|
Post by ellie on Jan 24, 2017 19:09:00 GMT -5
So what are we hinting here, the introduction of a special form of euthanasia to put down old people who don't work in order to free up housing in which they reside, for younger folks so as to enable them to have two three or more children?? jondough & @partaker I’ll start by saying I’m not advocating leaving people homeless or refusing healthcare to people who have no money but please think about the following question: Is it good for society to have young people pay taxes so older people can remain in a family house that the younger tax paying person themselves cannot afford? If so why? If not, why not?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 24, 2017 19:57:48 GMT -5
1. The majority of our retired people are living off of their retirement and/or social security of which they paid in to. 2. Need for housing has always been good for our economy. It causes healthy inflation, which is also a good thing. It also creates lot of jobs - construction related, which has a trickle down affect to many other jobs in many sectors. 1. No that is not a true statement. Almost all 65+ folks are 100% dependent on FREE healthcare. If they had to pay the full rate for those services, they would be bankrupt immediately. They did not 'pay into' Medicaid/Medicare in any significant amount that even remotely covers what they are taking out of it. The report I linked to shows you just how bad this situation is. 2. Need for housing is only good for the economy IF it is affordable. Italy is a good example. In Italy land is scarce for building new housing. Because Italy has very generous free healthcare and pensions, life expectancy is 80+. So the taxes to pay for this are 60% of a middle class worker's salary! But since land is scarce, and old people are not dying, the young workers cannot afford to even get enough money to pay for a down payment. (by the way this is the same in most of the coastal markets in the USA). So almost 50% of working age Italians under the age of 40 are living at home with their parents!! And so they are not making babies. And Italian banks are all completely bankrupt as a result - with 25% defaults on all their loans. The economy has been in recession since 2009. This is the result of having a welfare state and low fertility rates. It is inevitable that free healthcare for old people will need to be stopped. We simply cannot afford it. We cannot pay for all these expensive life-extension technologies. It will come to an end soon for many countries in Europe. Simpleton, you know that Medicare is not free, and that working people pay into it through payroll taxes. Check your pay stub. So are you saying that almost all 65+ folks are on Medicaid? I scanned the report quickly, and it appeared to say that more are on Medicare than on Medicaid. Maybe I misread it:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 20:28:11 GMT -5
1. No that is not a true statement. Almost all 65+ folks are 100% dependent on FREE healthcare. If they had to pay the full rate for those services, they would be bankrupt immediately. They did not 'pay into' Medicaid/Medicare in any significant amount that even remotely covers what they are taking out of it. The report I linked to shows you just how bad this situation is. 2. Need for housing is only good for the economy IF it is affordable. Italy is a good example. In Italy land is scarce for building new housing. Because Italy has very generous free healthcare and pensions, life expectancy is 80+. So the taxes to pay for this are 60% of a middle class worker's salary! But since land is scarce, and old people are not dying, the young workers cannot afford to even get enough money to pay for a down payment. (by the way this is the same in most of the coastal markets in the USA). So almost 50% of working age Italians under the age of 40 are living at home with their parents!! And so they are not making babies. And Italian banks are all completely bankrupt as a result - with 25% defaults on all their loans. The economy has been in recession since 2009. This is the result of having a welfare state and low fertility rates. It is inevitable that free healthcare for old people will need to be stopped. We simply cannot afford it. We cannot pay for all these expensive life-extension technologies. It will come to an end soon for many countries in Europe. Simpleton, you know that Medicare is not free, and that working people pay into it through payroll taxes. Check your pay stub. So are you saying that almost all 65+ folks are on Medicaid? I scanned the report quickly, and it appeared to say that more are on Medicare than on Medicaid. Maybe I misread it: Gene, You said that folks 'pay into' Medicare from the taxes on their payroll. Yes it is true that taxes are taken from payroll (FICA), but it is not true that this is 'payed into'. There is no giant savings fund that employees are paying into to be able to use at a later date. The idea