5 ms·
Everybody pissing and moaning about the old folks better save their money as they’ll be old in a small number of decades. The us has lowered its tax regime ove
by jleyank 1y ago
Everybody pissing and moaning about the old folks better save their money as they’ll be old in a small number of decades. The us has lowered its tax regime over these decades without lowering the costs associated with being old. And it’s replaced defined benefit pensions with defined contribution. Those who could and did save have done well. Those who didn’t, well, with luck they have a roof over their head and food.
As a data point, the typical social security from somebody who was in a pink collar profession is like $1500-2000/month. Somebody who maxed out social retiring at 70 gets like $5100/month. Assuming they can cover expenses until 70. These numbers are partially taxable.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago>without lowering the costs associated with being old Not exactly accurate. The costs of being old at the same QoL and for the same lifespan as a 65+ person in 1935 is probably cheaper than it's ever been. The problem is we're living much longer and our QoL is higher and "healthcare" to achieve that is stupendously expensive.
- jleyank 1y agoOther countries reduce the cost of meds or services for people above a certain age, or have age/income relatd tax benefits and payments. The us is the wealthiest country in the world, so doing so would have been a mere exercise of political will. Instead, pushing money to the top has been the goal.
- BobaFloutist 1y agoI mean, Medicare is pretty good.
- jleyank 1y agoI thought us Medicare is somewhat comparable to normal healthcare in the other g20 countries? Sufficient to show how others handle the problems and possible strengths and weaknesses. Never used it, not familiar with its details. Readers can comment.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago>reduce the cost of meds or services for people above a certain age Show me the demographics of these countries. Are babies being born at rates assumed by their old-age social safety nets? Or even above replacement rate?
- jleyank 1y agoCanada does, and the population has grown due to immigration. Google says Germany does this. You can probably find what other g20 countries do this. There are also supplemental pensions and/or tax credits or deductions based on age and income. Editing as I can’t reply to reply below. Births are drains on the system for 18-28 years. Canadian immigrants must pass a points based system that biases towards needs. such people can pay their taxes from arrival. Refugees aren’t quite the same, but I don’t know the correct labels for the difference.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago>due to immigration so not births. Immigrants as a group in both Canada and Germany are net negative "taxpayers"
- pchangr 1y agoIt was net positive in all the studies I found. Here’s some for Germany https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en/topics/latest-news/2014/november/welfare-state-profits-from-migration https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en/topics/latest-news/20... https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/306683/1/GLO-DP-1530.pdf https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/306683/1/GLO-DP-1530... In Canada, economic immigrants are net positive while refugees and sponsored (family reunion) immigrants are net negative. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/102505/1/MPRA_paper_102505.pdf https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/102505/1/MPRA_paper_102505.p...