If an increase in minimum wage sounds good, would a minimum pension sound good also?
This is from a think tank group. I realize many thinks the Third Way is bad, don't misjudge them, they have some very good ideas on many issues.
Here is the link:
We could pass a law that specifies employers must establish pensions for their employees, but this would rely on the honesty and integrity of the various companies and corporations. A better way might be to chance Social Security so it's a real retirement plan, rater than a safety net. Of course, either way would be vigorously opposed by Republicans.
is an excellent one. Poverty among the elderly has been an age-old problem (no pun intended, of course), only partly ameliorated by SS, and grossly intensified by the demise of the old defined-benefit retirement plans.
Combine it with a guaranteed minimum income and universal health care, and you would alleviate one helluva lot of misery in our society.
I agree a minimum pension would be great. But I'm guessing that this is not at all what you're imagining/hoping for.
I thought we were speaking English, not Advanced Dogwhistle here.
I foolishly didn't follow the link, which would have made the situation obvious.
The OP didn't have a link at first. I had to go hunt for the specifics myself. By the time I found it and read it, the link had been added.
What is this word you speak?
I'm mid-forties, and (excepting state workers) my generation seems fairly sure pensions went out with our parents. Certainly the next generation after mine has no expectation of a 'pension' being a part of any financial planning.
but I can attest after ten years of receiving it, that it doesn't. People, in general should have enough money to live a quality of life, not just bare subsistence as many of our right wingers seem to think is fine. So a better solution would be a minimum base income for all. There should also be a provision of the government as the employer of last result. By this I mean, all able bodied people who might need to turn to government assistance for income, could be given a job in exchange for it maybe even as a requirement.
This should shut up all the welfare queen screams if everyone is gainfully employed for a living wage. We would still have to take care of our elderly and disabled, but I don't think it would be an insurmountable burden to society. If we nationalized our mining operations instead of giving them away to foreign oil companies et al, the profits could be used to accomplish this.
away to supplement their "golden years". Many small companies do not offer pension but this would be in addition to their social security.
Saving money at the low interest rates of today, doesn't allow for the type of investments to accumulate an adequate retirement nest egg.
rates are still down and I don't see this is a way to build up any fund to supplement retirement.
You have not only thrown the best solution off the table, but you dragged it off & buried it in some undisclosed location.
are proposing seems to be superficially beneficial, then you just need to dig deeper to figure out how it benefits the elites and screws the peasants.
Are you saying our candidates is using a zero good idea? I guess I need to look at the candidates to see how it benefits the elites and screws the peasants.
"Reforming" social security by introducing their desired privatized individual accounts separately so that they can wean the peasants off of the vastly more efficient and unprofitable to Wall Street SS system.
in every country that has tried it. It results with pensions being rapidly depleted because of the vagaries of the market place and those countries have found themselves with communities of starving elderly, who end up with nothing to live on, that they have to find a solution for. England tried it and had to revert to a system like our Social Security to reverse the damage.
years, it has been in existence.
than making sure that they have the regulations needed to keep companies from stealing them and other dishonest practices.
It would be easy to say I have my pension and I don't give a damn about others but I happen to think pensions and Social Security are necessary. Lrt's give the younger generations an opportunity also.
Companies come and go and so do their pensions. The company my father worked for, that had a pretty good pension, stopped when he died and left my mother high and dry. The company no longer exists because of acquisitions and mergers and neither does its pension fund. So we really should relieve the private sector of providing health care and pensions to their employees, other than providing the funding in PR taxes and corporate taxes so when they go belly up, their employees still have health care and a pension plan because their taxes went into a general fund to continue for them when they go to new jobs or retirement.
That 100M private accounts is a wall street wet dream? Seriously?
That SS already exists as a minimum pensions - that is obvious.
wage limit for the year? I could go for that. Say, you can't earn more than oh, maybe 5 million for the year. After that you give 100% to the IRS.
The Third Way also wants an increase in minimum wages, I guess you think to hell with this also. The Third Way has other issues which are good for Democrats, I guess you would rather not achieve any of those. Maybe you would like the Third Way if you had not been poisoned against them.
