Alternative? I know it's radical, but it involves people saving their own money as they see fit, (or not) and families doing what families should do and supporting members that need their support.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Printable View
Alternative? I know it's radical, but it involves people saving their own money as they see fit, (or not) and families doing what families should do and supporting members that need their support.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
So...would you say employers shouldn't offer retirement plans (like 401-Ks) or any type of defined contribution pension plan, either? Theoretically, that would put more money into workers' pockets, and do what they see fit, right? Based on that, you'd probably need to include buying one's own health insurance, life insurance, professional liability/malpractice policies....saving for retirement, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Not to rain on your parade, but long term and extended care (nursing homes) now costs between $75-$90 K/year. Pity the elderly with no family, or family that can't provide 24 hr skilled care for Alzheimer's or .... any of those medical conditions now more common than ever, that require a certain level of skill and labor, as our longevity has increased. :bulb: Knowing that a majority of people have ZERO savings for retirement, or what they do have saved is inadequate for the real costs of aging in America, and that many families are spread across the country, not even in the same state as Granny....
how long would it take to phase in your proposal, and how would it be done?
Employers can do whatever they want. Employment is a choice, and the terms, benefits, perks, and agreements that are a condition of that employment aren't really my business. If an employer wants to match an employee's contribution to their 401K plan, they probably would be able to attract the kind of employee that values that.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
And you think that the average SS benefit of $14,760 a year is somehow going to cover that? Pull the other one.Quote:
Not to rain on your parade, but long term and extended care (nursing homes) now costs between $75-$90 K/year. Pity the elderly with no family, or family that can't provide 24 hr skilled care for Alzheimer's or .... any of those medical conditions now more common than ever, that require a certain level of skill and labor, as our longevity has increased. :bulb: Knowing that a majority of people have ZERO savings for retirement, or what they do have saved is inadequate for the real costs of aging in America, and that many families are spread across the country, not even in the same state as Granny....
That's the point, though. Employers can do whatever they want, and haven't wanted or needed to offer workers any minimal type of retirement assistance/planning/education. Mostly in low-wage, part-time, temporary, seasonal work or physical labor jobs, but also for skilled independent contractors/subcontractors, self-employed, etc. Those are the people who need "assistance" most --- not the highly educated professionals making double middle income salaries, who already know how to maneuver the financial world. That's bassackward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Unfortunately, our public schools haven't been teaching those things, either. In fact, a course on "Life Skills" is more likely to be cut in today's budgetary quagmire, leaving huge numbers of students ignorant and uniformed. Many low-income parents don't have a checking account and rely on pay-day lenders. Many middle-income parents have racked up huge credit debt, and don't the difference between an IRA and a HSA. Not all families have the skills to teach their children well, ya know.
Cute :p It's still probably thousands more than a good chunk of today's seniors have in savings or investments. As more Baby Boomers age and die, there are less with defined-contribution or defined-benefit employee benefits. That's why many still need Medicare or Medicaid, Meals On Wheels, subsidized heating or Section 8 housing, ParaTransit...and try to buy their medications on-line from other countries.Quote:
And you think that the average SS benefit of $14,760 a year is somehow going to cover that? Pull the other one.
To practically apply your ideology, you'd have to square the real costs today's retirees face, and how to move it forward. (This is where the fear-mongerers inserted Death Panels as a policy blowback. :rolleyes:) I appreciate what you and wiggin discussed regarding the SS Trust Fund and intra-government spending, debt and deficit spending. But your "radical" and ideal proposal has some logistical gaps.
The Libertarian view has NEVER managed to take their Ideal and apply it in practical terms, for real people, and what the hell the Transition would look like. If you don't feel like taking that on right now, or I'm rambling too much, just say so. ;)
Spains part of Europe...
Classic Love Triangle. :haha: Forget Keynes, or even Hanlon's razor. Dressing up balance sheets is like winning the World Cup! Or maybe it's like taking a vacation and using a credit card, while in-between jobs, and assuming...quite optimistically...the next job is right around the corner? :sour:
Going back to this, the Greeks already are bankrupt. They've already defaulted on privately held debt, just not on EMU debt. Though the ECB is lending money in order for the Greeks to repay slightly less back to the ECB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
If Germany wants to bailout Greece then fine, charitably gift whatever is required. Further loans are not the solution to bankruptcy.
I believe that the Greeks should declare bankruptcy AND have proper austerity. Yes it'll be painful, but it's reality. Sooner they face up to reality, the sooner they can move on.
Seems like a new election may be on the cards soon in Greece, and if it happens I expect the anti-austerity parties to benefit.
The Greeks have again failed to form any government and it looks increasingly like a new election will have to be called after the failure of this one to elect a government.
In the 2012 Prediction game I voted that all nations in the Euro would still be in it by the end of the year, looking increasingly likely that I was wrong on that count. I'd call it no more than 50-50 now on the Greeks staying in the euro.
Might be even worse odds than that. Which would mean, by the way, that with Greece getting out of the Euro-zone, all EU member countries would be called upon to shoulder future financial support. Including GB ;)
Why would Greece need support if they dropped out of the euro and defaulted? They'd have some years of high inflation and zero access to debt markets, yes, but I doubt they'd need the scale of assistance they're currently getting from the rescue fund et al.
wiggins already made the point for me, but to add to that why would the UK agree to/volunteer any support in that situation where Greece has defaulted? We're not by any means obliged to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
How would they pay for their imports? How would they pay for their EU obligations? How would they keep their banks afloat?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
By only spending that which they can afford, a la Argentina or other recent examples. It will be painful, but necessary and ultimately will be better off for facing reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I don't think you'd want a country on Europe's periphery to have hyper-inflation. Besides, they'd ask for an IMF loan, and Britain contributes about as much to the IMF as it does to the EU. :noob:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Choo choo, this train is loaded with dangerous chemicals and only Denzel Washington can stop its derailment!