Socialism at its finest

[Ustwo]

Higher earners ‘to retire at 70’
Robert Winnett, Whitehall Correspondent
UNIVERSITY graduates may be barred from receiving a state pension until they are 70 under proposals from Tony Blair’s pensions supremo to solve the looming crisis.

Adair Turner, head of the government’s Pensions Commission, says lower-paid workers could, however, still retire on a full pension at 65 to reflect their lower life expectancy.

The move would break the century-old system of a common state pension retirement age across all social groups and shows how the scale of the problem is forcing Whitehall to consider drastic measures.

It would mean the professional middle classes would bear the brunt of what Turner describes as the “tricky choices” forced onto the government by the ageing population.

But he argues that such a radical change might be necessary because professionals survive on average five years longer than lower social groups after retirement. Turner says this should be reflected in the state retirement age. “One of the sad facts is that although life expectancy is going up, it is going up least in lower socio-economic groups,” Turner said.

Full here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...622625,00.html


Whats so good about this, is not only do you have to make most of the money for the system and get taxed more, but you have to work 5 years longer to retire!

These programs, from social security to the English pension are fundamentally flawed and inevitably screw the very people who are funding the system. The best thing is the excuse that they, on average will live longer than poorer people so they need to work more.

This is amazingly ridiculous but in an age of amazingly ridiculous things it seemed to have gone unnoticed by the TFP crowd

[samcol]

Yes pretty disgusting.

This is why I'm against mandatory participation in social security for one thing. It's not the governments place to decide when people can retire in a free society.

[arch13]

Would you then advocate the complete removal of such pension style systems (Including SS)?
Lets stop paying for it and kill the program where it stands right now. As of 5/25/05, no such thing as social security.

Of course that's not going to happen since especially the baby boom generaton seem to be weaned on the idea that they "deserve" it and have saved absolutly nothing as a result.
I'm all for saying that saving is ones own responsability.

The problem is simple. Everyone is convinced that they are eligable but those "Rich" people aren't. Well there's a major flaw right there. If you earn over 30,000 you are rich. Not extrodionarily rich, but rich in the sense of middle class, which is rich.
I'm all for cutting benifits to everyone except those that fall below poverty level as defined by the UN. Make it say 1.5% fica to cover the costs, and tell everyone else to learn how to save instead of taking a vacation every year or buying a new car instead of a used one.

Until you cut the middle class out of SS, you will continue to see these squibles as to who deserves what benifits.

[Lebell]

Actually, this is one of the reforms I am in favor of.

It isn't that you can't retire earlier, but rather that you cannot draw social security at the same age above a certain income.

This makes sense if we are to keep SS as a program.

[Mondak]

My goodness! Choices - whatever makes you think we should make those?

I think healthy discussions on this matter can only go well. Most conversations are more like violent, vocal opposition with no alternative given - as if there is no point at which our government spends a detrimental amount of money.

While my personal cuts and reform would go far deeper than anything like this, at least the issue is being addressed on SOME level. It is a start.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by arch13

Would you then advocate the complete removal of such pension style systems (Including SS)?
Lets stop paying for it and kill the program where it stands right now. As of 5/25/05, no such thing as social security.

Of course that's not going to happen since especially the baby boom generaton seem to be weaned on the idea that they "deserve" it and have saved absolutly nothing as a result.
I'm all for saying that saving is ones own responsability.

The problem is simple. Everyone is convinced that they are eligable but those "Rich" people aren't. Well there's a major flaw right there. If you earn over 30,000 you are rich. Not extrodionarily rich, but rich in the sense of middle class, which is rich.
I'm all for cutting benifits to everyone except those that fall below poverty level as defined by the UN. Make it say 1.5% fica to cover the costs, and tell everyone else to learn how to save instead of taking a vacation every year or buying a new car instead of a used one.

Yes I would advocate a phasing out the mandatory SS tax. The people who have paid the most in, get the most back or something to that effect. I would hate to see the people who have been paying for decades get nothing. That's not what I'm implying. There's enough money in SS to help the people who still need/what it. Myself being in the system only 4 years, I would be tickled to death to just cut my losses and be allowed to opt out of the program (no payment, no benefits). Then if people really want to participate in the program fine, but don't force me too.

I see no reason to even consider the UN's definitions or policies. They aren't the ones paying the money or receiving benefits. How about we just let everyone keep their money and decide what they want to do with it? What's wrong with that. Charity is an individual choice, not societies.

Originally Posted by Lebell

Actually, this is one of the reforms I am in favor of.