The Third Way are nothing more than corporate shills.
then this would be a good start in the right direction. Get over hating the Third Way, they are more for the middle class working folks than you think.
"Third Way", get it?
LOL. Good luck with that. The "Third Way" brand is irretrievably damaged. It's toxic.
If you think it is hard when you are working think about surviving on $1200 on average of money received by thse on social security. BTW, this is an average so many are receiving less and if they are 65 and on Medicare $105 is taken out each month for the coverage.
This is not a policy I favor or support. But it is one that the Third Way, through their shilling for big business, deregulation, and "free trade" have consistently supported since their inception.
You don't have to support any of the DNC platform but a good thing about the DNC is the ability to help those who may be less fortunate.
Few Americans work for the same company for 30 years. A 401K plan or an IRA is far better when changing companies. Pension were never that great to begin with. The biggest difference between a pension and a defined contribution plan is who gets to manage the assets.
shit idea. They currently match 6% of my pay to my 401k, but this would force them to give me a 50 cent raise and then they have an excuse to do away with my 401k.
Lower the retirement age and lift the cap on taxable earnings. Problem solved.
When you retire. If there is to be money in Social Security after 2036 then reforms will have to occur. A combination of raising the cap and extending the retirement age will go a long way. It has been 65 in the past years and to slowly increase it to 70 would provide generations in the future will get a payment.
It does not give raises. Raising the retirement age is a massive cut in benefits. Your agenda couldn't be clearer.
To most ears, "minimum pension" implies a defined benefit. That is not the case here - it's a defined contribution. As we know from the failed 401k experiment, this doesn't work out well for retirees. Even though market returns are good over the long run, people don't live their lives in the theoretical long run - they need to retire at some specific point. Also, as we know from the ruinous 401k experiment, the financial industry sucks up a considerable amount of the value.
Additionally, businesses factor such contributions (like employer's FICA payments) into total labor costs, and it's well understood that employees are really the ones paying this, regardless of the specifics of the paper trail. So what is being proposed here is that a portion of your compensation MUST be turned over to the financial sector to play with and profit from. At least 401k's were opt in.
Note also that the same organization proposing this remains busy promoting cuts to Social Security.
Retire. You are wrong on the Third Way proposing cuts in Social Security. The false advertisement will have to be attributed to whomever you got the information they want to cut Social Security. They are proposing reforms to extend Social past the expected end of funds in 2036. The GOP already thinks Social Security as entitlements and of course they love to go along with the false notion the Third Way wants to cut Social Security and then it will die on the vine.
Raising the retirement age, and/or changing the cola adjustments represent reductions in scheduled benefits.
You might be able to scare some people with your "have you accumulated a big nest egg" question and duck the actual issue, but not me. I made specific points - which you're sidestepping - and everything I wrote is true. This Wall Street-friendly proposal is not the answer to the retirement crisis.
Arriving each months, do you see this as a cut? I do, I may not be here to see the end of social security but I care about the next generations. By ignoring this everyone who is against reforms are the same omes who wants to see cuts, completely cut. It is not easy in retirement with just a social security which is on average $1200 a month. This is not a scare tactic, just facts. If you can live on $1200 a month then you will not need a nest egg.
Exhaustion of the fund (if that happens) does not mean no more benefits paid. Money will continue to come in via payroll taxes, which covers about three-quarters of scheduled benefits. Also, the trustees projections are always subject to adjustment - do you really know what will happen in the economy in 2025? Neither do they. The main reason that we're currently expecting this eventual shortfall has to do with the upward redistribution of income - far less income is falling below the cap than was the case in the past. Large majorities of voters have consistently stated that they do not want benefits cut, and that they're willing to pay higher taxes if need be. (In fact, when the payroll tax holiday expired, hardly anyone noticed the increase.) Social Security is never projected to cost more than 6% or 7% of GDP - that is well within our means, we just need to decide to fund it. We have real problems TODAY - high unemployment and gross maldistribution of wealth. Rectifying those will not only help people right now, they will also improve the outlook for Social Security.
