The miner and employer are allowed to save for retirement in a privately held portfolio, as has always been the case. It's just that when that wasn't doing it, and governments found there was near universal poverty in old age, they complemented that system with other systems, like Social Security here in the US.
Brits' life-expectancy decreasing.
- Thread starter moon
- Start date
The miner and employer are allowed to save for retirement in a privately held portfolio, as has always been the case. It's just that when that wasn't doing it, and governments found there was near universal poverty in old age, they complemented that system with other systems, like Social Security here in the US.
In effect, Social Security does that as well. With less money available for investments, corporations and municipalities looking for capital have to pay higher fees (interest rates). It's simple supply and demand.
Guys like me sitting on a big private nest egg, watching it grow at a ten-percent clip, are enjoying the fruits of the Democrat's war on the poor.
What you omit is that they only get to do that after they are forced to pay a FedCo tax (FICA). If that tax was eliminated and FedCo forced the miner and his employer to deposit the same funds into individually held accounts, after paying a small premium for salary insurance, the miner would be able to retire earlier and live off his investments in perpetuity.
But, such a system would deprive the Democrat Party of power, and we both know that is more important that freedom for the individual.
moon
Satire for Sanity
You're quite mistaken. People pay into their social schemes and take out when they need to. They don't profit from the misfortunes of others as your capitalist ponzi-schemers do.
Your pride in your profiteering is quite distasteful.
Yes, it's been both ways. Originally we had a system where there was no FICA. Most people lived their elder years in poverty, back then. Then we had a system where we had FICA and you could complement that with private savings if you wanted. That made poverty for old people extremely rare. Now right wingers insist that if we go back to the bad old way, things will be fine. Why should we believe them?
Also, in case you're not aware, the phrase is "Democratic Party." "Democrat Party" must makes a person look ignorant. It's the equivalent of those people who say "nookyoolar" for "nuclear."
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Don't forget the Welsh!
You should be so lucky to have them!
I see that you are a hard core liberal, zero-sum game type. Is that correct?
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
I think we're all aware that the entitled and publicly subsidized aristocracy is after Social Security and Medicare.
You're conveniently ignoring the subject then trying to change it. I'll repeat the sentence that you ignored, and extenuate the key word in bold:
I use the word "Democrat" to describe that political party in order to avoid confusion with the democratic process. If that makes me seem ignorant to you then so be it, as your feelings toward me are of no interest whatsoever.
For some strange reason you failed to comprehend what I have already explained to you.
Forcing the poor to pay FICA instead of private investments means that there is less money available for corporations and municipalities seeking capital. Less capital in the market means that these munis and corps have to pay higher fees (interest rates). It's simple supply and demand.
Guys like me sitting on a big private nest egg, watching it grow at a ten-percent clip, are enjoying the fruits of the Democrat's war on the poor.
Centerleftfl
Verified User
So is OURS, genius!
Only sometimes. What happened to Americans retiring in 2008? Our bankers took the world economy down murdering portfolios and retirements.
A portfolio balanced correctly for someone approaching retirement will have a good percentage of low yield zero risk investments, such as bonds. That way if there is a 2008 type event the person can live off that portion while the higher yield- higher risk portion recovers.
I didn’t ignore it. I addressed the improvement when that system came into force — the move from a horrible past when people were on their own to save for their elder years, and elder poverty was extremely common, to the SS system, which mostly eliminated elder poverty, while leaving people free to save even more outside the system, voluntarily, if they wanted a more comfortable retirement.
No you don’t. You know everyone is clear about what “Democratic Party” refers to. There’s zero risk of confusion, any more than “Republican Party” could be confused with a republican process. You use “Democrat Party” because that’s the shibboleth the right-wing press ordered the conservative masses to use.
If Social Security is so wonderful then why does FedCo force it upon it's citizens? The reason is obvious, because it gives The Party of Democrats power.
For your information I started using the term Democrat Party long before I heard the term used on the radio.
What is FedCo?
Do you mean the Democratic Party? If so, in what sense does it give the Democratic Party power?
Of course you did, just like every other right-winger did. You all woke up one morning and just randomly happened each to commit to making the exact same language error. It was a huge cosmic coincidence.