of 'paying into' is a myth. It is a Pay-as-you-go system. FICA taxes go straight to pay for current Medicare users, and even then those taxes are not sufficient to pay all of the current users of Medicare. As long as there is far more 'payers' than 'takers', the Pay-Go system works. But that ratio has fallen below a workable level. If we continue with the same Medicare/Medicaid system, then shortly ALL of the Federal Government tax revenues will used to pay for Medicare/Medicaid/SS/Welfare/Stamps/etc (all the Entitlement programs). It's a crisis. That means no money for Military, Education, Transportation, R&D, etc. Please read the report on more detail. Even just on page 8 you can see the massive unfunded liabilities of Medicare/Aid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 20:31:10 GMT -5
So what are we hinting here, the introduction of a special form of euthanasia to put down old people who don't work in order to free up housing in which they reside, for younger folks so as to enable them to have two three or more children?? jondough & @partaker I’ll start by saying I’m not advocating leaving people homeless or refusing healthcare to people who have no money but please think about the following question: Is it good for society to have young people pay taxes so older people can remain in a family house that the younger tax paying person themselves cannot afford? If so why? If not, why not? The primary goal of a society is to reproduce itself. If there is something that is inhibiting that function, then that roadblock must be removed no matter how cruel it seems. Some folks think that they don't want Grandma to die at 67 like great-great-grandma did, but are they willing to destroy their civilization so that they can have grandma around as a pet to make them feel good about themselves? Pretty darn selfish.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 24, 2017 21:38:37 GMT -5
1. No that is not a true statement. Almost all 65+ folks are 100% dependent on FREE healthcare. If they had to pay the full rate for those services, they would be bankrupt immediately. They did not 'pay into' Medicaid/Medicare in any significant amount that even remotely covers what they are taking out of it. This is incorrect. First, some of us who are 65+ have been paying into Medicare all of our working lives. I think last year the bill was $3,500+. Since it has been going on since 1965, what do you judge to be not significant? And I also pay a monthly charge as well now that I have signed up for Medicare. Plus the cost of coverage to cover the 20% gap and for any needed drugs. Sure it is cheaper than the $24,000/year that we were paying but it is not free. As usual your 'facts' are actually 'alternative facts' otherwise known as fiction. I thought Wharton would have lead you to be more accurate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 21:44:16 GMT -5
1. No that is not a true statement. Almost all 65+ folks are 100% dependent on FREE healthcare. If they had to pay the full rate for those services, they would be bankrupt immediately. They did not 'pay into' Medicaid/Medicare in any significant amount that even remotely covers what they are taking out of it. This is incorrect. First, some of us who are 65+ have been paying into Medicare all of our working lives. I think last year the bill was $3,500+. Since it has been going on since 1965, what do you judge to be not significant? And I also pay a monthly charge as well now that I have signed up for Medicare. Plus the cost of coverage to cover the 20% gap and for any needed drugs. Sure it is cheaper than the $24,000/year that we were paying but it is not free. As usual your 'facts' are actually 'alternative facts' otherwise known as fiction. I thought Wharton would have lead you to be more accurate. You did not pay into a 'fund'. Medicare is a 'Pay-as-you-Go' system. You didn't pay into anything. You paid for grandma's healthcare, not for your own in the future. My spouse and I are on a private plan. We pay $40,000 per year, and we are no where near retirement and are in excellent health. You are 65+ and in the prime age for using highly expensive life-extension technology, and yet you pay $3,500 per year in FICA. What do you think the 'real' cost to insure you 65+ folks is? Why don't you just read the report I linked to.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 24, 2017 21:47:27 GMT -5
Tightening the asset test to include the family home would be a very disruptive policy and decimate the lives of many who have scrimped and saved for a lifetime to pay off their home. It would be a self defeating policy.
Selling the family home would give a small nest egg which would then dissipate within 5-8 years. That family would then be entitled to a full pension plus government housing assistance in the form of low cost renting (subsidised) or a rental assistance from Centrelink. That does not include the probable negative health effects from all the upheaval.
