4 ms·

Does stability in retirement add enough value to society and the economy for it to be a good investment? I've been an adult less than a decade, so without a ret

Does stability in retirement add enough value to society and the economy for it to be a good investment? I've been an adult less than a decade, so without a return why should I pay for the promises of my predecessors? So many questions.

betterunix2 8y ago
I actually think the answer is simpler and more immediate than that. The government made a promise. If the government does not keep that promise, can it be trusted with other obligations? In fact, this problem of unfunded pensions has impacted municipal credit ratings and wound up costing taxpayers more in higher interest rates than they would have had to pay in higher taxes to stabilize the pension funds.
- ngngngng 8y ago
  But why does the government get to make a promise with the money of someone that wasn't even born at the time (me)?
  - betterunix2 8y ago
    It makes no difference, because the promise was already made and now you have to choose between (a) destroying your government's credit rating or (b) making good on the promise. Complain all you want, but that's just the situation we find ourselves in.
    - randysavage 8y ago
      In the short term, sure. In the longer term, when increased taxes and decreased services impact the average person, these promises will be renegotiated.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Because the government existed before you and will exist after you’re gone. It exists (in part) to enable continuity of society, and that is the compact you agree to by remaining a resident/citizen.
  - a_tractor 8y ago
    Promise, in this case, is a nicer version of the word debt. The government that made the promise is just an abstraction or buffer for the people making the promises, the people voting for them, and the people benefiting from those decisions. Note how current stakeholders (me and you) had no say on a decision that they would be (potentially) responsible for. Thomas Jefferson's view of deficit finance was that one generation has no right to impose its debts on the next. He would have refused deficit spending that would not be completely paid back within 19 years (roughly, a generation). I don't think many people listened to him on that. Here we are. I think we do have the right to ask this question. We should have the option of denying that the previous generation ever had the right to impose this upon us. At the very least, we should learn from this, recognize these types of short-sighted promises for what they are, and reject them when we see them. This is one big way we can be better than our forefathers.
- landryraccoon 8y ago
  > The government made a promise. If the government does not keep that promise, can it be trusted with other obligations? This is way too absolute and simplistic. Past governments can make bad policy. Past governments can be corrupt or make decisions based on personal interest against the public or incomplete or bad information at the time. The obligation of future governments has to be balanced with whether the past government instituted good policy or not.
analog31 8y ago
In my view, yes, for at least a couple of reasons. First, because people survive whether you want them to or not, and driving old people into poverty will end up burdening you in some other way, probably worse. We pay a lot for not having a decent safety net. Second, old people vote. If you drive a political wedge between the young and old, I can't say what will happen, but it won't involve the young ending up on top. Third, retirees are a huge consumer group, and also a non-obvious but important source of support for families. In fact, telling young people that they will see nothing of social security is a propaganda position intended to drive that wedge.
- landryraccoon 8y ago
  > First, because people survive whether you want them to or not, and driving old people into poverty will end up burdening you in some other way, probably worse. We pay a lot for not having a decent safety net. You're falsely trying to paint the choice as only between driving retirees into poverty and paying the full pension. I certainly won't be receiving 60-100% of my maximum salary forever after I retire, and I won't need nearly that much in order to not be in poverty. And IMO it borders on unjust to underfund a pension with tax dollars while those workers are working, then force younger workers that weren't even old enough to vote when those benefits were created to now shoulder the burden. Why can't we cut pensions, without eliminating them? Why can't the state switch from defined benefit to defined contribution plans, like practically ever other non-government employee gets? > If you drive a political wedge between the young and old, I can't say what will happen, but it won't involve the young ending up on top. This is true only up to a point. The old aren't exactly going to be the ones who will win if the economy collapses or the country descends into chaos, are they?
  - alexgmcm 8y ago
    Also young people can just leave if the economy is just feeding on them. I left the UK partly because between insane housing prices and paying for the triple-locked pensions of the elderly - the economy has little to offer young people and there are better opportunities elsewhere.

betterunix2 8y ago

I actually think the answer is simpler and more immediate than that. The government made a promise. If the government does not keep that promise, can it be trusted with other obligations? In fact, this problem of unfunded pensions has impacted municipal credit ratings and wound up costing taxpayers more in higher interest rates than they would have had to pay in higher taxes to stabilize the pension funds.

ngngngng 8y ago
But why does the government get to make a promise with the money of someone that wasn't even born at the time (me)?
- betterunix2 8y ago
  It makes no difference, because the promise was already made and now you have to choose between (a) destroying your government's credit rating or (b) making good on the promise. Complain all you want, but that's just the situation we find ourselves in.
  - randysavage 8y ago
    In the short term, sure. In the longer term, when increased taxes and decreased services impact the average person, these promises will be renegotiated.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Because the government existed before you and will exist after you’re gone. It exists (in part) to enable continuity of society, and that is the compact you agree to by remaining a resident/citizen.
- a_tractor 8y ago
  Promise, in this case, is a nicer version of the word debt. The government that made the promise is just an abstraction or buffer for the people making the promises, the people voting for them, and the people benefiting from those decisions. Note how current stakeholders (me and you) had no say on a decision that they would be (potentially) responsible for. Thomas Jefferson's view of deficit finance was that one generation has no right to impose its debts on the next. He would have refused deficit spending that would not be completely paid back within 19 years (roughly, a generation). I don't think many people listened to him on that. Here we are. I think we do have the right to ask this question. We should have the option of denying that the previous generation ever had the right to impose this upon us. At the very least, we should learn from this, recognize these types of short-sighted promises for what they are, and reject them when we see them. This is one big way we can be better than our forefathers.
landryraccoon 8y ago
> The government made a promise. If the government does not keep that promise, can it be trusted with other obligations? This is way too absolute and simplistic. Past governments can make bad policy. Past governments can be corrupt or make decisions based on personal interest against the public or incomplete or bad information at the time. The obligation of future governments has to be balanced with whether the past government instituted good policy or not.

analog31 8y ago

In my view, yes, for at least a couple of reasons. First, because people survive whether you want them to or not, and driving old people into poverty will end up burdening you in some other way, probably worse. We pay a lot for not having a decent safety net. Second, old people vote. If you drive a political wedge between the young and old, I can't say what will happen, but it won't involve the young ending up on top. Third, retirees are a huge consumer group, and also a non-obvious but important source of support for families. In fact, telling young people that they will see nothing of social security is a propaganda position intended to drive that wedge.

landryraccoon 8y ago
> First, because people survive whether you want them to or not, and driving old people into poverty will end up burdening you in some other way, probably worse. We pay a lot for not having a decent safety net. You're falsely trying to paint the choice as only between driving retirees into poverty and paying the full pension. I certainly won't be receiving 60-100% of my maximum salary forever after I retire, and I won't need nearly that much in order to not be in poverty. And IMO it borders on unjust to underfund a pension with tax dollars while those workers are working, then force younger workers that weren't even old enough to vote when those benefits were created to now shoulder the burden. Why can't we cut pensions, without eliminating them? Why can't the state switch from defined benefit to defined contribution plans, like practically ever other non-government employee gets? > If you drive a political wedge between the young and old, I can't say what will happen, but it won't involve the young ending up on top. This is true only up to a point. The old aren't exactly going to be the ones who will win if the economy collapses or the country descends into chaos, are they?
- alexgmcm 8y ago
  Also young people can just leave if the economy is just feeding on them. I left the UK partly because between insane housing prices and paying for the triple-locked pensions of the elderly - the economy has little to offer young people and there are better opportunities elsewhere.