276
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
276 points (92.9% liked)
News
23287 readers
3826 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The interesting thing is when you think about how social security is supposed to work.
The younger generations need to work and earn a decent wage to subsidize the older generations retirement.
The longer the older generations stay in the work force, the less openings there are for the younger generations to contribute to social security.
Wait until AI takes jobs -_-
AI will only take jobs that pay well while we humans are all working in factories and McDonald's.
Robots powered by AI will be making burgers and assembling on the factory floor.
We've had the tech to replace these jobs with bots for years and we haven't. But artists were replaced overnight.
I know plenty of employed artists.
Kind of. But working longer also means that person costs less in social security, and the plan was designed as a pyramid scheme. But we can't grow in population forever. So if this is the glut of old people, they need to work longer. That's why one of the "fixes" to any system like that is increasing the retirement age. Also the economy isn't a zero sum problem where I can take your job, really. It's more like a living system. Jobs get created and lost, it grows from the bottom up.
That's a good point.
Somethings I didn't realize I don't know of till now. When does one withdraw money from social security? Like do they have to request it from the government? A government worker might have a retirement age but for most Americans, it's more of a guide. I know plenty of people that are in their 70s and they never plan to retire. If they continue to get paid on w-2 and report earnings to the IRS, does that mean they are ineligible to receive social security benefits?
I suppose if they are not able to collect social security money, and they continue to pay into it but they retire later then you are 100% correct and it's not as big of a problem for the younger generations as I thought.
Although I would say that the job market is in fact a competition. No matter if you are someone with seniority and experience, someone with little experience willing to work for less, or simply an automaton.
That’s not how RRSP works.
No, but it's still correct.
Retired individuals make use of tax funded systems all the time and those only work if younger people pay taxes.
No that is not correct. That also isn’t how taxes work. Everyone who is working pays taxes and everyone benefits off the taxes they pay into. They don’t pay each other’s taxes.
Retirement is very different from taxes that are paid into for disability or welfare. And if you are not working you are not paying taxes. You’re either pulling from retirement that you pay yourself, unemployment that you also pay yourself or welfare which is a different topic altogether as we’re assuming this is to do with workforce tax so the individual is working and thus paying a tax for later benefit.
If you are talking about RRSP (or RIF dependant on age)that is paid privately from the individual. If you’re referring to a social system such as CPP is still paid into as taxes by the individual.
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/publicpensions/cpp/cpp-benefit/amount.html
You are still the same person benefitting off your own paid taxes regardless of age. Older people were paying taxes the whole time they worked which they are benefiting on the taxes that they made. Young people don’t donate to it for them. It is written on every pay-cheque you receive.
The issue is that you have to donate it to yourself but if you are not qualified in your job (and if there aren’t enough people to take the supporting roles) the taxes you pay into will be higher but the pay rate will be lower. This is the issue as these roles come up for grabs or that roles get rewritten as the person before them retired. Old people didn’t do this to you. So if you’re looking to blame someone for that, look to the bad managers. Not old Merryl who’s been a working nurse paying her taxes all her life.
you will be old one day and looking to benefit off the taxes YOU paid into all yours life. This isn’t something young people are paying into for someone else. They are paying it for themselves as an assurance and assumption as they get older.
The main complaint about aging population isn’t that someone isn’t paying taxes for an old person, it is that old people are now old enough to retire and leaving work to benefit on the taxes they made all their life and no one is qualified enough to take over the job. And no doubt some shifty bullshit is happening by upper mismanagement to the role the moment they leave. And thus the replacement is a smaller pool that now has to pay more taxes for themselves to benefit.
this isn’t the fault of older people that there was no one ready to replace them. It also isn’t the fault of older people that there are higher tax rates as the population shifts and it’s not equal. They can’t simply change your circumstance by simultaneously existing and not existing and if you think that’s how all your problems are solved, you probably have a lot of problems that are a ‘you being unreasonable about problems’ problem. Not a ‘them’ problem.
Every year, the government funds itself with taxes being paid now. Not years previously. If older people who are retired use the hospital, the hospital's resources were paid for by the most recent taxes.
And when I pay my taxes now, the government doesn't take a small percentage of it, put it aside, and mark it as "for road maintenance in X decades".
If working people stopped paying taxes, all programs would collapse entirely, they wouldn't keep working only for retired people who paid into them sufficiently.
It's pretty obvious that all of government needs tax payers every year
seeing as you’re wanting to change the subject to social tax: you’re not actually paying for just the elderly to use the hospital. You’re paying for the whole population as a whole insured and uninsured including yourself whom are the bulk mis-users for emergency health care.
And out of all its cancer taking up a large of the use because of radiation requirements per day which requires a safe parameter away from residential. The moment they can fit a radiation or essentially any day applications offsite requiring a tech away from hospital use the statistics would be greatly affected. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708862/
And aside from needed services such as that, then you have the plethora of the people whom you are paying for are people misusing services for varying reasons. heck, even misusing 911 which is a tip of the iceberg of people who mis use public services.