In my generation, and even that of my children, buying your own home was seen as a sensible investment, but at the same time required some serious fiscal discipline. One child owned their own home by the age of 25, but that required serious discipline. The homes we would buy were not the most fashionable, and were certainly not new.
Today's crowd want the newest, most fashionable, with all the latest technology and in the most desirable area and then cry that it is not affordable. Even so, with discipline it is achievable for the middle class wage earner. You are probably looking at $80 000 to $120 000 pa for one wage earner (in many cases the partner is also earning) - in that scenario $750 000 for a home is quite achievable.
Now here is where I believe the problem arises. Most middle class wage earners have large 'side budgets' for things for which they feel entitled. Expensive holidays, ($4-5 000), many meals away from home ($100 a pop)as well as all the toys, clothes and latest technologies which they can't possibly do without. Getting the mortgage paid down is a well proven technique for success.
What a shame if the older folk were stripped of their assets to pander to an entitled generation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 21:54:30 GMT -5
Tightening the asset test to include the family home would be a very disruptive policy and decimate the lives of many who have scrimped and saved for a lifetime to pay off their home. It would be a self defeating policy. Selling the family home would give a small nest egg which would then dissipate within 5-8 years. That family would then be entitled to a full pension plus government housing assistance in the form of low cost renting (subsidised) or a rental assistance from Centrelink. That does not include the probable negative health effects from all the upheaval. In my generation, and even that of my children, buying your own home was seen as a sensible investment, but at the same time required some serious fiscal discipline. One child owned their own home by the age of 25, but that required serious discipline. The homes we would buy were not the most fashionable, and were certainly not new. Today's crowd want the newest, most fashionable, with all the latest technology and in the most desirable area and then cry that it is not affordable. Even so, with discipline it is achievable for the middle class wage earner. You are probably looking at $80 000 to $120 000 pa for one wage earner (in many cases the partner is also earning) - in that scenario $750 000 for a home is quite achievable. Now here is where I believe the problem arises. Most middle class wage earners have large 'side budgets' for things for which they feel entitled. Expensive holidays, ($4-5 000), many meals away from home ($100 a pop)as well as all the toys, clothes and latest technologies which they can't possibly do without. Getting the mortgage paid down is a well proven technique for success. What a shame if the older folk were stripped of their assets to pander to an entitled generation. Fred, I don't know how old you are, but I can assure you that in less than 10 years all this free healthcare for retired people in the West will be greatly reduced. This will happen first in countries like Canada, Australia, Italy, Spain where the demographic problems are absolutely impossible to overcome with immigration. You can put up all the noise you want, but the choice will be made for you. All these nationalist movements you see in Europe and now in the US are the result of these stupid welfare state policies.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 24, 2017 22:27:01 GMT -5
Tightening the asset test to include the family home would be a very disruptive policy and decimate the lives of many who have scrimped and saved for a lifetime to pay off their home. It would be a self defeating policy. Selling the family home would give a small nest egg which would then dissipate within 5-8 years. That family would then be entitled to a full pension plus government housing assistance in the form of low cost renting (subsidised) or a rental assistance from Centrelink. That does not include the probable negative health effects from all the upheaval. In my generation, and even that of my children, buying your own home was seen as a sensible investment, but at the same time required some serious fiscal discipline. One child owned their own home by the age of 25, but that required serious discipline. The homes we would buy were not the most fashionable, and were certainly not new. Today's crowd want the newest, most fashionable, with all the latest technology and in the most desirable area and then cry that it is not affordable. Even so, with discipline it is achievable for the middle class wage earner. You are probably looking at $80 000 to $120 000 pa for one wage earner (in many cases the partner is also earning) - in that scenario $750 000 for a home is quite achievable. Now here is where I believe the problem arises. Most middle class wage earners have large 'side budgets' for things for which they feel entitled. Expensive holidays, ($4-5 000), many meals away from home ($100 a pop)as well as all the toys, clothes and latest technologies which they can't possibly do without. Getting the mortgage paid down is a well proven technique for success. What a shame if the older folk were stripped of their assets to pander to an entitled generation. Fred, I don't know how old you are, but I can assure you that in less than 10 years all this free healthcare for retired people in the West will be greatly reduced. This will happen first in countries like Canada, Australia, Italy, Spain where the demographic problems are absolutely impossible to overcome with immigration. You can put up all the noise you want, but the choice will be made for you. All these nationalist movements you see in Europe and now in the US are the result of these stupid welfare state policies. I didn't mention health care, but since you did .......... I've been retired for 15 years and for all that time I've been a self funded retiree, however a nest egg doesn't last forever. I've been paying private health insurance for 50 years (as have most of my peers) and plan to continue doing so. Sometimes one would wait for years for a procedure in the public system so I consider it a worthwhile spend. My Motto has always been, you can't depend on the government to help you.
