3 ms·

We'll the alternative to personal responsibility (that is, being personally responsible for your own retirement funds) is a massive ponzi scheme. There is no c

We'll the alternative to personal responsibility (that is, being personally responsible for your own retirement funds) is a massive ponzi scheme. There is no chance that people could be "forced to save" as that has always turned into another tax in every place it's been implemented. And who wants to retire? I'll retire when I'm dead, until then I'm gonna be busy doing stuff(work or otherwise). And I'm saying this as someone who's got no money. And governments are not good at this sort of thing. Take the Irish government for example(my home country), ran a massive surplus for years during the boom, saved a nice little nest egg. It was supposed to be for public pensions(actually not supposed to, it WAS). Then in 2008 they gave it to the banks. THEY GAVE IT TO THE BANKS!!!!! edit: I concede that not everyone wants to work until they're in the grave.

viraptor 16y ago
> I'll retire when I'm dead Unless you die prematurely, no... You'll retire when you're too tired to do stuff, or when your health doesn't allow you to, or when you become unable to care for yourself in many other ways. Mostly it's not up to you when you stop "doing stuff" - even less if it's about earning money (who would hire an able and willing to work 60-70-yo these days? - realistically).
- dublinclontarf 16y ago
  I accept that not everyone else has the same outlook as me, but I plan to do the sustainable thing. What old people who can't do anything anymore have done for millenia before social security and "retirement". Have my children take care of me. Well that's plan B, plan A is to become very wealthy from the things I create and live off that. And who said someone has to hire me? There are plenty of people here who work for themselves (or at least their customers). With webapps they don't even know what you look like, you could be a 90 year old dressed as Gandalf and it wouldn't matter as long as the sites good.
  - viraptor 16y ago
    You're assuming that your children will be able to, will be wealthy enough to, will be willing to, will be alive long enough to do that. Also you're assuming that you will be mentally capable of working in your 60's. That's a lot of assumptions which I wouldn't be comfortable with in my life. Not trying to say everything bad will happen, but that's a lot of assumptions... at some points you might be left with no support from yourself or family - and a lot of people find themselves in situations like that.
gaius 16y ago
I was with you until the last bit, that's pure bullshit. The bank bailout is really a bailout of people who took on mortgages they couldn't afford. People like your neighbours. Maybe even YOU. The alternative was to let nature take it's course: call in a million mortgages. Voters wouldn't like that...
- dublinclontarf 16y ago
  No sorry your wrong, I didn't(and a huge number like me) take on a mortgage I couldn't afford, and we shouldn't be asked to pay for others mistakes (I'm not anyway, emigrated last year). It did not bail out ordinary people who had borrowed a little too much, these people are getting doubly screwed over. Paying extra taxes (which the governemt is raising, a large part of which is going to the banks) and they still have to pay back the loans on homes that are now in negative equity, on which rates have risen. If nature were allowed to take it's course, the people who lent the money(other EU countries as it turns out) would have to take a hit(accept that they won't be getting all their "investment" back. You can't just call in a loan, you know, contracts and all that, and why would the lender even want to do that? Who wants an unsellable thing like a house in Ireland(you can't sell them nowdays, no ones buying) instead of SOME of their money back. So the current state of things in Ireland is homeowners that are in negative equity(everyone who borrowed since 2000 essentially) are prisoners. They can't sell, can't leave, they just have to take it(and both the government and the banks know this). And I'm sure the voters don't like that.
- eliasmacpherson 16y ago
  The bank bailout is the Irish government, instead of going double or nothing on bank loans to property developers, going half or nothing. They prevent the banks balance sheet from collapsing while at the same time taking on discounted bad loans that they think might make a profit. Evidence: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/commercialproperty/2010/0714/1224274649384.html http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/commercialproperty/2010/... The houses haven't been built yet, and the guy has the loan out for them before he had permission for the plan, nevermind to build, and will now seek permission to build after the loan has been transferred to NAMA. 3400 homes at 2007 for sale prices is 3,400 x 300,000 = 1,020,000,000 euro. This looks to me like they are building 3400 houses using government bailout money in the hope there will be some return on the initial investment. The property developer doesn't seem to be giving the original investment back. I am no expert, so my impression may be incorrect and the cheerleading tone of the article really confuses me. I do not think people who took out mortgages they could not afford are blameless in this, they helped to drive the ridiculous prices. Property snakes and ladders. To get back on topic, I can't imagine where the Irish Government, banks included, can expect to safely store money enough to provide for the retired population.