You still haven't addressed any of the substance of my initial reply, by the way.
Going, I see where you are going. Without the last reform the funds would ha ab e run out in 2012. Who would be happiest to see social security come to an end, why the GOP ho thinks it is an etitlement. Yep, just continue cheering for the GOP, they need help.
fuckers are back with the same cry to justify even more reduction in functional payouts while attempting to increase the labor pool which of course further erodes wages which lessens payout even more while strangling opportunities to save and invest.
This isn't even a pension but a new scam to feed Wall Street in return for phony promises of the wealth pony.
It seems hard for some to hear the facts about Third Way. BTW, if you candidate is for increasing minimum wages, they just might be a Third Wayer, who wants to do the same.
full benefits from 65 to 67 which is a benefits cut and that the employee contribution did not double, essentially forcing folks to pay not only for the current seniors but but their own as well?
Facts are true, that is what makes them facts.
The only speculation is whether the latest proposal from the scam kings is a scam and based on past performance I've got the safe money but you are free to pretend that this time it isn't a scam like every other idea the Turd Way has had in its various incarnations over the decades.
Clue number one is spinning something without a defined benefit as a pension.
Clue number two is selling the snake oil that an investment vehicle is what constitutes the foundation of a secure retirement.
Clue #3 is they are Social Security cutters and so shouldn't be tolerated in the discussion much less trust for shit.
Clue four is their lips and tongues are so locked on to the taint of Wall Street that you couldn't work a millimeter between them with a nuclear-powered crow bar and a jack hammer.
I rather doubt I have denied the retirement age was increased. In fact the reform allowed the fund to be solvent from 2012 to 2036.
charging dishonesty when called on it agrees with the facts.
The retirement age, my facts on the retirement age is true, again you are saying I have denied is not true. You have made up I have denied the reforms, twisting what I say does nit make you correct and unless you can accept you are not telling the truth about this there will not be any further conversation.
I asserted then logically they would be the facts in question.
Other than that what facts are there for you to have disputed?
The longer this game of whack-a-mole goes on, the less convincing you're likely to be to any other readers.
You have yet to respond in any way at all to the objections I voiced about the proposal in your OP.
You have misrepresented the situation with Social Security, first claiming Third Way is not proposing cuts, then admitting that they are but insisting that it's necessary. You suggested the projections indicate that nobody will receive benefits after 2036 - which is wrong - and you ignored my correction.
I also pointed out that Social Security doesn't represent an impossible financial burden, we just need to decide to fund it. I also pointed out that if we bothered to fix today's problems, the imagined problems of decades from now could well go away. You replied with a nonsensical interpretation of those words. And here we are. Would you like to continue?
Re-read my posts, and perhaps take greater care in doing so than you have so far.
Be the same as proposed by the Third Way. If you are talking about raising the percentage with held on workers then a tax increase to the working people. Good deal for somebody, dont know who. BTW the FICA portion paid by the employer, it matches whatever the employee pays. If you take a peak on your SSA statement you will see how much you paid and how much your employee paid.
Last edited Sat May 30, 2015, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)
I did mention that a substantial majority of the population has indicated a willing to pay higher taxes in order to fun Social Security. I also pointed out that addressing unemployment and income inequality (which are problems we face right now, not problems we might face in 20 years) would result in much more money for Social Security. That could be enough in and of itself. The proposal in your OP - which you seem to think is a good idea - is the equivalent of a 3% tax on a median wage earner, and a 6.9% tax on a minimum wage earner. Yet all of a sudden you're concerned about the burden on the working person...
PS. Re-read post #34, as you seem to overlooked information that indicates I well understand the nature of payroll taxes.
and condescending too. Do you think the people reading this thread can't see through your lies, and your misrepresentation of Petrus' (excellent) points?
If you are going to argue for this Third Way crap, then do it for real. Break it down. Be honest. Don't obfuscate. OWN your bullshit. Be PROUD of your bullshit.