Members banned from this thread: splansing
| || |
Money saved for retirement is usually invested in pursuit of returns. If the returns are less than hoped, you shouldn't be able to just take it from someone else and say "sorry kids, I promised myself this."You do know that most pensions consist of money that were earned but instead of being paid to the employee went into the pension fund instead.
It was stupid enough the first time you said "the profit motive" in association with pensions. Now you've squared the stupidity.But like I said too bad the profit motive
So when it starts exceeding half because, in part, one needs to fund public pensions, expect resentment from those who don't get them. Who have foolish things to pay for....you know....like kids....and stupid things like their own retirement. Particularly when the system they force me to participate in says point blank that they won't have what they're promising: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/...v70n3p111.html
Last edited by publius3; 2nd January 2017 at 05:51 AM.
Government workers didn't BECOME more unionized than everyone else. They're just the only ones left. \
Publius3, your point about people resenting pensioners is part of my point. It started with healthcare for state workers. The plans they negotiated in the 80's and 90's....their healthcare plans weren't sneeringly called "Cadillac" plans at that time, because that's what many people had. It was just called health benefits when they built those deals. But starting in the mid-90's, the healthcare industry has been squeezing and squeezing, without any market pressures to curtail their behavior. Every year employee costs go up by 10-25%, or their benefits get slashed so they end up paying more at the pump instead of in premiums. The insurance companies, drug companies, and hospitals tell us every year that things simply cost more, even as technology makes everything else dramatically cheaper.
Did IBM and Merrill Lynch and Wal Mart flex their muscle and pressure the healthcare behemoth to stop raising rates on them? Of course not. They just passed the costs straight on to their employees in order to keep their bottom lines going up.
Do people whose benefits have been bled for profit get pissed off at the way they're treated? Sort of. But then somebody tells them that there's a union over there where they still get "Cadillac" benefits...as if that is now some unheard of fucking luxury that nobody anywhere really deserves...the deadbeats. And now you're pissed off at the few remaining people whose unions have somehow survived, who have managed to demand what was simply part of a competitive compensation package 30 years ago, but is now just intolerable greed.
To complete the bamboozling, the people who resent these unions and their "Cadillac" healthcare think it's TOTALLY FINE that Donald Trump says it makes him smart not to pay taxes. Only when people come together and create a unionized force in the market to negotiate their compensation, that's immoral. That's a handout. Hell, it's practically EXTORTION! But when Wal Mart brings the united power of its vast resources to bear on politicians to secure tax breaks, favorable regulations, etc, so that the owners can make just a couple more million this year....that's not a problem. That's just a natural market force.
You're paying 56% to taxes? Wow, that's stupid. Warren Buffet paid 15% on his unimaginably huge profits. Capital gains, you know...because for some reason if you earn money by having money you should pay lower taxes on it. Hell, even Warren Buffet knows that's completely insane.
You institute progressive taxes so that top tax rate starts to go north of 75% again (like it was in America's most powerful economic age), and your personal tax rate will go down, income inequality will be alleviated, and the economy can keep moving.
What you're saying is that the problem is that we haven't squeezed ENOUGH of the middle class...that's why your taxes are so high. I couldn't disagree more.
Last edited by splansing; 3rd January 2017 at 12:45 PM.
Each and every industry has regulations specific only to their field and many cross over regulations and at several levels of gov.
You could start with regulations that are based upon Faux global warming fears...
The idiocy of our regulators deciding that the refrigeration / Air Conditioning industry had 6 years to invent a new replacement refrigerant for chorodifluromethane...all based on the 'legal' term MAY. The backwards liberal style here is thinking that government can mandate invention.
The ramifications of this created much higher consumer costs, lower business profits and a lack luster performing replacement. So lack luster that the heat exchangers have to be much larger for the same capacity, motors and blowers have to run at higher speeds.
The problem begins when well intended individuals without particular trade knowledge have the power to alter or regulate without understanding the trades particular dynamics.
Last edited by carpe diem; 4th January 2017 at 06:32 AM.