It isn't that you can't retire earlier, but rather that you cannot draw social security at the same age above a certain income.

This makes sense if we are to keep SS as a program.

It's almost like we have been trained to accept the enslavement of this program. Government says "Ok we're going to take your money because you're not responsible enough to handle it, and we are going to decide when you can receive benefits because you don't know when you need to retire." I just don't see the logic in this. Please tell me is this program supposed to be about helping people retire, or redistributing the wealth fairly? I do not think it's doing either very well.

All I'm asking is for is to opt out of this system? Is it unresonable for me to want that?

[Robaggio]

Originally Posted by samcol

It's almost like we have been trained to accept the enslavement of this program. Government says "Ok we're going to take your money because you're not responsible enough to handle it, and we are going to decide when you can receive benefits because you don't know when you need to retire." I just don't see the logic in this. Please tell me is this program supposed to be about helping people retire, or redistributing the wealth fairly? I do not think it's doing either very well.

All I'm asking is for is to opt out of this system? Is it unresonable for me to want that?

I wish I could opt out too.

Sadly though, 99.99% of people really arn't responsible enough to handle their money. It makes me so very angry that because of these idiots, I lose money out of my paychecks. :/ Money I won't ever see back. (I'm 21 and very unoptimistic)

[roachboy]

it is hard to know where to even start with this one.

maybe have a look here--though in a sense this could be anywhere--regarding the kind of socialist tony blair is. i suppose from some american militia group perspective, one so far to the right that clinton would look like one too, it is possible to refer to blair as a socialist in a meaningful way, but it says more about the problem of basic definitions that plague right discourse than it does about blair:

http://www.vusst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/neoliberalism.htm 3401 E 12th St

the other problems are evident:

1. american conservatives have been persuaded that taxation can coherently be understood as an end in itself, something visited upon the wealthy to pay for their reprobate brothers and sisters. that view is, of course, insane. it does speak to a petit bourgeois understanding of the world, however, one in which anything and everything can be understood from the "common sense" perspective of the experience of an isolated individual. this makes sense from an ideology that hates the idea of the social (remember margaret thatcher on this) because it is linked to a notion of the public (which the right hates even more).

2. there is no way to move from the viewpoint outlined by ustwo--which he did not invent--on taxation to anything approaching an understanding of democratic socialism, where it came from, what it was and to an extent is still about--because there is no way to think about taxation in terms of its social function.

instead you get: taxes=bad while at the same time capitalism=good.
there is nothing more to the right's economic ideology than that.

3. from the above it follows that, apart from cheerleading, the right ideologically has no coherent position on capitalism either--not as social system, not as generator of social problems that have required responses from the state. sometimes it seems that the right has a purely abstract understanding of capitalism--ideologues from teh right would have to have such an understanding in order to believe seriously in fictions like the free market.

4. so given that the right has no coherent view of capitalism, and no coherent view of its social effects (beyond deciding that more cash=more moral, so less cash=less moral), and no coherent view of taxation (beyond thinking it bad because they do not as individuals like being taxed), it follows that you cannot expect american conervative ideologues to have anything coherent to say about socialism, either as a whole, as a historical phenomenon, or about the present state of affairs, in which you have a persistent conflict between the logic, say, of the welfare state writ large--based on the redistibution of wealth--and neoliberal ideology.

so when you see ustwo above biting the london times article about blair's pension proposals, which seem based on actuarial data and which seems to follow from a neoliberal hostility to the system he purports to reform---and then (ustwo) claims that this action is indicative of something about "socialism"---it is hard to know whether you should simply laugh and move on or try to say something in response.

as it stands, right now, i get to do both.

I think it's a little defeatist. Plus in these days of rising education levels, I do think a degree is a slightly arbitrary measure of one's likelihood of living a professional, or otherwise economically sucessfull life.

If I were 50 and interested in learning a new trade, or just looking to study something part-time, I might be dissuaded from doing so if I thought it would alter my retirement age.

I do think it's reasonable to allow for different retirement ages, but can't think of a way of doing that that might have negative results on the more cynical members of the populace. Everyone should be encouraged to better themselves, finding a balance between that and providing fair social security is a very very difficult task.

[Lebell]

Samcol,

Don't get me wrong, I personally wouldn't mind opting out myself.

I know that if I had been allowed to invest my SS taxes like I wanted to, I would be many thousand ahead (I know this based on the performace of my other retirement savings are ATM).

But if we as a society say that we are keeping SS, then I think this is reasonable.

