4 ms·
On the flip side, even the existence of pensions is amoral. Promising the funds of future generations, which may never materializes, condems citizens for decade
by throwaway91111 10y ago
On the flip side, even the existence of pensions is amoral. Promising the funds of future generations, which may never materializes, condems citizens for decades of wasted spending.
Just look at San Jose. Just look at Social Security. It is hard to identify these liabilities as working the way they were intended. And what do the people gain from them? Overpaid cops?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- amluto 10y agoPensions, done right, are nothing of the sort. You commit present funds to secure future payments. Social security, which is very much the opposite, has issues as a result. (I assume you meant immoral, not amoral.)
- michaelchisari 10y agoAre you unaware of what people gain from Social Security?
- kspaans 10y agoAnd yet the Canada Pension Plan is fully funded[0] and in no danger. California's problem is over-promising and mismanaging. 0 - http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/Eng/oca-bac/as-ea/Pages/ascpp.aspx#toc-Ic http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/Eng/oca-bac/as-ea/Pages/ascpp.asp...
- throwaway91111 10y agoAgreed.
- aboutthecpp 10y agoI get angry whenever people use the words "fully funded" to describe CPP. On one hand it's true--but it's also very misleading. After considering investment returns/time value of money/"net present value" of contributions: If you were a baby boomer, you'll get ~2x what you put in. If you were born in the 80's, you'll get half what you put in. So yes, they "fixed" CPP by changing it so that younger people are legally obligated to "invest" their money in a pension fund that returns half of what it should return based on the contributions younger people are making. I think CPP is in danger. The danger is that someone will create a clear enough explanation of how CPP was "fixed" and young people will decide that there is no reason for them to allow being screwed the way CPP does.