viraptor 16y ago

> I'll retire when I'm dead Unless you die prematurely, no... You'll retire when you're too tired to do stuff, or when your health doesn't allow you to, or when you become unable to care for yourself in many other ways. Mostly it's not up to you when you stop "doing stuff" - even less if it's about earning money (who would hire an able and willing to work 60-70-yo these days? - realistically).

dublinclontarf 16y ago
I accept that not everyone else has the same outlook as me, but I plan to do the sustainable thing. What old people who can't do anything anymore have done for millenia before social security and "retirement". Have my children take care of me. Well that's plan B, plan A is to become very wealthy from the things I create and live off that. And who said someone has to hire me? There are plenty of people here who work for themselves (or at least their customers). With webapps they don't even know what you look like, you could be a 90 year old dressed as Gandalf and it wouldn't matter as long as the sites good.
- viraptor 16y ago
  You're assuming that your children will be able to, will be wealthy enough to, will be willing to, will be alive long enough to do that. Also you're assuming that you will be mentally capable of working in your 60's. That's a lot of assumptions which I wouldn't be comfortable with in my life. Not trying to say everything bad will happen, but that's a lot of assumptions... at some points you might be left with no support from yourself or family - and a lot of people find themselves in situations like that.

gaius 16y ago

I was with you until the last bit, that's pure bullshit. The bank bailout is really a bailout of people who took on mortgages they couldn't afford. People like your neighbours. Maybe even YOU. The alternative was to let nature take it's course: call in a million mortgages. Voters wouldn't like that...

dublinclontarf 16y ago
No sorry your wrong, I didn't(and a huge number like me) take on a mortgage I couldn't afford, and we shouldn't be asked to pay for others mistakes (I'm not anyway, emigrated last year). It did not bail out ordinary people who had borrowed a little too much, these people are getting doubly screwed over. Paying extra taxes (which the governemt is raising, a large part of which is going to the banks) and they still have to pay back the loans on homes that are now in negative equity, on which rates have risen. If nature were allowed to take it's course, the people who lent the money(other EU countries as it turns out) would have to take a hit(accept that they won't be getting all their "investment" back. You can't just call in a loan, you know, contracts and all that, and why would the lender even want to do that? Who wants an unsellable thing like a house in Ireland(you can't sell them nowdays, no ones buying) instead of SOME of their money back. So the current state of things in Ireland is homeowners that are in negative equity(everyone who borrowed since 2000 essentially) are prisoners. They can't sell, can't leave, they just have to take it(and both the government and the banks know this). And I'm sure the voters don't like that.
eliasmacpherson 16y ago
The bank bailout is the Irish government, instead of going double or nothing on bank loans to property developers, going half or nothing. They prevent the banks balance sheet from collapsing while at the same time taking on discounted bad loans that they think might make a profit. Evidence: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/commercialproperty/2010/0714/1224274649384.html http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/commercialproperty/2010/... The houses haven't been built yet, and the guy has the loan out for them before he had permission for the plan, nevermind to build, and will now seek permission to build after the loan has been transferred to NAMA. 3400 homes at 2007 for sale prices is 3,400 x 300,000 = 1,020,000,000 euro. This looks to me like they are building 3400 houses using government bailout money in the hope there will be some return on the initial investment. The property developer doesn't seem to be giving the original investment back. I am no expert, so my impression may be incorrect and the cheerleading tone of the article really confuses me. I do not think people who took out mortgages they could not afford are blameless in this, they helped to drive the ridiculous prices. Property snakes and ladders. To get back on topic, I can't imagine where the Irish Government, banks included, can expect to safely store money enough to provide for the retired population.