And since 2017 and the onslaught of Covid, the greatest misusers are the unmasked and the Covid deniers are whom is wasting your tax dollars and wasting away the medical system with burnout. These are not the elderly nor are they the vulnerable. These are the younger assholes in age brackets having Covid parties. That’s who you should be mad at. Not the palliative patient that lasted all but 4 days to die in a bed (that isn’t even necessarily in a hospital nor is it necessarily not covered privately btw)
Time to cut the cord like they did to us.
I’d hate to know the adult who still expects dinner from the boob and an elderly parent to change their diaper and the only reason is they felt entitled to it.
Exactly. Why should they expect our money to support them?
They don’t though. They paid taxes all their life into a retirement. You didn’t do that for them. Also: gross. Learn to go potty.
Cool, let’s stop paying into the bucket then and they can use the money that’s left in that fund to pay themselves.
Your bucket isn’t their bucket. You stop paying and you’re only hurting yourself. Their bucket is separate from yours and they are benefitting from their own money. Not yours. Now you’re just being willfully ignorant about arguing shit you refuse to understand.
Okay. I’ll bite. Source?
I’ll need you to disprove this:
What does this mean?
They’re resorting to personal insults instead of using factual data and polite conversation.
subsidize old folks retirement? why? didnt they work for 40+ years? shouldnt that have been long enough to save up a retirement fund?
I'm talking about in the USA. It is supposed to work the way you say. But in reality, you aren't paying into an individual account for yourself. You pay into a pool that the government uses as soon as it receives the money for the current recipients of social security.
Really it's a ponzi scheme with declining contributors and an increasing amount of people cashing out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwO2hEO13iY
some severe misinformation about that video :
For one it’s 9 years out of date and thus cannot apply to todays demographic of massive influence of Airbnb and gentrification.
For another while it mentions the national debt it fails to mention HOW the national debt (cough military) became that bad. It is mainly an accountant error (president is basically an accountant)
For another it fails to mention the taxations that are actually in place for pensions (I’ll mention below) and it also fails on how to make the connection about how those pensions are ‘wealth transfer’ programs. And speaking of wealth transfer, it got the definition wrong. Wealth transfer isn’t paying into someone’s pension. The definition is actually hereditary in that it goes the opposite way: what the older generation leave to their family upon death or invest for schooling or help out with buying houses for their children .
For another the crux comes up at 3:01 and your entire argument is boomers are struggling to sell stuff…if this were true they could always take a page from essentially the rest of the world: sell your stuff offshore or to companies like Airbnb . In fact it’s one of the major (global) issues right now with finding enough housing because everyone is selling their properties (and there isn’t enough) and it’s all owned by offshore because there is always offshore buyers and there’s always capitalists on the Airbnb market. And I may remind you that a lot of younger generations now fill up the capitalist roles who are more than willing to turn a profit. I find it hard to believe that selling your property is the end all problem here when practically the rest of the world is on fire because of how easy it is to sell property for a hefty chunk of money and many vulnerable are homeless as a result(many of those vulnerable are boomers with financial and medical issues btw). The richer Boomers with property simply do not need a millennial to buy their property to turn profit. They got many buyers offshore waiting with baited breath. But what is an issue you should be paying attention to : capitalists such as airBNB are your problem here raising the prices. That is being run by everyone younger than boomers too who did receive a transfer of wealth. Not just boomers.
For another 6:15 many of these issues that younger generations are facing are put in place by younger than boomers. It’ll reiterate what I said in another post: if a boomer leaves a job and the job description changes/gets sent off shore or etc, this isn’t what boomers are responsible for. This change comes from younger generations changing the job description locking their own fellow generation out so they can make a buck. Just look to Zuckerberg and how much he makes selling private information. He’s a millennial btw. Cuz the richer younger generation are probably even more successful at greed than the boomers. There’s an even more exacerbating differential on class now than before when you have a diversity of generations filling the billionaire roles now. That isn’t on the boomers. That’s on capitalism. Retiring Boomers are no longer the only people at the capitalism table making bad decisions. So they can’t simultaneously exist in a job and also retire to not exist on the job to take all the blame. That’s just unreasonable and unrealistic to point all problems that way. At that point it’s only about shifting responsibility. It has nothing to do with fixing it.
And another: it doesn’t even mention the OAI nor 401k which is currently present in the USA and applicable in the same way as an RRSP and CPP is. It’s pretty clear that their pension comes from a very similar tax structure as to what common wealth countries do. With these pensions the important thing to keep in mind is that a company will not take a prerogative to invest in an entitlement program so it would be in earnest that the employee needs to keep on top of it to contribute their percentage for their private RRSP or 401. an employer may decide to contribute but it isn’t compulsory anywhere. Well almost anywhere….. in Australia the superannuation is compulsory. But in North America it is not.
(Note: If this is taking you by surprise and you have a dumping stomach feeling please rush to an accountant to help you understand what your next step should be regarding your 401 immediately)
that is something perhaps not being taught to you alongside in school about these other topics. When it really should be.
deleted by creator