5 ms·

If you are a socialist, you ignored my most important argument : > If the median income in a nation is $40K, but the median pension given by the state exceeds

If you are a socialist, you ignored my most important argument : > If the median income in a nation is $40K, but the median pension given by the state exceeds that income, then who is suffering unfairly if the pension is reduced to be more in line with what the average worker earns? If government pensions pay out more at retirement than the median worker makes while working, would you agree that under socialism this would be considered unfair to the worker, and overly exploitative for the pensioner?

candiodari 8y ago
> If government pensions pay out more at retirement than the median worker makes while working, would you agree that under socialism this would be considered unfair to the worker, and overly exploitative for the pensioner? No, because, firstly, this isn't true. The government simply has started to pay less. From any individual's perspective, I assure you they don't earn more in retirement than when they were working. If you have heard differently, I assure you that's propaganda. Secondly, I would simply say that current government employees have the right to be paid the same as their predecessors. Lowering pensions ? No way I'd agree to that as a socialist. No way in hell. But you should raise the conditions for government employees.
- landryraccoon 8y ago
  > I assure you they don't earn more in retirement than when they were working. If you have heard differently, I assure you that's propaganda. They earn more than the average worker overall. In California the average government pensioner earns 26% more than the average non retired, currently working worker. Source: https://californiapolicycenter.org/what-is-the-average-pension-for-a-retired-government-worker-in-california/ https://californiapolicycenter.org/what-is-the-average-pensi... That's too much. As a socialist, I would find it clearly exploitative that a non worker is making more than an active worker. That's completely unjustifiable under socialism. The point of a pension is to provide an income so a retiree doesn't live in poverty. Paying a pension that exceeds that of a younger worker who is actively working full time completely goes against that.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    > That's too much. As a socialist, I would find it clearly exploitative that a non worker is making more than an active worker. That's completely unjustifiable under socialism. I don't understand where this is coming from. Personally, I am a socialist and I think it's too little. If I look at it from a capitalist's perspective, I ... also think it's too little.
    - landryraccoon 8y ago
      > Personally, I am a socialist and I think it's too little. I'm sorry, just to be clear, are you saying that as a socialist, you think a young worker who is actively working and only making $40K a year should pay more to support someone who is making $50K a year but isn't working at all, because $50K is too little?
      - candiodari 8y ago
        I think they should both be paid more. In case you don't remember, socialism is about the state just taking control of the means of production, so where the money comes from is quite obvious.

candiodari 8y ago

> If government pensions pay out more at retirement than the median worker makes while working, would you agree that under socialism this would be considered unfair to the worker, and overly exploitative for the pensioner? No, because, firstly, this isn't true. The government simply has started to pay less. From any individual's perspective, I assure you they don't earn more in retirement than when they were working. If you have heard differently, I assure you that's propaganda. Secondly, I would simply say that current government employees have the right to be paid the same as their predecessors. Lowering pensions ? No way I'd agree to that as a socialist. No way in hell. But you should raise the conditions for government employees.

landryraccoon 8y ago
> I assure you they don't earn more in retirement than when they were working. If you have heard differently, I assure you that's propaganda. They earn more than the average worker overall. In California the average government pensioner earns 26% more than the average non retired, currently working worker. Source: https://californiapolicycenter.org/what-is-the-average-pension-for-a-retired-government-worker-in-california/ https://californiapolicycenter.org/what-is-the-average-pensi... That's too much. As a socialist, I would find it clearly exploitative that a non worker is making more than an active worker. That's completely unjustifiable under socialism. The point of a pension is to provide an income so a retiree doesn't live in poverty. Paying a pension that exceeds that of a younger worker who is actively working full time completely goes against that.
- candiodari 8y ago
  > That's too much. As a socialist, I would find it clearly exploitative that a non worker is making more than an active worker. That's completely unjustifiable under socialism. I don't understand where this is coming from. Personally, I am a socialist and I think it's too little. If I look at it from a capitalist's perspective, I ... also think it's too little.
  - landryraccoon 8y ago
    > Personally, I am a socialist and I think it's too little. I'm sorry, just to be clear, are you saying that as a socialist, you think a young worker who is actively working and only making $40K a year should pay more to support someone who is making $50K a year but isn't working at all, because $50K is too little?
    - candiodari 8y ago
      I think they should both be paid more. In case you don't remember, socialism is about the state just taking control of the means of production, so where the money comes from is quite obvious.