[moosenose]

Originally Posted by Lebell

It isn't that you can't retire earlier, but rather that you cannot draw social security at the same age above a certain income.

Wait....are you actually suggesting that people who contribute more to social security should be ineligible to receive social security for a longer period of time than those who contribute LESS to social security?

That's getting pretty close to the "armed robbery" model of government....

[smooth]

Originally Posted by moosenose

Wait....are you actually suggesting that people who contribute more to social security should be ineligible to receive social security for a longer period of time than those who contribute LESS to social security?

That's getting pretty close to the "armed robbery" model of government....

This is pretty tiresome. If you are going to subscribe to a libertarian position on taxes and government, then you also need to suscribe to its positon on the social contract. Ideologies have implicit and explicit assumptions. I suppose you can pick and choose which ones you agree with, but you will encounter logical contradictions eventually.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by smooth

This is pretty tiresome. If you are going to subscribe to a libertarian position on taxes and government, then you also need to suscribe to its positon on the social contract. Ideologies have implicit and explicit assumptions. I suppose you can pick and choose which ones you agree with, but you will encounter logical contradictions eventually.

There are very liberal and very conservative Libertarians when it comes to social issues. Both find common ground when it comes to economics issues like social services, however. The Libertarian Party basically sees Social Security as a failure and believe people should be able to exclude themselves from the program.

Politicians in Washington are stealing your future.

Every year, they take 12.4% of your income to prop up their failed Social Security system - a system that is heading toward bankruptcy.

If you are an American earning the median income of $31,695 per year, and were given the option of investing that same amount of money in a stock mutual fund, you would retire a millionaire - without winning the lottery or a TV game show.

That million dollars would provide you with a retirement income of over $100,000 per year - about five times what you could expect from Social Security.

Even a very conservative investment strategy would yield three times the benefits promised by Social Security.

Libertarians believe you should be able to opt out of Social Security and invest your money in your own personal retirement account. An account that you own and control - one that politicians can't get their hands on.

Republicans and Democrats say it can't be done - that your Social Security taxes are needed to pay benefits to today's retirees. Instead of letting you invest in your own future, they want you to have faith that someone else will pay your benefits when it comes time for you to retire.

Although most won't admit it publicly, their "solutions" to the Social Security crises all come down to some combination of tax increases and benefit cuts.

Libertarians know that there's a better way.

Countries like Chile, Mexico, Britain, and Australia have successfully made the transition from their failed Social Security systems to healthy systems based on individual retirement accounts. In Chile, over 90% of workers have opted out of the government-run system. It's time America did as well.

The federal government owns assets worth trillions of dollars - assets that it simply doesn't need to perform its Constitutional functions. By selling those assets over time, we can keep the promises that were made to today's retirees, and to those nearing retirement, while freeing the rest of America from a failed Social Security system.

Libertarians will introduce and support legislation to give you that choice, and put you in control of your own retirement future.
Securing Your Retirement

I don't understand how someone has to subscribe to both the economic and social views of a libertarian, to be against benefits based on social status rather than age.

[Mondak]

Originally Posted by smooth

This is pretty tiresome. If you are going to subscribe to a libertarian position on taxes and government, then you also need to subscribe to its position on the social contract. Ideologies have implicit and explicit assumptions. I suppose you can pick and choose which ones you agree with, but you will encounter logical contradictions eventually.

Not sure I am comfortable with that statement. I wish to be able to be free of any party shackles and make up my own mind on what I believe. Then when it comes time to vote, I can look for a candidate that best represents my own individual beliefs rather than one that represents a predescribed party line.

For example, if I were a Republican (I am not) why would I have to follow and agree with the anti-abortion stance so that I might vote for someone who is proportedly going to cut spending? The two should be indepependant of each other as they are unrelated and should not be bound.

I think consistency is important in a person coming to terms with the source of their views, but it is not up to us to require of anyone else. We already have enough walking party drones in this land. Lets foster thought even if our opinions of that thought is that it is misguided. If people truly think for themselves, we will all be better off regardless of their conclusions.

(PS - a character flaw of mine is that I think people are individually good - I am outed now)

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Mondak

I think consistency is important in a person coming to terms with the source of their views, but it is not up to us to require of anyone else. We already have enough walking party drones in this land. Lets foster thought even if our opinions of that thought is that it is misguided. If people truly think for themselves, we will all be better off regardless of their conclusions.

I completely agree with this statement. I have voted Republican as often as Democrat, so I lay claim to being a centrist. I continue to hope that open, thoughtful discussions are possible within this forum.