Ah yes, the old argument of my money shouldn't pay other people's pensions. In reality, in most defined pension programs, the commitment is made up front when the person starts working to begin with. They forgo heftier salaries elsewhere for what is, in essence, deferred compensation of a pension + their current salary. So it is earned, it is the pensioneer's money and not yours. The employer, usually a public agency made the contractual commitment allowed by law and now owns the bill. To argue it shouldn't be paid is essentially saying the person should be cheated after working a career by the terms of the contract. I don't think anyone here would want a private employer to treat them like that, take your work and cheat you out of your pay.
As for the cost, generally if people don't like their public agencies paying deferred compensations, then they should vote or pass laws blocking that and removing the benefit from future generations. Some states have done exactly that, shifting people to 401Ks and making them responsible for their own retirement up front with their own deferrment management. But, sorry, it's not your money. It's a debt already owed. Pay up.
This is false. You cannot owe someone a debt you didn't agree to. The state may owe the debt, but they don't have the money to pay it without taking from people who do not owe the debt.
I do think the point is relevant, though. People made their decisions in the past based on these promises and would have made different decisions in their absence. However, this was imposed on most of the workforce by state dictate, so it's not some fringe perk that people generally chose over competing offers that didn't include it.
To argue it shouldn't be paid is essentially saying the person should be cheated after working a career by the terms of the contract.
If the mob made financial commitments to people that could only be met by continuing their criminal operations, should they meet those commitments or cease the criminal behavior.
This is just denying what is already fact. It's not your money, it's the system's money that made the contract. The fact that you're required to pay taxes into isn't part of the discussion, despite how people feel about it. It was settled well at the beginning of the 20th century that the government could tax people and does so every year, as I'm sure you're aware. How that money is used or contractually obligated is only dictated by Congress and the law signed by the President at the time or changed by the courts. So, it is true, it is the public money, and it is a debt the public obligated itself too, even if people don't like it now. Those taxed now are simply a revenue stream, not a stakeholder in that past contract.
As for the mob reference, I'm sure there are plenty who would compare government now to organized crime, but it's also an illogical reach. As noted above, the taxation and payments to services the government wants are legal and have nothing to do with the mafia. That said, I'm sure even those in the mafia expect commitments to be met, or there ends up being chaos and usually a gangland war until order is established again by a winning family. Interesting stuff to read on that; the FBI agent Joe Pistone's biography and stories reflect a lot on those "commitments."
You're begging the question. Clearly I disagree with the way people are expropriated by the state and the statist interpretation of who owns what. It was also settled that some people could own other people but that was eventually changed by those who thought it was unjust.
My point in referencing the mob is to point out that whether the person should be cheated or not depends on whether the party owing them money has a right to it in the first place.
And that was already settled by law with the authorized power of taxation, ergo not your money once taxed. How the government uses it then is simply a matter of whether the contractual relationship is also authorized or not, which in most pension cases it is as a form of a compensation package.
Seriously, are we really going to play that argument? If you're getting your income in the US or any country with a tax system, you're subject to that tax system, period. Trying to play the, self-liberated card might sound good for social media, but it means nothing legally. Don't like be taxed, move out.
As far back as I can remember, it’s always been 11%. I should mention though that the actual social security contribution is currently almost 35%. 11% paid by the employee and the rest by the employer.
What I’m asking is if people can only withdraw up to the amount put in by themselves and their employers.
Americans also make joint payments with their employers, but typically withdraw far more than they paid, which is why Social Security is technically bankrupt.
There’s no cap on it. It all comes down to how long you stick around after you retire. These payments also cover stuff like sick leave and unemployment. Unemployment's got a time limit though, anywhere from 330 to 540 days, depending on your age and your work history.
When they’re just returning your money to you, that’s not generosity, and when they’re giving you other people’s money it also isn’t generosity.
