BF2S Forums More Change You Can Believe In

Aussie makes some pretty strong points in support of his view.  I definitely see where he's coming from, but I personally believe retirement is something that should be handled on a personal level, not a governmental level.

If bad comes to worse, families should take care of their elderly, like the way they used to.

If an elderly person does not have a family left, then they should be aided by government funds, but beyond that, families should step up.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

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.

We already have this, it is called social security and it is a failure. Any reason to believe that further govt. seizure of my money is going to improve things, ya know, FOR me, since I am the jack off that foolishly earned it?

So do you believe that someone who hasn't saved for their retirement should get nothing?

I don't. Lots of people are too stupid or shortsighted to put anything aside. It's not healthy for the state of the nation to allow those people to starve when they retire. It's more sensible to take a bit from them/everyone so that everyone has a bit to get by on when they retire. Not much, just enough to reasonably survive.

In the case of those who don't work, that's where you find flaws with these systems. Not becuase they pay money to people who don't work, but because the system is abused by lazy fuckers who have no intention of finding work. That's where the system falls down and that's where it needs to be tightened up. Not by not offering sufficient support, but by denying support to those who try to abuse the system. Clamping down on benefit abuse is the way to go, not by making it harder for people who legitimately cannot work to get by in life.

Why is social security a failure? Is it the system itself, or is it because of lazy fuckers abusing it? As far as I can see, these systems in general are sound, but there needs to be more done to prevent abuse.

By further taking the ability away from me to save for myself the way I SEE FIT in order to secure the future of people ill prepared is not a solution for those of us who can take care of ourselves. Like I said I pay enough fucking taxes.


Yes the system is abused, makle or enforce laws to protect those paying for this shit, not to furhter tax us in order to keep subsidizing hte lazy fuckers and abusers.

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Aussie makes some pretty strong points in support of his view.  I definitely see where he's coming from, but I personally believe retirement is something that should be handled on a personal level, not a governmental level.

I think the government should provide a basic pension that is just sufficient to survive off and which everyone is entitled to. My mum claims the basic state pension here, and it's not a lot, about £30 a week or something. That's about right as far as I'm concerned.

If you want more, which you really need if you want to live in any degree of comfort at all, then you need a private pension and/or decent private savings. The government should encourage this by offering tax breaks on a certain level of contribution to pension schemes - not limitless contributions though. That just provides loopholes for rich people to put all their money into pension schemes and pay no tax on it. Have an allowance, say £10000/year that you can stick in your pension tax free and then pay no tax on the interest for that pension scheme.

I could go for that.

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Aussie makes some pretty strong points in support of his view.  I definitely see where he's coming from, but I personally believe retirement is something that should be handled on a personal level, not a governmental level.

I think the government should provide a basic pension that is just sufficient to survive off and which everyone is entitled to. My mum claims the basic state pension here, and it's not a lot, about £30 a week or something. That's about right as far as I'm concerned.

If you want more, which you really need if you want to live in any degree of comfort at all, then you need a private pension and/or decent private savings. The government should encourage this by offering tax breaks on a certain level of contribution to pension schemes - not limitless contributions though. That just provides loopholes for rich people to put all their money into pension schemes and pay no tax on it. Have an allowance, say £10000/year that you can stick in your pension tax free and then pay no tax on the interest for that pension scheme.

I could go for that.

Kinda like ooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I dunno SOCIAL SECURITY, of which I am already paying for and will never see at this current rate of depletion?

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-30 09:57:39)

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

So do you believe that someone who hasn't saved for their retirement should get nothing?

I don't. Lots of people are too stupid or shortsighted to put anything aside. It's not healthy for the state of the nation to allow those people to starve when they retire. It's more sensible to take a bit from them/everyone so that everyone has a bit to get by on when they retire. Not much, just enough to reasonably survive.

In the case of those who don't work, that's where you find flaws with these systems. Not becuase they pay money to people who don't work, but because the system is abused by lazy fuckers who have no intention of finding work. That's where the system falls down and that's where it needs to be tightened up. Not by not offering sufficient support, but by denying support to those who try to abuse the system. Clamping down on benefit abuse is the way to go, not by making it harder for people who legitimately cannot work to get by in life.

