BF2S Forums More Change You Can Believe In

CNS News wrote:

Of the four domestic proposals examined in the GAO report, only one is both mandatory and run by the government. Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (mentioned briefly above) would increase retirement savings by low- and middle-income households and provide a basic retirement income for workers, the GAO said.

Run for the hills! The government wants to increase retirement plans for low and middle income households!

CNS News wrote:

“Many experts agree reforms are needed to make the U.S. private pension system more effective in protecting workers from risks to accumulating and preserving adequate savings for retirement,” says the GAO report. “If no action is taken, a considerable number of Americans face the prospect of a reduced standard of living in retirement."

It gets worse, the Government Accountability Office analysis seems to conclude this action is necessary or the stand of living while retired will decrease, what will we do!? We can't let the govt. assist in our retirement plans...

Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-08-30 07:29:12)

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

CNS News wrote:

Of the four domestic proposals examined in the GAO report, only one is both mandatory and run by the government. Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (mentioned briefly above) would increase retirement savings by low- and middle-income households and provide a basic retirement income for workers, the GAO said.

Run for the hills! The government wants to increase retirement plans for low and middle income households!

Yes run for the hills. How can you not view this as more govt. control? Why are you willing to remove the responsibility of the individual to save for themselves, and force the rest of us to save OUR money for them?

Oh I guess you missed this paragraph:

CNS News wrote:

Currently, pension plans offered by private employers in the United States are voluntary and include tax incentives to encourage participation.

Weird, huh? They offer tax incentives when you have a non government pension plan...

Care to explain that one to me?

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Run for the hills! The government wants to increase retirement plans for low and middle income households!

Yes run for the hills. How can you not view this as more govt. control? Why are you willing to remove the responsibility of the individual to save for themselves, and force the rest of us to save OUR money for them?

Oh I guess you missed this paragraph:

CNS News wrote:

Currently, pension plans offered by private employers in the United States are voluntary and include tax incentives to encourage participation.

Weird, huh? They offer tax incentives when you have a non government pension plan...

Care to explain that one to me?

Um tax breaks, help people? Not tax hikes? Kinda blows all of your other bullshit arguments out of the water doesn't it?

tax breaks means govt. leaving you alone, as it is currently.

I am speaking of Govt. intrusion which Obama is pushing for, maybe YOU need your govt. involved in your life to provide you for your needs most of us don't

lowing wrote:

Um tax breaks, help people? Not tax hikes? Kinda blows all of your other bullshit arguments out of the water doesn't it?

tax breaks means govt. leaving you alone, as it is currently.

I am speaking of Govt. intrusion which Obama is pushing for, maybe YOU need your govt. involved in your life to provide you for your needs most of us don't

Tax breaks help pensioners lowing. Duh... They have little enough income as it is. Taxing them is going to do nothing other than force them into poverty.

Most of you do need govt. intrusion, if you had actually read and comprehended the article you posted you would have seen that...

CNS News wrote:

According to the GAO study, stock market losses and poor economic conditions have put many U.S. workers at risk of not having an adequate retirement income from their private pension plans. Older Americans are less confident in their ability to retire. “Even before the current economic recession, research indicated that pension benefits are likely to be inadequate for many Americans,” the GAO study said.

Pointing to national survey data, the GAO noted that about half of the U.S. workforce was not covered by a pension plan in 2008.

Care to take a wild guess at what happened to most pensions during the financial crisis, go on, take your time.

And they are not forcing you do to anything, half of the workforce have no pension plan. Why are you not alarmed by this figure? What do you think will happen when they retire and have no savings? That they will commit seppuku and die honourably, or leech of the system? Which clearly I would have thought is your biggest hate at the moment...

Retirees need money. If they plan poorly it is going to cost you, the tax payer, your money to support them. If the government can assist in better managing retirement funds it means your tax dollars don't go to the retired who cannot look after themselves.

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Um tax breaks, help people? Not tax hikes? Kinda blows all of your other bullshit arguments out of the water doesn't it?

tax breaks means govt. leaving you alone, as it is currently.

I am speaking of Govt. intrusion which Obama is pushing for, maybe YOU need your govt. involved in your life to provide you for your needs most of us don't

Tax breaks help pensioners lowing. Duh... They have little enough income as it is. Taxing them is going to do nothing other than force them into poverty.

Most of you do need govt. intrusion, if you had actually read and comprehended the article you posted you would have seen that...

