planning to raise $1 billion for his reelection: that money isn't going to all come from small donors, especially not in this economy. Big business is totally cool with big government, because they can generally nudge regulations in the direction that they want, and who really cares when you have a department of compliance bigger than most other companies? The only people who find regulations truly limiting are small businesses. I'd like a source on this, please. If I recall, there was a ton of campaign money thrown around for the Republican pre-elections, particularly on Gingrich. So what's your logic? The corporations are funding the Democrats? I thought the Democrats were for tighter regulation. I think we're mixing up regulation with subsidies. Regulation should be there so corporations don't go poisoning us all, or reclessly killing expendable workers in a mine somewhere. Subsidies should only be used to transition to better technologies smoothly, not to pay existing monopolies. So if it's in terms f regulation vs subsidies, why are the Republicans against closing tax loopholes for corporate jet owners? Why are they against ending oil subsidies? By the way, it's not as if this stuff is undisclosed like you suggest. It has to be disclosed, but... what does that mean? It's not like the media does a great job informing people, even when it doesn't have an agenda. So the information is out there, but unless you dig it up yourself or the media decides to slap you in the face with it, you'll probably never know about it. It's transparency without transparency. The edia doesn't seem to be into it's job anymore. They're supposed to keep the bastards honest, but most times when I watch interviews with american politicians, it seems more like an afternoon chat over a cup of tea and piece of cake. Nobody is calling anyone on their bullshit anymore. Again, I submit that the only way to really deal with the problem is to devolve power back to the states. Why should someone who lives on the ass end of the country have to follow all the ins and outs of some shitty little city on the eastern seaboard just to be able to make an informed decision when he goes to vote? Hooray for Australia and all that, but 310 million wildly diverse people cannot fucking be centrally governed. That sounds more like urban vs regional to me. I'm not sure about many states there, but our states consist usually of one MASSIVE city, and a bunch of smaller towns. the states should have some power yes, and federal should have power over things the country holds dear. But idealistically, I'd say first thing would be to work towards decentralisation for each state, then look at holding state vs federal debate. |
fordy said:
|
Don't be so literal. When I say a few bucks, I mean in relative terms. It's chump change to an employer, but not to anyone who's making, say, less than $30k a year. And as I've said before, the employee ends up paying the employer's share, because that's all figured into the cost of hiring someone and in making the decision as to how much you're going to pay them. But yeah, I'd be glad to save more for my retirement - unfortunately, it's just going to some fucking government boondoggle instead.
Both sides receive big money from business, but with the 2008 elections Democrats finally eclipsed Republicans for the first time in decades, and Wall Street has already given Obama almost as much towards his reelection as they did in during his entire first campaign. Why on Earth would they do this if they weren't benefitting from his policies? The idea that Republicans are owned by big business while the Democrats are the champions of the little guy is a stubborn piece of fiction, and apparently it doesn't limit itself to just my country.
Do you really take Obama's demagoging about private jets at face value? He apparently thought the accelerated depreciation program for private jets was a good enough economic stimulant to include it in his stimulus bill, for which only three Republicans voted out of both houses of Congress - and one of them turned Democrat shortly thereafter. What sort of brilliant and considered economic leadership is this, extending a tax credit one day because it's apparently so critical for economic recovery and then railing against it the next?
And if it's only Republicans who are in bed with Big Oil, BP is really fucking stupid for giving more money to Obama than to anyone else. I mean, I'm opposed to all this shit myself - subsidies and scads of very specific deductions that only benefit the very rich and whatnot - but to squabble over what amounts to a rounding error in the federal budget ($21 billion for oil, I believe) when the house is burning down around us... is nonsense and a total distraction.