Why is social security a failure? Is it the system itself, or is it because of lazy fuckers abusing it? As far as I can see, these systems in general are sound, but there needs to be more done to prevent abuse.

By further taking the ability away from me to save for myself the way I SEE FIT in order to secure the future of people ill prepared is not a solution for those of us who can take care of ourselves. Like I said I pay enough fucking taxes.


Yes the system is abused, makle or enforce laws to protect those paying for this shit, not to furhter tax us in order to keep subsidizing hte lazy fuckers and abusers.

You also said you already have that and it's called social security. So it isn't further taxing you. It's the same. Like I said, I fully support a huge crackdown on abuse of the system and stopping payments to those found to be abusing benefits. But I also believe that everyone who TRIES should be provided for, whether they succeed or not. If they don't TRY, then fuck 'em, let them starve.

Nor do you seem to be managing your taxes effectively - you can't seriously be paying 60%, it's absurd. Here it is virtually impossible to pay 60% in taxes, no matter what you earn. I can't see how in the US, which provides fewer government services and support, you can pay 60% tax. I'm in the maximum tax bracket here and I pay 20-30% after all deductions.

I pay 30 percent in income tax alone. then I pay 6 percent in sales tax. Now I have not even addressed property tax, auto tax, dividend tax, social security tax, county tax, some pay city tax, water and sewage tax etc. I am pretty sure I cancome close to 60% of my money going back out in taxes. Regardless, it sure as FUCK ain't merely 20%

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kinda like ooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I dunno SOCIAL SECURIT, of which I am already paying for and will never see at this current rate of depletion?

Actually, what Bert described is moderate reform of SS.   SS provides quite a bit more than what Bert stated here, and less of it is oriented toward tax breaks for private funds.

A lot of what he mentioned is actually similar to Republican ideas for retirement reform.

What he suggests sounds good to me if govt. fraud waste and abuse can be controlled. Which it can not and will not

I don't see how paying out what amounts to less than welfare per retired person is so open to abuse.  The costs of this proposal are very small compared to SS.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

You also said you already have that and it's called social security. So it isn't further taxing you. It's the same. Like I said, I fully support a huge crackdown on abuse of the system and stopping payments to those found to be abusing benefits. But I also believe that everyone who TRIES should be provided for, whether they succeed or not. If they don't TRY, then fuck 'em, let them starve.

Nor do you seem to be managing your taxes effectively - you can't seriously be paying 60%, it's absurd. Here it is virtually impossible to pay 60% in taxes, no matter what you earn. I can't see how in the US, which provides fewer government services and support, you can pay 60% tax. I'm in the maximum tax bracket here and I pay 20-30% after all deductions.

I pay 30 percent in income tax alone. then I pay 6 percent in sales tax. Now I have not even addressed property tax, auto tax, dividend tax, social security tax, county tax, some pay city tax, water and sewage tax etc. I am pretty sure I cancome close to 60% of my money going back out in taxes. Regardless, it sure as FUCK ain't merely 20%

And you don't get any deductions on that? You don't have, for example, the 1st few thousand tax free? You don't get deductions for pensions? You don't get deductions for charitable donations?

Yup I do, mortage, kids, and charity and work expenses like tools are my deductions, but the percentages of tax are still the same.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

And you don't get any deductions on that? You don't have, for example, the 1st few thousand tax free? You don't get deductions for pensions? You don't get deductions for charitable donations?

Yup I do, mortage, kids, and charity and work expenses like tools are my deductions, but the percentages of tax are still the same.

How are the percentages the same if you get loads of it back?

It sounds to me like you've just added up the maximum amount of tax you have to pay and then have ignored the deductions before working out the effective rate you pay. Or the top rates of the brackets.

In any case, doesn't 30% overall income tax put your earnings somewhere getting on towards $1/4 million? You'd have to be a fair way inside the 33% bracket to pay 30% overall - or is there more income tax somewhere that I'm neglecting to include?

