4 ms·

He got that exactly right, unfortunately he didn't go far enough -- debt financed projects are also a huge problem. Look at the big dig & the mbta. People n

He got that exactly right, unfortunately he didn't go far enough -- debt financed projects are also a huge problem. Look at the big dig & the mbta. People need to learn that you pay as you go, that's why 401ks are great the total cost of an employee is understood completely. Taking debt in someone else's name, which is what essentially all government debt is, is fundamentally immoral and shouldn't be allowed. It causes people to be reckless since they're not the ones paying for it.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Interesting point about taking debt in someone else's name. Over the last year I've begun to wonder if people aren't going to start feeling like the deal is off. If granddad elected somebody who made so much of a debt obligation that my taxes can't fix the roads? Why does granddad get to leave me his debt? He's not even around anymore. How can dead people vote to make living people 100 years later poor? In some ways this was the exact same problem the colonies were having with Great Britain -- taxation without representation. One bunch of people making the rules and taxes, and another bunch of people having to live it. (And yes, I'm aware of the counter-argument that current voters can change the budget at will, but for all intents and purposes, practically speaking these things are our "legacy" code. We're stuck with them by default. It takes great upheaval to change even the smallest of things in these matters) I don't think we're there yet. But we're not far off.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  In some ways this was the exact same problem the colonies were having with Great Britain -- taxation without representation. Interesting idea. The American Revolution dealt with geographical representation. You're making an argument for temporal representation as well. This seems worth some pondering...
- patrickgzill 16y ago
  Lysander Spooner wrote about some of these ideas - that the Constitution was only in effect for those who were living at the time, and did those folks then mean for it to be binding on everyone else in perpetuity? -- as one example of his thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner
- igravious 16y ago
  What an interesting perspective. Making war with the spirits of your departed ancestors is a movie that I'd buy a ticket for.
treeface 16y ago
> that's why 401ks are great the total cost of an employee is understood completely This isn't true. There is no definitive way to determine the total amount of the future burden of a matching 401(k) plan because: 1) You don't know how long the employee will continue working there. 2) You don't know the interest rate at which to discount this future liability. 3) You don't know what future voters are going to change in the current matching system. In fairness, determining the funded status of the future liability of a retirement pension is a lot more difficult than determining the expected cash flows for 401(k) plans.
- dantheman 16y ago
  I don't understand your position at all. The company puts money into a 401k, either as a grant or via some sort of matching scheme. The employee sets up their deductions, normally happens once a year. From that point you know exactly how much that employee will be paid in all compensation that year. There is no future liability. The money has been paid to the employee in it is in their hands now, and their retirement becomes their responsibility. I think you might be thinking of some other type of retirement plan.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

Interesting point about taking debt in someone else's name. Over the last year I've begun to wonder if people aren't going to start feeling like the deal is off. If granddad elected somebody who made so much of a debt obligation that my taxes can't fix the roads? Why does granddad get to leave me his debt? He's not even around anymore. How can dead people vote to make living people 100 years later poor? In some ways this was the exact same problem the colonies were having with Great Britain -- taxation without representation. One bunch of people making the rules and taxes, and another bunch of people having to live it. (And yes, I'm aware of the counter-argument that current voters can change the budget at will, but for all intents and purposes, practically speaking these things are our "legacy" code. We're stuck with them by default. It takes great upheaval to change even the smallest of things in these matters) I don't think we're there yet. But we're not far off.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
In some ways this was the exact same problem the colonies were having with Great Britain -- taxation without representation. Interesting idea. The American Revolution dealt with geographical representation. You're making an argument for temporal representation as well. This seems worth some pondering...
patrickgzill 16y ago
Lysander Spooner wrote about some of these ideas - that the Constitution was only in effect for those who were living at the time, and did those folks then mean for it to be binding on everyone else in perpetuity? -- as one example of his thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner
igravious 16y ago
What an interesting perspective. Making war with the spirits of your departed ancestors is a movie that I'd buy a ticket for.

treeface 16y ago

> that's why 401ks are great the total cost of an employee is understood completely This isn't true. There is no definitive way to determine the total amount of the future burden of a matching 401(k) plan because: 1) You don't know how long the employee will continue working there. 2) You don't know the interest rate at which to discount this future liability. 3) You don't know what future voters are going to change in the current matching system. In fairness, determining the funded status of the future liability of a retirement pension is a lot more difficult than determining the expected cash flows for 401(k) plans.

dantheman 16y ago
I don't understand your position at all. The company puts money into a 401k, either as a grant or via some sort of matching scheme. The employee sets up their deductions, normally happens once a year. From that point you know exactly how much that employee will be paid in all compensation that year. There is no future liability. The money has been paid to the employee in it is in their hands now, and their retirement becomes their responsibility. I think you might be thinking of some other type of retirement plan.