CNS News wrote:

According to the GAO study, stock market losses and poor economic conditions have put many U.S. workers at risk of not having an adequate retirement income from their private pension plans. Older Americans are less confident in their ability to retire. “Even before the current economic recession, research indicated that pension benefits are likely to be inadequate for many Americans,” the GAO study said.

Pointing to national survey data, the GAO noted that about half of the U.S. workforce was not covered by a pension plan in 2008.

Care to take a wild guess at what happened to most pensions during the financial crisis, go on, take your time.

And they are not forcing you do to anything, half of the workforce have no pension plan. Why are you not alarmed by this figure? What do you think will happen when they retire and have no savings? That they will commit seppuku and die honourably, or leech of the system? Which clearly I would have thought is your biggest hate at the moment...

Retirees need money. If they plan poorly it is going to cost you, the tax payer, your money to support them. If the government can assist in better managing retirement funds it means your tax dollars don't go to the retired who cannot look after themselves.

I see, so tax breaks help people, but only poor people. They do not afford others the opportunity to put hteir money to work for themselves by building companies to employ the rest of us, and keep them from relocating over seas.... I wonder how it feels to so inconsistent in an argument. Do even believe your own bullshit?


Companies has replaced pension plans with contributions to their personal retirement accounts. and if half the workforce has no plans for retirement why is your solution ALWAYS to remove that responsibility form those in neglect and force those that do plan to pay up? Why do you insist on NOT holding people accountablew for their actions and their decisions?

lowing wrote:

I see, so tax breaks help people, but only poor people. They do not afford others the opportunity to put hteir money to work for themselves by building companies to employ the rest of us, and keep them from relocating over seas.... I wonder how it feels to so inconsistent in an argument. Do even believe your own bullshit?


Companies has replaced pension plans with contributions to their personal retirement accounts. and if half the workforce has no plans for retirement why is your solution ALWAYS to remove that responsibility form those in neglect and force those that do plan to pay up? Why do you insist on NOT holding people accountablew for their actions and their decisions?

By holding them accountable for their actions, ie losing their pension plans because they invested their money into GM or Chrysler and lost it all, what are you suggesting?

That the retired, 60+ year olds be forced to live on the street because a big business lost their money?

Yeah, I can see a few flaws in that.

lowing wrote:

Answer the question


If you put your retirement in one basket, then you pretty much were begging for failure.

And so should be forced out of your home, onto the street and no longer burden society.

Wow. You really do have a vision for utopia, don't you?

I guess you missed the part where assisting in financial planning for retiree's means less tax dollars are spent in supporting them because they are then financially independent.

Funny.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

You pay 60% in taxes?

You need a better accountant. I'm self employed and do my own accounts, I pay maybe 20% after I've deducted my expenses - I thought us Euros had higher taxes than you to pay for all our expensive socialist systems?

I said in one form or another. I pay SS, I pay income tax, I pay sales tax, I pay property tax, I pay car tax, I pay tax on utilites, etc............So if you are only paying 20% tax total then one of 2 things are hsappening, you do not make dick, or you are cheating on your taxes.

As an IT contractor, I can claim most of it back. I pay 20% on the bulk of my earnings, 40% on a bit and 9% National Insurance - but you do get the first £6500 tax free. On top of that I have car tax (£200/year - so essentially nothing) and council tax (£800/year - I get it half price from small business reimbursement - I get government subsidised utilities too, no tax on them and lower than normal rates). But then I can claim 40p/mile for using my car for business. I can claim any tax I spend on electronics back (no VAT and no income tax on electronic purchases mean I get them 35% cheaper), since I work in IT. Then you have tax exempt stuff going into pensions and it all works out nicely. I don't have to pay anything till January 2011 anyway, so till then I have my tax money invested and making me more money, which is classed as capital gains and I get tax exempt (unless I do better than I expect - in which case I'll have to pay a bit of tax on some of it).

This year is kind of exceptional though, since I was made redundant and got a huge tax free redundancy pay out and then wasn't earning (much) for about 3 months - until I started getting some lucrative contracts, like the one I'm currently working on for Apple. 20% is not exactly typical for me, but it's not far off.

Works out quite cheap...

Ok so if you admit, that your situation it is not typical, then why are you telling me I need a new accountant?

By the way, you are getting the tax incentives that people like Aussie can not stand. You shouls not be getting those incentives, you should be paying so others do not have to..

