4 ms·

That's if you have enough salary to save enough for retirement. Which is not the case for a lot of people unfortunately. Hence a government lead system where we

That's if you have enough salary to save enough for retirement. Which is not the case for a lot of people unfortunately. Hence a government lead system where wealthy people are required to pay more to help less wealthy have a somewhat acceptable retirement.

icelancer 4y ago
> Hence a government lead system where wealthy people are required to pay more to help less wealthy have a somewhat acceptable retirement. Nothing stopped about this. Our demographics have changed for the worse in this regard, is all. From the latest report from the SSA's Board of Trustees: "Social Security and Medicare both face long-term financing shortfalls under currently scheduled benefits and financing. Costs of both programs will grow faster than gross domestic product (GDP) through the mid-2030s primarily due to the rapid aging of the U.S. population. Medicare costs will continue to grow faster than GDP through the late 2070s due to projected increases in the volume and intensity of services provided." Furthermore: "For the sixth consecutive year, the Trustees are issuing a determination of projected excess general revenue Medicare funding, as is required by law whenever annual tax and premium revenues of the combined Medicare funds will be below 55 percent of projected combined annual outlays within the next 7 fiscal years. Under the law, two such consecutive determinations of projected excess general revenue constitute a “Medicare funding warning.” Under current law and the Trustees’ projections, such determinations and warnings will recur every year through the 75-year projection period." It's a good read beyond the summary, too: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/tr22summary.pdf https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/tr22summary.pdf
- frenchman99 4y ago
  I don't understand what you're trying to say.
dahfizz 4y ago
The pension money doesn't come from nowhere. The people who are living paycheck to paycheck are paying 20% VAT and ~20% income tax. Maybe they would have less financial trouble if they could keep some of their own money. I'm all for a safety net. Scaling the system way down so that it only serves the people who need it would reduce the tax burden and solvency issues.
- frenchman99 4y ago
  If we're talking about the USA, the USA is one the developed countries with most inequality, both income and capital. Way more than in France anyway, where I live. Even though USA has way lower tax rates than France (about 30/35% vs 45/50%). Although not perfect, taxes work quite well in France to reduce inequality. And the low taxes in the USA have the effect of helping a handful of super wealthy whilst leaving a lot of poor people behind, without access to good higher education, medical benefits, etc. High earners and capital owners should most likely be taxed more in the USA, so the gov can redistribute have a better education & healthcare system, if the USA is to reduce inequality and become again the land of opportunity it once was.

icelancer 4y ago

> Hence a government lead system where wealthy people are required to pay more to help less wealthy have a somewhat acceptable retirement. Nothing stopped about this. Our demographics have changed for the worse in this regard, is all. From the latest report from the SSA's Board of Trustees: "Social Security and Medicare both face long-term financing shortfalls under currently scheduled benefits and financing. Costs of both programs will grow faster than gross domestic product (GDP) through the mid-2030s primarily due to the rapid aging of the U.S. population. Medicare costs will continue to grow faster than GDP through the late 2070s due to projected increases in the volume and intensity of services provided." Furthermore: "For the sixth consecutive year, the Trustees are issuing a determination of projected excess general revenue Medicare funding, as is required by law whenever annual tax and premium revenues of the combined Medicare funds will be below 55 percent of projected combined annual outlays within the next 7 fiscal years. Under the law, two such consecutive determinations of projected excess general revenue constitute a “Medicare funding warning.” Under current law and the Trustees’ projections, such determinations and warnings will recur every year through the 75-year projection period." It's a good read beyond the summary, too: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/tr22summary.pdf https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/tr22summary.pdf

frenchman99 4y ago
I don't understand what you're trying to say.

dahfizz 4y ago

The pension money doesn't come from nowhere. The people who are living paycheck to paycheck are paying 20% VAT and ~20% income tax. Maybe they would have less financial trouble if they could keep some of their own money. I'm all for a safety net. Scaling the system way down so that it only serves the people who need it would reduce the tax burden and solvency issues.

frenchman99 4y ago
If we're talking about the USA, the USA is one the developed countries with most inequality, both income and capital. Way more than in France anyway, where I live. Even though USA has way lower tax rates than France (about 30/35% vs 45/50%). Although not perfect, taxes work quite well in France to reduce inequality. And the low taxes in the USA have the effect of helping a handful of super wealthy whilst leaving a lot of poor people behind, without access to good higher education, medical benefits, etc. High earners and capital owners should most likely be taxed more in the USA, so the gov can redistribute have a better education & healthcare system, if the USA is to reduce inequality and become again the land of opportunity it once was.