It’s not generosity when it’s other people’s money
Ah yes, the old argument of my money shouldn't pay other people's pensions. In reality, in most defined pension programs, the commitment is made up front when the person starts working to begin with. They forgo heftier salaries elsewhere for what is, in essence, deferred compensation of a pension + their current salary. So it is earned, it is the pensioneer's money and not yours. The employer, usually a public agency made the contractual commitment allowed by law and now owns the bill. To argue it shouldn't be paid is essentially saying the person should be cheated after working a career by the terms of the contract. I don't think anyone here would want a private employer to treat them like that, take your work and cheat you out of your pay.
As for the cost, generally if people don't like their public agencies paying deferred compensations, then they should vote or pass laws blocking that and removing the benefit from future generations. Some states have done exactly that, shifting people to 401Ks and making them responsible for their own retirement up front with their own deferrment management. But, sorry, it's not your money. It's a debt already owed. Pay up.
This is false. You cannot owe someone a debt you didn't agree to. The state may owe the debt, but they don't have the money to pay it without taking from people who do not owe the debt.
I do think the point is relevant, though. People made their decisions in the past based on these promises and would have made different decisions in their absence. However, this was imposed on most of the workforce by state dictate, so it's not some fringe perk that people generally chose over competing offers that didn't include it.
If the mob made financial commitments to people that could only be met by continuing their criminal operations, should they meet those commitments or cease the criminal behavior.
This is just denying what is already fact. It's not your money, it's the system's money that made the contract. The fact that you're required to pay taxes into isn't part of the discussion, despite how people feel about it. It was settled well at the beginning of the 20th century that the government could tax people and does so every year, as I'm sure you're aware. How that money is used or contractually obligated is only dictated by Congress and the law signed by the President at the time or changed by the courts. So, it is true, it is the public money, and it is a debt the public obligated itself too, even if people don't like it now. Those taxed now are simply a revenue stream, not a stakeholder in that past contract.
As for the mob reference, I'm sure there are plenty who would compare government now to organized crime, but it's also an illogical reach. As noted above, the taxation and payments to services the government wants are legal and have nothing to do with the mafia. That said, I'm sure even those in the mafia expect commitments to be met, or there ends up being chaos and usually a gangland war until order is established again by a winning family. Interesting stuff to read on that; the FBI agent Joe Pistone's biography and stories reflect a lot on those "commitments."
You're begging the question. Clearly I disagree with the way people are expropriated by the state and the statist interpretation of who owns what. It was also settled that some people could own other people but that was eventually changed by those who thought it was unjust.
My point in referencing the mob is to point out that whether the person should be cheated or not depends on whether the party owing them money has a right to it in the first place.
And that was already settled by law with the authorized power of taxation, ergo not your money once taxed. How the government uses it then is simply a matter of whether the contractual relationship is also authorized or not, which in most pension cases it is as a form of a compensation package.
Authorized by who? Not the person who doesn't want to be taxed. Slavery was also authorized, just not by the slaves.
Why should I base my moral compass on this statist concept?
Seriously, are we really going to play that argument? If you're getting your income in the US or any country with a tax system, you're subject to that tax system, period. Trying to play the, self-liberated card might sound good for social media, but it means nothing legally. Don't like be taxed, move out.
Actually, it’s the money we pay into social security every month. Here in Portugal, it’s 11% of your salary!
Is it really just that? No inflation correction or anything?
As far back as I can remember, it’s always been 11%. I should mention though that the actual social security contribution is currently almost 35%. 11% paid by the employee and the rest by the employer.
What I’m asking is if people can only withdraw up to the amount put in by themselves and their employers.
Americans also make joint payments with their employers, but typically withdraw far more than they paid, which is why Social Security is technically bankrupt.
There’s no cap on it. It all comes down to how long you stick around after you retire. These payments also cover stuff like sick leave and unemployment. Unemployment's got a time limit though, anywhere from 330 to 540 days, depending on your age and your work history.
That’s what I mean, then.
When they’re just returning your money to you, that’s not generosity, and when they’re giving you other people’s money it also isn’t generosity.
Generosity is giving away your own money.
Yeah true!