3 ms·
> Workers would still be free to opt out of saving entirely This is never going to work. With so much people living check to check, who has the money to save?
by kartan 8y ago
> Workers would still be free to opt out of saving entirely
This is never going to work. With so much people living check to check, who has the money to save? This approach supposes that we are hommo economicus able to take the best long-term decisions. We are not.
For me, the easy solution is tax people now to pay the retirement of older people. Then, do that forever. It works in Europe.
But, will this work with a diminish population? Is not this a pyramidal scheme?
The reality is that productivity has gone up way faster than population is going down. The main problem is how to distribute that enormous wealth, not if there is enough for everybody.
- dbt00 8y agoWe call that social security in the US and that’s roughly how it works, other than the trust fund con.
- zeckalpha 8y agoAnd the regressive income cap.
- rattlesnakedave 8y agoWhy should I have to pay for someone elese’s retirement?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- lotsofpulp 8y agoIn many tribes, the implicit contract is that if you are unable to have children, raise a family, suffer a loss of family, or become disabled yourself, then the tribe is still there for you. Tribes that have an every man for himself ethos don’t really work out in the long run. Turns out, working together and spreading risk over the tribe (or country) is more sustainable and productive, hence they thrive and have a competitive advantage.
- rattlesnakedave 8y agoRight, sure. For truly unpredictable events like suffering a loss or becoming disabled, the argument for a government funded safety net makes a bit more sense. At what point should personal responsibility come into play? IMO it should for something as predictable as “one day you will need to retire.”
- lotsofpulp 8y agoRetirement is not very predictable at all. How long will you live? What medical treatments will you need and how much will they cost? Are your skills going to pay what you think they will for 20 to 40 years in the future? We can’t even predict 2 years into the future, what chance do we have decades in the future. Only certainty I can see is if one decides to kill themself once they are no longer self sufficient. Even then, planning about doing it and doing it are very different things.
- kartan 8y ago> Why should I have to pay for someone elese’s retirement? To have a functional society. Everybody has the mandatory duty to take care of the society they live in. You have right, as you should. But is as fair to have duties. A society where everybody is entitled to rights but nobody wants to perform their duties is a sick society. This benefits you in the end if a selfish reward is what you look for, by creating a better society your odds to have a good life are increased.
- gcb0 8y agobecause by killing pensions and forcing people to gamble with stock are essentially also "paying for someone else's retirement" only that its Buffet's and the likes instead of people that needs it for a sane functioning society. there's no way out of paying for someone's else retirement. it just change if you do it consciously and right, or be mislead.
- feanaro 8y ago> For me, the easy solution is tax people now to pay the retirement of older people. Then, do that forever. It works in Europe. This isn't actually true for at least some parts of Europe. In fact, there are huge problems with current retirements systems and doubts of its future tenability precisely because of this scheme.