|
|
|
Post by jamiek8407 on Jan 24, 2017 22:32:43 GMT -5
Must have been when I read it - an article on the attitude of Catholics towards the Pope's edicts on birth control. One wag put it to the Pope - 'you no play the game, you no make the rules.' Bert you say some of the strangest things I have ever seen. Sometimes I think you are not a 2x2 at all but rather someone who is trying to get people not to go to meeting. I don't mean any harm by this as I am actually setting here laughing at what a peculiar character you must be
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 24, 2017 23:50:40 GMT -5
You did not pay into a 'fund'. Medicare is a 'Pay-as-you-Go' system. You didn't pay into anything. You paid for grandma's healthcare, not for your own in the future. Odd that my current payments are based on the amount I paid over the years. So you are saying that the 2.9% Medicare tax (3.8% since 2013) is a pay as you go? Even though for those years I was not on Medicare and even now that I am on Medicare continue to pay the Medicare tax? To date I have paid well over $150,000 for the medicare tax. How is that pay as you go any more than Social security. It also raises the question of what the Medicare trust fund, Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund, and the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and how they are funded and what they currently fund. $20K each per year? Someone saw you coming. That is about twice the average for even the highest states.While the Medicare tax is often included as FICA tax the amount I quoted was only the Medicare tax. And you are forgetting that there is a bill every month for medicare as well and most pay for a supplemental policy as well. Really depends of what they have done. Besides, as long as there are healthy people like you who overpay the insurance companies do well and can lower their costs. If the issue had been related to the internet or insights on new technology or had the report been current I would have done more than just skimmed it. As it stands it's a 6 year old blog piece. And then there is the fact that you can get the unregurgitated numbers from here.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Jan 25, 2017 0:34:58 GMT -5
Don't have the figures for my town but I noticed that children of professing families account for a sizable percentage of the local school. I think the average is about four kids per family. Lots of locals have no kids, or just the one. It's an interesting question - wonder why?
Here's a graph taken from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on church attendance verses children. It's simple Bert, no TV.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 5:06:12 GMT -5
So what are we hinting here, the introduction of a special form of euthanasia to put down old people who don't work in order to free up housing in which they reside, for younger folks so as to enable them to have two three or more children?? jondough & @partaker I’ll start by saying I’m not advocating leaving people homeless or refusing healthcare to people who have no money but please think about the following question: Is it good for society to have young people pay taxes so older people can remain in a family house that the younger tax paying person themselves cannot afford? If so why? If not, why not? No, governments should get their priorities right and spend tax payers money wisely. Look around you in every country and see what many governments spend tax payers money on while the poor and helpless struggle. Many old folks have paid their dues in taxes etc. They should not be thrown on the scrap heap to make way for the younger folks. If it is God's will you folks will grow old too, and I hope that you will not suffer what you are supposedly advocating for old folks of today. Time will tell. It is said that charity begins at home and governments should hold to that priority.
