Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
not enough of a change in my opinion. those numbers ignore completely the fact that we live longer and longer....many pensions are still set at ages from decades ago, when most people didn't live to age 65. ss for instance. now, most people live to their 80's, and we've got more people attaining age 100 than ever.
it is unsustainable to have someone spend as much time in retirement as they did working.
it's not a matter of right and wrong, or fairness...it's simple math!
|
Let's see ... that retirement money was always supposed to be in safe investments, untouchable.
Instead, politicians have taken money out of pension funds (against laws) to put against their budget deficits.
Politicians have stripped the "safe investments" from the pension funds and put it into private 401K's, etc, causing loss of funds.
And now, that the politicians have stolen from the pension funds, the politicians are blaming the pensioners for living too long, for getting "too good a deal", but being greedy about the agreement they worked their life under.
Yeah, blame the pensioners.
Funny thing: good pension funds, like those set up by my father for police/firemen/Illinois municipal employees in the 1960', 1970's - that have been managed correctly, and kept out of the hands of politicians - are flush and fully capable of paying their current and future obligations. How about that?
It's precisely like Social Security. We could dare to ask those well-off Americans that make over $250,000 a year to pay additional Social Security taxes on their income above $103,600, but only up to $250,000 (because everybody who makes less than $103,600 is already paying social security taxes on 100% of their income).
Or, we could scream that Social Security recipients are freeloaders off the government teat, and deserve - no, NEED - to have their benefits cut in half due to future program shortages, or they need to work years longer, how dare they retire at 65! We're broke, dammit! They all have to sacrifice and give up retirement benefits!
Because that's better than the wealthy being "forced" to "pay for the poor" by paying a couple thousand dollars more a year. It's so unfair to them! The poor are who need to pay more, or sacrifice more. Society isn't "equal". The rich don't have to pay equally as the little folk do.
This is America - if you are poor, you pay 100% for your retirement, and you suffer if there isn't enough money to go around. If you are rich, don't worry, the politicians you own have looked out for your interests: you only pay a little of your income towards a retirement you don't need financed by a safety net anyway, and you do not have to sacrifice if there is a shortage.