People Power

[quote="Rollo"]No you aint got that straight.

Pensions paid by the Government are entitlements to the people to whom they are due.
Before 1984, federal workers had a "defined" benefit plan and no Social Security. That is, those entitlements were to be paid as they fell due. Today they have Social Security and a pension that is part defined benefit plan (lifetime monthly payments) and part defined contribution (a lump sum at retirement).

Nobody from 1935 when the system was introduced ever thought that it was prudent that anything should be set aside for future expenses.




I didn't say that or infer that. This is your own invention. Yes you did--
Pensions paid by the Government are entitlements to the people to whom they are due.--Entitlements? Whose amount is governed only by the people who recieve them. BRILLIANT SCAM-- Bernie Madoff would be proud.

--------expected future receipts through sales and TAXATION respectively to cover payments for pensions.

/QUOTE]
Private sector pensions can be (as would have happened had Washington not made sure it did not lose union voters by bailing out General Motors) and have been cancelled in the U.S.

What makes government workes special?
Are they some kind of royalty that gets special treatment the people who pay their wages do not?

It seems you think they are, but finally U.S. taxpayers are getting sick of this unbalanced system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Entitlements? Whose amount is governed only by the people who receive them.

What makes government workers special?
Are they some kind of royalty that gets special treatment the people who pay their wages do not?

---

Do you intend to get paid in your retirement? Presumably you have a retirement/pension plan/annuity system set up which ensures that you will.
I'm not suggesting at all that government workers are special. I am suggesting that they are legally entitled to be paid during their retirement like any other person, who has a retirement/pension plan/annuity system set up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Then please explain to me how you achieve your goals of fairness and equality if it isn't through redistribution of wealth.

---

One way could be to prevent such things as vulture funds:

Quote:

---

Vulture funds operate by buying up a country's debt when it is in a state of chaos. When the country has stabilised, vulture funds return to demand millions of dollars in interest repayments and fees on the original debt.

---

Vulture funds await Jersey decision on poor countries' debts | Global development | The Guardian

Is that the free market at its best, or worst?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Would you have been amongst those brave free-marketeers setting up new financial institutions and car manufacturers to replace those that had gone down the toilet?

---

Possibly on the car manufacturing front. However I'm sure i would have been outbid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

What assets? The rapidly devaluing ones that caused the problem in the first place? You know, the ones where repossessed houses either couldn't be sold or couldn't fetch a price high enough to cover the home loan that needed to be repaid?

Who would have bought the assets? You realise the problem was that once financial institutions lost faith in each others liquidity and credit worthiness companies couldn't raise money to cover basic running costs let alone expand by buying up assets?

You sound rather vague about an issue which underpins the principles you speak in defence of and which would have had a devastating global impact.

---

Again, it would have been very painful. Just shorter. Look up some stuff on the depression of 1920

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Of course I am in favour of a fair, and thus probably to some extent redistributive, taxation system, but I hold that view not out of any sense of glee at the rich having to pay a bit more.

---

Never said you were taking glee in it. I just want to know how much you want. Give me a number 60%? 70%? 90%?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

One way could be to prevent such things as vulture funds:


Vulture funds await Jersey decision on poor countries' debts | Global development | The Guardian

Is that the free market at its best, or worst?

---

It is the free market. Not good or bad it just is. Perhaps States should not allow themselves to be saddled with millions of dollars in debt in the first place, that would solve much if this. But we wouldn't want anything like responsibility now would we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Again, it would have been very painful. Just shorter. Look up some stuff on the depression of 1920

---

Yes, the depression of 1920 which had entirely different causes.

Differences:

1920 was characterised by sharp deflation. We have high INflation. These are opposite in nature.
1920 was largely limited to the US. The current problem involves all major economies to some extent. Countries cannot just export themselves out of trouble because consumption is depressed everywhere.
1920 was caused by a cut in government spending following WW1. In the current crisis government spending is cut as a consequence of tax incomes dropping thanks to the drop in economic output.
In 1920 the private sector was largely intact but had to realign itself to a peacetime economy with reduced government spending. In 2008 the private sector was decimated due to a previous reliance on credit and an inability to raise fresh capital.

The differences far outweigh the similarities between the two crises.

So instead of asking me to refer to a non-relevant recession why don't you explain in greater detail HOW not intervening in 2008 would have made the current crisis shorter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

It is the free market. Not good or bad it just is.

---

So we do nothing? We just accept it because "it just is"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Perhaps States should not allow themselves to be saddled with millions of dollars in debt in the first place, that would solve much if this. But we wouldn't want anything like responsibility now would we?

---

No they shouldn't, but most do and many not out of economic or political policy choices. Many African nations appear to be better than Europe and the US where % of debt is concerned yet the DRC seem particularly hard hit as a result of their recent history.

Just as Europe was on its knees and needed financial support after WW2 so too is DRC after its own "African World War". But now there are vulture funds to "help" them. Thank goodness for the free market :dozey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

Donks has been called an ass.

So what's new. :p :

:s mokin:

---

must be one of the very few times I agree with old grumpy pants too ! :andrea: :p