Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
They can save in a 401 k like the rest of us so no they don't "need" a pension.
For those of you who think too much government spending goes to welfare...
- Thread starter Billy000
- Start date
They can save in a 401 k like the rest of us so no they don't "need" a pension.
Steelplate
Bluesman
Yeah... he should just offer to pay the total cost out of his pocket. Sell his house, car, kids education fund, etc.
Againsheila
Gold Member
Does that 11% include corporate welfare? Or is that another piece of the pie?
Foxfyre
Eternal optimist
I haven't read the whole thread, but can you wrap your head around the fact that it is ethically up to you to organize your life and finances to pay for what you need when you retire? That it is unethical and immoral to choose not to do that and then expect others to pay for your retirement? And giving the federal government the abilility to use the people's money to dispense any form of unreimbursed charity, benevolence, aid, or favors is corrupting to those in goverment and to the beneficiaries of those receiving the aid?
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,598
- 4,891
- 1,815
What if your 401k disappears down the bankers rathole?
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
It won't if you're careful.
Why should we have to foot the bill for a government employee's retirement when we have to look out for ourselves?
Remodeling Maidiac
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #87
Our country survived a couple hundred years without the nanny state taking over. In fact I wonder if we will survive the nanny state. I suspect a decade or two and then we will join Greece on the bench.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,598
- 4,891
- 1,815
How can people look out for themselves when someone else has his hand in their pockets?
The 11% number includes unemployment and "social exclusion nec" whatever that is. The number for families and children - "welfare", for most people - is less than a quarter of that; say, 2.5%.
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
Exactly the ******* government workers should fund their own retirement and not expect us to fund it for them. IOW they should take their ******* hands out of our pockets.
Then we can all better look out for ourselves.
Foxfyre
Eternal optimist
Then you have a problem with the banker don't you. You should not make that somebody else's problem. The wise person does not put all his/her eggs in one basket but diversifies with savings, real estate (home ownership being one way to invest there), other property, and dilutes the risk with careful other investments with more than one entity. He checks out the credentials of the bank to be sure it is sound and demands that his elected representatives implement and religiously enforce strict regulations to ensure sound banking practices are implemented.
I don't have a problem with the government insuring a reasonable amount of deposit in a financial institution provided the government exercise good stewardship and financial common sense and integrity. Without that insurance, people would be discouraged from placing their money in a safe environment and runs on banks would weaken the entire system.
The government, however, should never encourage or allow any financial institution to weaken its lending policies or engage in any practices that put the people's money at higher risk. The government should not be using the financial institutions for any form of social engineering. It was specifically that dangerous practice and implementation that created the financial collapse of late 2008 and it has not been corrected yet.
A pension is part of the pay you get for working. Don't like it? Keep voting Republican. Maybe you've got a couple extra bedrooms in your house. Your parents can move in with you.
Steelplate
Bluesman
does your employer match your contributions?
My father has diabetes. His kidneys failed. He needs dialysis 3x per week. He'd be dead if it wasn't for Medicare.
(Yet he's still a Republican. Crazy, huh.)
So he hadn't saved and wouldn't have bought insurance. And you know that his family, the community, charities and his church wouldn't help him?
Foxfyre
Eternal optimist
I have never had an employer who did, but know that this is sometimes included in the compensation package some employers' offer. So long as the employer is using his/her own money there is no problem. He/she can plow the money back into the business, spend it on a great vacation, or use it for bonuses or raises or whatever, but it is the employers' money and he/she can use it for whatever he/she wishes including providing matching 401K contributions.
The problem comes in when a corporation--no sole proprietor would ever do that--keeps paying into a person's 401K after the person retires or otherwise leaves the company. That is the legacy of the modern union and has brought more than one big business to its knees. Such a plan is unsustainable and it should be illegal for the federal government to bail out any company who bankrupts itself in that way.
In the city, country, state, and federal government level, it should be illegal and, because it isn't illegal now, we have so many local, state, and the federal government in a state of bankruptcy with no good options left.
Steelplate
Bluesman
I think that in general... you are full of shit. You have proof to back up your assertions? I work for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and I contribute 6.3% of my gross to my retirement fund and the Commonwealth matches it. The kicker that you don't like is that the Commonwealth sends me a check till the day I die. Too ******* bad. That's how the Government gets people to work for them. Because often times, government pay is less than a similar private sector position.
California Girl
Rookie
- Oct 8, 2009
- 50,337
- 10,059
- 0
- Banned
- #98
This is nothing more than hyperbolic bullshit.
naturegirl
Gold Member
In 1972, I gave birth to my oldest child. It cost $350.00. I had the best doctor in town ($200.00) and delivered him in the best hospital in town ($150.00), two years later when I had my second it cost $600.00. In 40 years it now costs around $8,000.00+ dollars to deliver a child in the hospital, if there are no complications. I had excellent health care in an excellent facility, would someone care to explain to me why those costs have gone up so dramatically??
I have a pretty good idea but I want to see how partisan this can be before I tell you my experiences.
I have a pretty good idea but I want to see how partisan this can be before I tell you my experiences.
Foxfyre
Eternal optimist
A pension CAN BE part of the pay you get for working. But it will reduce the amount of monies that are available for salaries, bonues, raises, and other compensation. If you had better reading comprehension you would have read that I have no problem with private pensions UNLESS those pension plans force the rest of us to contribute to them. In a good private pension plan, the employees may appreciate the encouragement to fund their voluntary 401k's and the employer matching some or all of their contributions to their plans is a big incentive. Somebody else's pension plan should not force you and me to pay for it though if it becomes unsustainable.
Again, I vote Republican a lot but I have NEVER had anybody contribute to my pension plan but me. I prefer to be in control of my own property and/or choose who I will trust to manage it.
