4 ms·

It seems like unfortunately many governments have proven incapable of responsibly handling the money. In the case the government is entirely incapable of handl

It seems like unfortunately many governments have proven incapable of responsibly handling the money. In the case the government is entirely incapable of handling the money I'd at least see the worker get that tax waved to have something for whatever meager existence is left with the money.

AussieWog93 4y ago
Honestly, our system works really well for 90% of people. Look into it.
- ghaff 4y ago
  You almost certainly want people who aren't working any longer to get some sort of base level income. And if this income comes from the government, the details may differ, but the big picture looks a lot like social security. This is especially true because, at least on an ongoing basis, few private firms offer a defined benefit pension any longer except for whatever obligations they incurred before they mostly scrapped the plans going forward.
h0l0cube 4y ago
> unfortunately many governments have proven incapable of responsibly handling the money The system that GP described forces people to put their money into superannuation funds (not government) that invest on their behalf, which I'd say is pretty competent government policy. For the most part it works well, but it does distort the market (e.g., super funds buy housing stock, old people have more money available to them), and not everyone can contribute enough before retirement age. The counterfactual would be a whole lot of people that have spent all their savings by retirement age.
JKCalhoun 4y ago
I don't follow how Social Security in the U.S. is tied to how responsible or otherwise the government is. It is paid into by the current workers and is a mandatory spending item in the U.S. budget. Maybe you were referring to another country though.
JenrHywy 4y ago
In Aus, the government doesn't manage the money. They set a mandatory percentage of your wage which must be put into superannuation, but you as an individual can choose the fund to manage your account, and you can move funds at-will with no penalty. The Tax Office actually facilitates the move to help prevent any nefarious actions from the funds. There is also the option of running a self-managed fund, where you invest the money yourself. That said, it has created an incredibly politically powerful industry managing $3.3 trillion, which comes with its own issues.
- SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
  > They set a mandatory percentage of your wage which must be put into superannuation For further clarification, it's the employer who has to pay the super contribution, not the worker. And if anyone is about to claim "same thing, if the employer didn't have to pay that, they would pay it out as additional wages", my only response is a heartfelt "lol".
  - JenrHywy 4y ago
    I think "lol" needs to be expanded a bit to be convincing. I can't see how it is not the same thing. The employer looks at the total cost of employment and works out if it's worth hiring someone. If that cost is 10% higher because of super, that means there is 10% less to go to (direct) wages. Now granted, that will differ at different points in the labour market. For minimum wage jobs, I agree that employers wouldn't suddenly start paying 10% above award if super was scrapped.
    - jay_kyburz 4y ago
      I haven't changed jobs much in my career, but when talking about pay I still find people need to be explicit if they are talking about including or excluding super. Most jobs advertise the pay excluding super, but some will quote total package.
      - JenrHywy 4y ago

AussieWog93 4y ago

Honestly, our system works really well for 90% of people. Look into it.

ghaff 4y ago
You almost certainly want people who aren't working any longer to get some sort of base level income. And if this income comes from the government, the details may differ, but the big picture looks a lot like social security. This is especially true because, at least on an ongoing basis, few private firms offer a defined benefit pension any longer except for whatever obligations they incurred before they mostly scrapped the plans going forward.

h0l0cube 4y ago

> unfortunately many governments have proven incapable of responsibly handling the money The system that GP described forces people to put their money into superannuation funds (not government) that invest on their behalf, which I'd say is pretty competent government policy. For the most part it works well, but it does distort the market (e.g., super funds buy housing stock, old people have more money available to them), and not everyone can contribute enough before retirement age. The counterfactual would be a whole lot of people that have spent all their savings by retirement age.

JKCalhoun 4y ago

I don't follow how Social Security in the U.S. is tied to how responsible or otherwise the government is. It is paid into by the current workers and is a mandatory spending item in the U.S. budget. Maybe you were referring to another country though.

JenrHywy 4y ago

In Aus, the government doesn't manage the money. They set a mandatory percentage of your wage which must be put into superannuation, but you as an individual can choose the fund to manage your account, and you can move funds at-will with no penalty. The Tax Office actually facilitates the move to help prevent any nefarious actions from the funds. There is also the option of running a self-managed fund, where you invest the money yourself. That said, it has created an incredibly politically powerful industry managing $3.3 trillion, which comes with its own issues.

SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
> They set a mandatory percentage of your wage which must be put into superannuation For further clarification, it's the employer who has to pay the super contribution, not the worker. And if anyone is about to claim "same thing, if the employer didn't have to pay that, they would pay it out as additional wages", my only response is a heartfelt "lol".
- JenrHywy 4y ago
  I think "lol" needs to be expanded a bit to be convincing. I can't see how it is not the same thing. The employer looks at the total cost of employment and works out if it's worth hiring someone. If that cost is 10% higher because of super, that means there is 10% less to go to (direct) wages. Now granted, that will differ at different points in the labour market. For minimum wage jobs, I agree that employers wouldn't suddenly start paying 10% above award if super was scrapped.
  - jay_kyburz 4y ago
    I haven't changed jobs much in my career, but when talking about pay I still find people need to be explicit if they are talking about including or excluding super. Most jobs advertise the pay excluding super, but some will quote total package.
    - JenrHywy 4y ago