|
|
|
Post by kittens on Jan 25, 2017 5:39:56 GMT -5
Tightening the asset test to include the family home would be a very disruptive policy and decimate the lives of many who have scrimped and saved for a lifetime to pay off their home. It would be a self defeating policy. Selling the family home would give a small nest egg which would then dissipate within 5-8 years. That family would then be entitled to a full pension plus government housing assistance in the form of low cost renting (subsidised) or a rental assistance from Centrelink. That does not include the probable negative health effects from all the upheaval. In my generation, and even that of my children, buying your own home was seen as a sensible investment, but at the same time required some serious fiscal discipline. One child owned their own home by the age of 25, but that required serious discipline. The homes we would buy were not the most fashionable, and were certainly not new. Today's crowd want the newest, most fashionable, with all the latest technology and in the most desirable area and then cry that it is not affordable. Even so, with discipline it is achievable for the middle class wage earner. You are probably looking at $80 000 to $120 000 pa for one wage earner (in many cases the partner is also earning) - in that scenario $750 000 for a home is quite achievable. Now here is where I believe the problem arises. Most middle class wage earners have large 'side budgets' for things for which they feel entitled. Expensive holidays, ($4-5 000), many meals away from home ($100 a pop)as well as all the toys, clothes and latest technologies which they can't possibly do without. Getting the mortgage paid down is a well proven technique for success. What a shame if the older folk were stripped of their assets to pander to an entitled generation.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jan 25, 2017 6:36:26 GMT -5
Tightening the asset test to include the family home would be a very disruptive policy and decimate the lives of many who have scrimped and saved for a lifetime to pay off their home. It would be a self defeating policy. Selling the family home would give a small nest egg which would then dissipate within 5-8 years. That family would then be entitled to a full pension plus government housing assistance in the form of low cost renting (subsidised) or a rental assistance from Centrelink. That does not include the probable negative health effects from all the upheaval. Not if it’s done sensibly. Capping the primary asset value to something that covers the cost of a modest apartment in the cities would alleviate some of the housing stress. The way the policy currently stands we encourage retirees to shift wealth into their primary residence to claim aged pensions. I have good professing relatives who have done exactly that On the ground the situation for the true middle class just starting out is not anywhere near 80K to 120K p/p. The median graduate salary for those lucky enough to score permanent job is in the low 50K range presently. Rent for a 1-2 bedroom apartment location depending will set you back $500p/w. Take that out and take out the tax, medicate levy, pay of some student debt and two people in the 50K category would struggle to save for a 10% deposit at a rate faster than the double-digit growth we’ve seen in property in the last few years. For those that earn a bit more initially, or a few years down the track, saving for a deposit for a 750K apartment somewhere should be possible. What is becoming impossible for much of the middleclass to do is to do is afford a mortgage and have children within the time frame that a woman remains fertile. The median childcare cost in my area is ~35K p/a per child (from after tax income, before the current 7.5K government rebate) and that isn’t particularly unusual. So, what we are creating is this weird society where we provide welfare to people with multi-million dollar properties while the middle class city residents are priced out of having children. I haven’t bothered to run the numbers but I suspect the bottom tier can afford children by relying on government handouts.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jan 25, 2017 6:46:26 GMT -5
jondough & @partaker I’ll start by saying I’m not advocating leaving people homeless or refusing healthcare to people who have no money but please think about the following question: Is it good for society to have young people pay taxes so older people can remain in a family house that the younger tax paying person themselves cannot afford? If so why? If not, why not? No, governments should get their priorities right and spend tax payers money wisely. Look around you in every country and see what many governments spend tax payers money on while the poor and helpless struggle. Many old folks have paid their dues in taxes etc. They should not be thrown on the scrap heap to make way for the younger folks. I'm not suggesting the scrap heap for old people. I'm suggesting there be limitations on the value of the residence someone has so they do not concurrently own a mansion and claim government welfare. I saw some analysis in 2014 to the effect that if the government capped the value of the primary residence at 1 million that would equate to a budget saving of $1.2 billion. It all helps! To be honest I would really have to question the legitimacy of the needs of someone on the age pension if they felt they could not live in a property worth less than $1M. @partaker since the day my generation has been born we've been told that there will be no aged pension for us when we get old. The truth of that remains to be seen. Whatever the case in some countries (Australia is not so bad as some others) the younger people look as though they are going to be left to shoulder the national debt left behind by previous generations.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jan 25, 2017 6:52:15 GMT -5
