How should retirements be funded?

[opebo]

Should be equal for everyone, DQ.

[opebo]

IRAs, 401Ks and all of the other tax-favored private plans, all of which are ludicrously inefficient should be deincentivized by the tax code and eventually phased out in favor of making Social Security larger and expound more benefits for more people. Everyone should be covered by Social Security, including state and federal workers, and there should be a minimum benefit that precludes anyone having to go back to work when they retire. I.E. you get what you pay in, but if you don't get enough to live on (determined by a standard of living study or something for the area you live in) the program makes up the difference.

The retirement age should also be lowered to 55. This will tighten the labor market substantially and raise wages overall, as well as open up new positions for younger workers. Funding-wise, a truly universal Social Security should be funded as it is today, plus with the addition of general revenues to make up for any shortfalls.

Excellent proposals, except for this - the payroll tax should include all income, with no upper limit, and be made progressive, so that rich people are paying maybe 20% of their income or so into SS, thus making payroll tax unnecessary for the lowest-wage earners.

[opebo]

Social security that you can depend on, despite your own fecklessness and lack of investment expertise the poverty level wages paid to workers

[opebo]

All working people are eligible to put away $5,000 tax free a year into an account that they will pay no taxes on for decades.  And even with that generous offer very few Americans take full advantage of that give away.

Ending up with a net worth of $200K at 65 when you were given the opportunity to put away thousands of dollars tax free for decades clearly illustrates either Americans suck at saving (they do) and/or they are not that great at managing their money (also true).

Link, what you describe is due to inadequate incomes.  Who makes enough to be able to spare $5,000/year for savings?  I know no one like that.  That would be over $400/month!  Most people make barely enough to keep a roof over their heads, transport themselves to work, etc.

[opebo]

Link, what you describe is due to inadequate incomes.  Who makes enough to be able to spare $5,000/year for savings?  I know no one like that.  That would be over $400/month!  Most people make barely enough to keep a roof over their heads, transport themselves to work, etc.

Can't think of one single soul eh?

No, not really.  Of course I'm only in touch with a few people.

[opebo]

Link, what you describe is due to inadequate incomes.  Who makes enough to be able to spare $5,000/year for savings?  I know no one like that. That would be over $400/month!  Most people make barely enough to keep a roof over their heads, transport themselves to work, etc.

Can't think of one single soul eh?

No, not really.  Of course I'm only in touch with a few people.

It is about $96/week. If somebody cannot manage that, or at least a number somewhat close to that, they probably ought to rearrange their priorities. Obviously there are exceptions.

What the heck, buddy, you can't be serious, can you?  The toiling masses take home around $250/week at best, so they're supposed to save 40% of their income?  On $1,000/month, already about 60+% of their income is going for rent and utilities, so you leave absolutely nothing for food or transportation.

[opebo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you mixing up Thailand with the US opebo? if not, I think you pulled that number - errantly - out of your butt.

No, I used a calculator:

40 hours times $7.25/hour = 290, and assuming the tax, leaves maybe around $250/week.

In Thailand the working class makes maybe that much in a month.

[opebo]

Opebo, what percent of the US working population fits within your definition of the "toiling masses," given that your definition is folks making the federal minimum wage who don't live in states with a higher minimum wage, like California?

I've no idea, Torie, but aren't these precisely the test case?  Why should one concern oneself with or base a system upon those who are already privileged with a high income?  As for California, I'm sure their ability to save is no greater on CA's minimum wage, as rents are much higher. 

I also question your Thailand figures actually (the standard of living in Thailand is going up - and rapidly), but I digress.

Sure, the per capita GDP is going up, but not the standard of living - just like everywhere in the world, the benefits flow to the few.  True, not quite so badly so as in the USA, but still, the common workers most definitely make do on $200-300/month.

[opebo]

Opebo my man, inbetween your trysts (yes they come first and should!), you might check out the median income figures for both countries. That way, the numbers will not be skewed by the "massive" of wealth of the Tories of this world.

I never claimed it was a median nor a per capita income, Torie, so don't try to put up a straw man.  I observed that it is the income of the toiling masses at the bottom of society - who cannot save.

[opebo]

Opebo.. you might check out the median income figures for both countries. That way, the numbers will not be skewed by the "massive" of wealth of the Tories of this world.

I never claimed it was a median nor a per capita income, Torie, so don't try to put up a straw man.  I observed that it is the income of the toiling masses at the bottom of society - who cannot save.

OK, but your definition, as you try to slither away here, puts the percentage of the "toiling masses" at about 10% of the US population maybe, and that is before they get their income tax credit, and food stamps, and the like. Most people don't use the term "masses" when referring to 10% of the whole.

My dear sir, we must always and ever consider the test case of any program or policy to be the most vulnerable!  It does no good to say 'well it isn't the majority who are starving to death'.

[opebo]

My dear sir, we must always and ever consider the test case of any program or policy to be the most vulnerable!  It does no good to say 'well it isn't the majority who are starving to death'.

Well in a democracy (as opposed to, say, the Soviet Union), there is a general goal of enacting policies that benefit more people than they harm. I'm not in favor of skewing public policy to disproportionately benefit the 10% or so at the top of society. I'm also not in favor of skewing public policy to disproportionately benefit the 10% or so at the bottom of society. Your "toiling masses" make up the bottom 20% of society at best. Why do you think the other 80% of society matters less than they do?

Yes, obviously, because my friend those at the bottom are the victims of those above them.  All policy must be an attempt to ameliorate the overriding policy (capitalism), which cannibalizes those at the bottom.  Unless you accept to see them dying in droves as is now the case - in that case there is no problem.

[opebo]

Yes, obviously, because my friend those at the bottom are the victims of those above them.  All policy must be an attempt to ameliorate the overriding policy (capitalism), which cannibalizes those at the bottom.  Unless you accept to see them dying in droves as is now the case - in that case there is no problem.

Sometimes I think you're really a Tea Partier posting as a strawman caricature of what they think everyone who has ever voted Democratic is like.

Come on, loads of poors die off - they're sent to prison, they get diseases and no medical care, they're worked to death during very short lifespans, kill in accidents or by drugs due to poverty lifestyle..  Really the condition of the lower orders is horrific in the USA.

[opebo]

Come on, loads of poors die off - they're sent to prison, they get diseases and no medical care, they're worked to death during very short lifespans, kill in accidents or by drugs due to poverty lifestyle..  Really the condition of the lower orders is horrific in the USA.

You know what I suspect the bulk of forumites think of this very common genre of posts by you opebo? White noise. That is why you don't get much of a reaction over them. They are just a part of the landscape - like billboards.

Yeah.  I post two kinds of things - witticisms, and my political views.  They're not always in the same posts.