I don't really agree on the urban vs. regional bit, either. Someone in New York City is just as controlled by the feds as is someone in Paducah, Kentucky. They just happen to have NYC's overbearing nanny state bearing down on them as well. At any rate, it would make more sense to me to let state capitals take over before decentralizing further, wouldn't it? How can you have a local government trump the state goverment, but not the federal government?
fordy said:
I mean honestly, are you going to give me some points to stump me, or do I have to keep shooting holes in your flawed ideology? Privatisation of public services is a FAILURE, especially if you can say that regulation is what keeps costs up, despite billions in profits generated by these guys. Trickle down economics is pure theory (in fact, theory often has some logic behind it, so let's just move it to 'myth' instead), as can be seen by the state of your economy now. Too much focus on giving tax breaks to promote jobs, but the truth is NOBODY IS WILLING TO EMPLOY IN AN ECONOMY WHERE NOBODY CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO BUY SHIT. |
I actually did, you just managed to ignore and or strawman
1) Again, stupid, if I wasted my time I'm sure i could find plenty of dumb australian scandals caused by various things. Like government officials taking bribes to appoint other government officals in the jailing commission.
2) Again, uh... You didn't actually disprove me here, Nowhere have I argued against anti-monopoly legislation. It's like argueing that if someone comits malpractice it's okay because "He'd of died without surgery anyway right? I mean if your against surgery so much!"
Nice attempt to strawman away from the fact that you were wrong here. Just curious, how much Telecom research was being done by the Australian government when it controlled the telecom industry?
3) I'd guess so, afterall in the US we don't really have that problem, sure they make a profit.... sometimes (GE actually pays no taxes because it lost so much money before.) However in the US, we allow private companies to compete with each other, driving prices down. US Electricity is downright cheap in comparison to Australia... and generally cheap vs the world as far as I can tell.
4) So your point is to cherry pick a couple inventions? Nice job trying to cherrypick and then also try to discount the fact that, like you said, America is improving on everything far far more then any other country... including basically every item you mentioned.
Consumer Base is a poor explination when you consider the fact that the US once again, spends more and achives more in research then the rest of the world combined.
Actual on topic coming in the next post. Though i'm done with this part, since it's off topic and I don't need to be strawmanned in offtopic arguements.
fordy said:
I mean honestly, are you going to give me some points to stump me, or do I have to keep shooting holes in your flawed ideology? Privatisation of public services is a FAILURE, especially if you can say that regulation is what keeps costs up, despite billions in profits generated by these guys. Trickle down economics is pure theory (in fact, theory often has some logic behind it, so let's just move it to 'myth' instead), as can be seen by the state of your economy now. Too much focus on giving tax breaks to promote jobs, but the truth is 6) NOBODY IS WILLING TO EMPLOY IN AN ECONOMY WHERE NOBODY CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO BUY SHIT. |
1) Actually I didn't dig myself into a hole, it's just, you don't know dick about how Social Security works. Social security DOES take in how much you paid. That decides how much you get paid monthly. Until you die. It doesn't actually matter how long you live though... so once you pass what you should be entitled to from social security you can keep collecting... and most people do. Hence the systems impending collapse. This isn't accounted for in FICA taxes or mentioned by the Democrats, because if it was, they would lose a ton of votes for raising taxes.
2) Privitization can cause the collapse to happen slower and in parts and make sure that people have retirement funds by gradually increasing the amount of Fica that can be put in private funds.
3) Again, take note that the government bonds don't really have a 5% yield. This isn't like Denmark where the country invests the money it gets into a pension fund full of stocks and bonds. Quite literally all the US government does is buy government bonds from itself promising to pay back the money with 5% interest. What do you think would happen if you took your retirement money, and used it to buy yourself "Fordy Bonds" that say "In 40 years I plan to pay back this money with 5% interest" then went out and bought a TV. This is literally the case, Social Security would be more effective if the law said "You must keep the same percentage of taxes in your savings account until you are 67 years old."
4) Actually that's what he planned to do.... without the compromise. He established the fact that the minute we can't pay our bills... america's seniors are scerewed because social secutiry is a messed up broken program that needs to be abolished.
5) Extremely, which is why it needs to go. It's worse then having no system. It's no better then having a too liberal deregulation, where you loosen up buisness regs but still keep all the buisness deductions and bonuses.
6) People can still afford to buy shit. The US still has a higher Median per capita income PPP then the vast majority of countries in the world. Median, being not effected much by the rich having way too much, Per capita being per person, and PPP meaning adjusting for how much thigns cost.
This is true even when you consider Median Disposable household income... so no, government healthcare and the like doesn't help other countries cases enough. The people in the US can afford more shit then the people in Australia can for example.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