Tightening the asset test to include the family home would be a very disruptive policy and decimate the lives of many who have scrimped and saved for a lifetime to pay off their home. It would be a self defeating policy. Selling the family home would give a small nest egg which would then dissipate within 5-8 years. That family would then be entitled to a full pension plus government housing assistance in the form of low cost renting (subsidised) or a rental assistance from Centrelink. That does not include the probable negative health effects from all the upheaval. In my generation, and even that of my children, buying your own home was seen as a sensible investment, but at the same time required some serious fiscal discipline. One child owned their own home by the age of 25, but that required serious discipline. The homes we would buy were not the most fashionable, and were certainly not new. Today's crowd want the newest, most fashionable, with all the latest technology and in the most desirable area and then cry that it is not affordable. Even so, with discipline it is achievable for the middle class wage earner. You are probably looking at $80 000 to $120 000 pa for one wage earner (in many cases the partner is also earning) - in that scenario $750 000 for a home is quite achievable. Now here is where I believe the problem arises. Most middle class wage earners have large 'side budgets' for things for which they feel entitled. Expensive holidays, ($4-5 000), many meals away from home ($100 a pop)as well as all the toys, clothes and latest technologies which they can't possibly do without. Getting the mortgage paid down is a well proven technique for success. What a shame if the older folk were stripped of their assets to pander to an entitled generation. Totally agree with Fred and I'm not anywhere near retirement age yet. Most of them have worked hard for what they have and if younger people can't learn to budget to buy a home - go without. There is plenty of affordable housing in the country areas and jobs to go with it. Nobody HAS to live in the capital cities. As for Simpleton and the health system - Australia and American have completely different set ups so there is no comparison. kittens 2/3 of Aussie's live in the major cities. The unemployment rates are lower in the cities. Most of employment growth in recent years has been in Syd and Melb. Regional employment has fared a little better in QLD than other states, but with the decline in the mining sector I'd guess that regional employment in QLD is probably now falling. High speed trains for people to work in the cities and live outside of them would help the situation but as for lots of people moving to the country for jobs there aren't enough country jobs for that!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 7:53:29 GMT -5
No, governments should get their priorities right and spend tax payers money wisely. Look around you in every country and see what many governments spend tax payers money on while the poor and helpless struggle. Many old folks have paid their dues in taxes etc. They should not be thrown on the scrap heap to make way for the younger folks. I'm not suggesting the scrap heap for old people. I'm suggesting there be limitations on the value of the residence someone has so they do not concurrently own a mansion and claim government welfare. I saw some analysis in 2014 to the effect that if the government capped the value of the primary residence at 1 million that would equate to a budget saving of $1.2 billion. It all helps! To be honest I would really have to question the legitimacy of the needs of someone on the age pension if they felt they could not live in a property worth less than $1M. @partaker since the day my generation has been born we've been told that there will be no aged pension for us when we get old. The truth of that remains to be seen. Whatever the case in some countries (Australia is not so bad as some others) the younger people look as though they are going to be left to shoulder the national debt left behind by previous generations. I do appreciate the differences from country to country, and we really cannot make general statements to cover all countries, I am surprised that your generation have been told that they are not going to be entitled to an old age pension of sort. Presumably they are required to pay into a pension fund like a National Insurance pension fund of some kind, where employers are legally obliged to deduct national insurance contributions from employees' salaries and wages. Self employed persons are also legally required to pay contributions into the system. The contributions cover sickness benefits as well as retirement pensions.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jan 25, 2017 8:19:42 GMT -5