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

I guess you missed the part where assisting in financial planning for retiree's means less tax dollars are spent in supporting them because they are then financially independent.

Funny.

If I am paying for their retirement they are not financially independant. Try again

But hey I am talking to someone who believes free health care is free.

If the government assists in their retirement decisions you will be paying less than if they fail in their own planning and are forced to live on nothing they themselves have saved.

You might not realise this but they are tax payers to and deserve a break now they are retired. Maybe you expect them to live to 70 and support themselves working 9-5 each day until they die. It doesn't work like that though.

Yeah, you are talking to someone who believes healthcare is free. It's free for the rich and free for the poor and free for you to take advantage of it or stick to your private health care. But lets not change the subject.

It should be quite simple. If a pensioner does not plan wisely and loses their savings they are going to be forced into poverty without government assistance and your oh so precious tax dollars.

If however the govt. can assist in their pension plans, eg. by offering these soon to be pensioners investment opportunities into govt. backed securities, which are low risk and low yield but a fairly guaranteed yield, the government wins because more people are investing into government projects and the pensioners win because they are given greater financial security at a time when investment decisions they made years ago can take effect.

Your solution of giving these pensioners nothing is ludicrous. It solves none of the problems. It creates another lower class welfare of financially dependant non-working citizens.

Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-08-30 08:40:43)

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

I guess you missed the part where assisting in financial planning for retiree's means less tax dollars are spent in supporting them because they are then financially independent.

Funny.

If I am paying for their retirement they are not financially independant. Try again

But hey I am talking to someone who believes free health care is free.

If the government assists in their retirement decisions you will be paying less than if they fail in their own planning and are forced to live on nothing they themselves have saved.

You might not realise this but they are tax payers to and deserve a break now they are retired. Maybe you expect them to live to 70 and support themselves working 9-5 each day until they die. It doesn't work like that though.

Yeah, you are talking to someone who believes healthcare is free. It's free for the rich and free for the poor and free for you to take advantage of it or stick to your private health care. But lets not change the subject.

It should be quite simple. If a pensioner does not plan wisely and loses their savings they are going to be forced into poverty without government assistance and your oh so precious tax dollars.

If however the govt. can assist in their pension plans, eg. by offering these soon to be pensioners investment opportunities into govt. backed securities, which are low risk and low yield but a fairly guaranteed yield, the government wins because more people are investing into government projects and the pensioners win because they are given greater financial security at a time when investment decisions they made years ago can take effect.

Your solution of giving these pensioners nothing is ludicrous. It solves none of the problems. It creates another lower class welfare of financially dependant non-working citizens.

This is fine, except that same "break" should be given across the board. Regardless as to how well or poorly you planned for retirement. You are all about being fuckin' "FAIR" right?

I do think however, you will not have any of this. I am sure you will insist on punishing those that fare well, while coddle those that do not ( using the punishment money of course)

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-30 08:49:20)

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ok so if you admit, that your situation it is not typical, then why are you telling me I need a new accountant?

By the way, you are getting the tax incentives that people like Aussie can not stand. You shouls not be getting those incentives, you should be paying so others do not have to..

I never pay more than about 25%. I'm getting tax incentives for actually getting out there and finding my own work, which I like doing. I lose out in some ways (no paid holiday, no sick pay) but overall it's good.

Tax incentives are a great thing (the words tax deductable are like music to my ears) and I am perfectly placed to take maximum advantage of them. But the fact that I, in a country where the state provides a lot, can legitimately only spend 25% on tax whereas you pay 60%, shows something is wrong. Either with your accounting, or with the tax system where you live - either that or you earn an immense amount, which I don't imagine is the case.

I am very much in favour of tax incentives to get people to do stuff (like saving for pensions) themselves, instead of being reliant on the state. Whilst I do believe very strongly that the government should provide for those unable to provide for themselves, I also believe that they should only be given the absolute minimum they need to survive on.

I am as well, however not all of us are in agreement. Some on here use entitlement as an argument

So are we agreed? The state pension, paid for by compulsory tax contributions whilst working or claiming benefits (that's the way it works here, claiming benefits counts as working, which in theory is sound because benefits are supposed to support those who cannot work - in practice the system is flawed and abused, but that doesn't stop it being a sound theory), should be the absolute minimum you can survive on. Any extra money you need should be saved privately and this saving should be encouraged by the government in the form of tax breaks.