It's nice and simple here. 20% basic rate (£6500-37000), 40% higher rate (£37000+), 9% National Insurance (on everything + £2.40/week).

I am at the 28% tax bracket. Whatever my adjusted income is, it is taxed at 28% then add sales tax, property tax county tax, car taxes, school levies, utilties etc.....

One of the main reasons SS is bankrupt or soon will be is Politicians using Social Security funds for their pork projects...

Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) Commerce Committee: "The key thing we need to be able to do right now is make a commitment to stop spending the Social Security funds that come to the Federal Government. That is pretty easy for us to say, but it is awfully hard for us to do."
http://www.uncle-scam.com/Confessions/h … -house.htm

Ken Lucas (D-Kentucky) House Budget Committee: "We must save Social Security and Medicare first, before squandering any of the Social Security surplus, the Medicare surplus, and any other government surplus."

Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) House Budget Committee: "And let us face it, Congress has been engaged in misleading and deceptive budgeting for decades. The American people are told their payroll tax goes to Social Security. In fact, it goes to many other places as well."

Gerald D. Kleczka (D-Wisconsin) Budget Ways & Means Committee: "Last week it was okay to spend $9 billion for an emergency supplemental bill out of the Social Security trust fund. But now we have got religion today and, my Lord, what we did last week, it was wrong. We should never have done it."

I think we are all on the same page that nobody should suffer or starve... We have systems in place that were designed to help people get back on their feet... These programs have been gutted and perverted by the politicians and abused by people(citizens) that feel they are owed something. 

They(govt) say they are enacting these programs to help people
but what they end up doing is enslaving people to a marginal existance...
Play the victim and blame big business and rich people for their problems...

And the villification of people that have successful businesses and make a lot of money... They got where they are because they worked for it...
It wasn't an accident unless they won the lottery....

Entitlement
http://www.sideroad.com/Personal_Develo … ement.html

Take away the encentives to make money and be successful by raising taxes and adding govt regulations
and we will have a country full of people that give up on trying to succeed.

The people in the govt are already rich
and they know what's best for you... Sit back and relax... check is in the mail.

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

I dare you to stop paying taxes lowing. If you continue, you're only assititing to Barack HUSSEIN  SADDAM Obama

Never said anyhting about not paying taxes. I manitain since I give 60%of my money back to the govt. in one form or another, I pay enough fucking taxes. It is time for those that do not to start contributing or get the fuck out.

60%. Well, I call BULLSHIT!!!

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

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)

and this is where Aussie hauls ass outta the thread. go figure

Why don't you ever consider the time difference? Are you so ignorant? I hauled ass out of the thread, and bf2s. It was 2am. Feel free to claim the high ground and that I ran from an argument though, because I had to sleep.

What do you mean by the same break should be given? Of course it should. That's what I have been saying. Poorly funding your retirement can happen to anyone, from any income level. If it is poorly invested, you say goodbye to your life savings, the money you planned to live off the rest of your life. That doesn't change if you are wealthy or poor. Although the wealthy are less likely to invest in few assets, it can still happen.

So far you've given no answers, no solutions to solving the problems of an aging population, where half of all retiree's have no pension plan available to retire on. The governments proposal that gives them an option to fund into secure government backed securities provides a stable solution and increases in government revenue which they can return to the tax payers.

All you have to say on the matter is big government is bad. That's not an argument. If you have a solution to the pension problems, lets hear it.

edit: spelling

Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-08-31 02:43:53)

nlsme1 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

I dare you to stop paying taxes lowing. If you continue, you're only assititing to Barack HUSSEIN  SADDAM Obama

Never said anyhting about not paying taxes. I manitain since I give 60%of my money back to the govt. in one form or another, I pay enough fucking taxes. It is time for those that do not to start contributing or get the fuck out.

60%. Well, I call BULLSHIT!!!

Go ahead, it is a fact that I pay approx 35% of my paycheck to some form of tax before I see it. This does not include all the taxes I pay when I buy shit (sales taxes are 6%), my property tax, my car taxes, county tax, ultilites taxes, license fees, renewal fuckin fees,  etc.