I'm not suggesting the scrap heap for old people. I'm suggesting there be limitations on the value of the residence someone has so they do not concurrently own a mansion and claim government welfare. I saw some analysis in 2014 to the effect that if the government capped the value of the primary residence at 1 million that would equate to a budget saving of $1.2 billion. It all helps! To be honest I would really have to question the legitimacy of the needs of someone on the age pension if they felt they could not live in a property worth less than $1M. @partaker since the day my generation has been born we've been told that there will be no aged pension for us when we get old. The truth of that remains to be seen. Whatever the case in some countries (Australia is not so bad as some others) the younger people look as though they are going to be left to shoulder the national debt left behind by previous generations. I do appreciate the differences from country to country, and we really cannot make general statements to cover all countries, I am surprised that your generation have been told that they are not going to be entitled to an old age pension of sort. Presumably they are required to pay into a pension fund like a National Insurance pension fund of some kind, where employers are legally obliged to deduct national insurance contributions from employees' salaries and wages. Self employed persons are also legally required to pay contributions into the system. The contributions cover sickness benefits as well as retirement pensions.We have a superannuation scheme that comes directly from our salaries. It’s reasonably new and is a good way of forcing the working population to save some money for retirement. It is separate from the old age pension scheme. A person can claim an old age pension without having worked a day in their life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 9:02:20 GMT -5
If the issue had been related to the internet or insights on new technology or had the report been current I would have done more than just skimmed it. As it stands it's a 6 year old blog piece.If you are too darn lazy to read a report by one of the most successful private equity firms in the world, Kleiner Perkins, and written by one of the most famous equity analysts in the world (Mary Meeker), then you simply are ir rational . The chance that you know more about the issue than Kleiner Perkins is laughable. Here is the link again www.kpcb.com/blog/2011-usa-inc-full-reportPete Peterson of Blackstone fame has a foundation that researches this issue www.pgpf.org/the-fiscal-and-economic-challenge
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 9:13:06 GMT -5
I do appreciate the differences from country to country, and we really cannot make general statements to cover all countries, I am surprised that your generation have been told that they are not going to be entitled to an old age pension of sort. Presumably they are required to pay into a pension fund like a National Insurance pension fund of some kind, where employers are legally obliged to deduct national insurance contributions from employees' salaries and wages. Self employed persons are also legally required to pay contributions into the system. The contributions cover sickness benefits as well as retirement pensions. We have a superannuation scheme that comes directly from our salaries. It’s reasonably new and is a good way of forcing the working population to save some money for retirement. It is separate from the old age pension scheme. A person can claim an old age pension without having worked a day in their life. OK, that is similar to the situation that had exists here where I am now. Youngsters have now been warned that they must work, self employed or for an employer, and pay contributions into the fund in order to receive a disability or retirement pension. That seems fair to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 9:36:57 GMT -5
We have a superannuation scheme that comes directly from our salaries. It’s reasonably new and is a good way of forcing the working population to save some money for retirement. It is separate from the old age pension scheme. A person can claim an old age pension without having worked a day in their life. OK, that is similar to the situation that had exists here where I am now. Youngsters have now been warned that they must work, self employed or for an employer, and pay contributions into the fund in order to receive a disability or retirement pension. That seems fair to me.How is it fair that younger folks have to save and pay into a fund for their own future use AND also pay taxes to support the old people? That's insane. And also consider the fact that the 'young generation' is smaller than the older generation because the older generation had less than 2.1 kids per female. If you wanted younger folks to pay for your retirement and healthcare, then you should have had 8 kids.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 25, 2017 9:58:23 GMT -5
If you are too darn lazy to read a report by one of the most successful private equity firms in the world, Kleiner Perkins, and written by one of the most famous equity analysts in the world (Mary Meeker), then you simply are ir rational . The chance that you know more about the issue than Kleiner Perkins is laughable. Not too lazy to read it but it is not one of the area where Meeker, or KPCB, excels. That is why she is working in a high-tech venture firm and not addressing long term health care issues and it is why she and KPCB are successful - they know the limits of their expertise. Given the age of the data in the report and the fact that it has been predigested I knew I could get more up to date information and use the primary data instead of taking someone's word for it. I guess if I were lazy I could have done what you did and used Meeker's outdated numbers. But then I would have not confirmed my understanding that the Medicare tax and other forms of revenue were indeed put into trusts instead of accepting your statement. You did not pay into a 'fund'. Medicare is a 'Pay-as-you-Go' system. You didn't pay into anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 10:11:11 GMT -5
If you are too darn lazy to read a report by one of the most successful private equity firms in the world, Kleiner Perkins, and written by one of the most famous equity analysts in the world (Mary Meeker), then you simply are ir rational . The chance that you know more about the issue than Kleiner Perkins is laughable. Not too lazy to read it but it is not one of the area where Meeker, or KPCB, excels. That is why she is working in a high-tech venture firm and not addressing long term health care issues and it is why she and KPCB are successful - they know the limits of their expertise. Given the age of the data in the report and the fact that it has been predigested I knew I could get more up to date information and use the primary data instead of taking someone's word for it. I guess if I were lazy I could have done what you did and used Meeker's outdated numbers. But then I would have not confirmed my understanding that the Medicare tax and other forms of revenue were indeed put into trusts instead of accepting your statement. If you don't think that Medicare has huge unfunded liabilities, then you are not worth talking to. Good bye and good riddance.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 25, 2017 11:01:36 GMT -5
If you don't think that Medicare has huge unfunded liabilities, then you are not worth talking to. Good bye and good riddance. I don't think I ever said that. Whether they do or do not - your statements were still wrong. It is always interesting to be in a discussion with an individual who cannot continue the discussion when you disagree with their premise(s) and/or after their errors have been pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 25, 2017 19:57:02 GMT -5
Not too lazy to read it but it is not one of the area where Meeker, or KPCB, excels. That is why she is working in a high-tech venture firm and not addressing long term health care issues and it is why she and KPCB are successful - they know the limits of their expertise. Given the age of the data in the report and the fact that it has been predigested I knew I could get more up to date information and use the primary data instead of taking someone's word for it. I guess if I were lazy I could have done what you did and used Meeker's outdated numbers. But then I would have not confirmed my understanding that the Medicare tax and other forms of revenue were indeed put into trusts instead of accepting your statement. If you don't think that Medicare has huge unfunded liabilities, then you are not worth talking to. Good bye and good riddance. Well of course Medicare has huge unfunded liabilities. Depriving elders of health care is not the only solution, however. One, but not the only. Another solution would be to increase your Medicare taxes, which I, personally, would vote in favor of. Another would be to reform medical malpractice litigation. Another would be to reform FDA oversight of medical/pharmaceutical research to improve speed to market while maintaining appropriate safeguards. Another would be to institute age-triggered mandatory elder-care centers in which each bedroom is actually a gas chamber.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 21:32:36 GMT -5
If you don't think that Medicare has huge unfunded liabilities, then you are not worth talking to. Good bye and good riddance. Well of course Medicare has huge unfunded liabilities. Depriving elders of health care is not the only solution, however. One, but not the only. Another solution would be to increase your Medicare taxes, which I, personally, would vote in favor of. Another would be to reform medical malpractice litigation. Another would be to reform FDA oversight of medical/pharmaceutical research to improve speed to market while maintaining appropriate safeguards. Another would be to institute age-triggered mandatory elder-care centers in which each bedroom is actually a gas chamber. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 25, 2017 23:52:59 GMT -5
Well of course Medicare has huge unfunded liabilities. Depriving elders of health care is not the only solution, however. One, but not the only. Another solution would be to increase your Medicare taxes, which I, personally, would vote in favor of. Another would be to reform medical malpractice litigation. Another would be to reform FDA oversight of medical/pharmaceutical research to improve speed to market while maintaining appropriate safeguards. Another would be to institute age-triggered mandatory elder-care centers in which each bedroom is actually a gas chamber. LOL! Geeze, oh darn you, Gene, you up and stole my idea!
But I do a have another alternative.
Build a Colloseum like in Rome and, and... -oh gee! I forgot what I was going to say, -that happens when you get old. When I think of it I'll post it, but don't hold your breath, -it might take awhile....
|
|