Should the US government institute some sort of forced savings with a wealth fund?

Jan 2010
4,365
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#31
It probably wont be. My 401k I do through work, and the IRA on the side, wont be enough. But I guess there is always other options. We can institute something like Ättestupa, jump off of cliffs at the age of 65, to avoid being a strain on the younger productive members of society. Sad to say, there isn't enough money in the world to fund every old person, most utterly reliant on expensive pharmaceuticals and constant medical care, to include 24/7 nursing. Not that it would happen, we live in democratic societies, the same reason Social Security won't ever be properly reformed is because old people vote in record numbers, and young people barely do. They'll keep voting themselves more benefits, screw the young!
You may be pleasantly surprised by how much Social Security you will receive. The secret is to work as long as you can and delay receiving Social Security as long as possible—I believe 70 yields the best result.

Also Medicare Parts B and D do a pretty good job of taking care of our medical expenses at least so far. Of courae, we’re relatively young and healthy.

As a lifelong Republican, never thought I’d be saying that. But never thought I’d live this long.
 
Jan 2010
4,365
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#32
Actually, I consider skilled-laborers ( plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc.) to be in the middleclass. They have fairly good incomes, and usually can afford to buy a house, buy a car, raise a family, and take a modest annual vacation once in awhile. By working-class, I'm referring to nurses-aides, home-health-aides, teachers' aides, janitors/custodians, security-guards, salesclerks, landscape-laborers, warehouse-workers, assembly-line factory-workers, food-prep workers, etc. Most of these people earn minimum-wage, and most of them are in the same occupation (though not with the same employer), throughout their entire working careers. A few move up the ladder to become managers, but most remain unskilled laborers. They work hard, and hold down jobs that are just as necessary to the economy as any others. Through no fault of their own, they don't have the innate talent or intellect to move into higher-paying positions. Or sometimes, they live in locations where these are the only jobs available, and due to family circumstances, are unable to move away. The only raises they get are when the minimum-wage goes up, and Social Security is the only retirement system they'll ever know.

I n days past, they used to be able to make some progress by remaining with the same employer for their whole career, and thus were able to get step-raises and seniority, and get some pay-raises that way. But those days are long gone. Almost all employers now have periodic layoffs. They shed senior unskilled employees regularly (no matter how long or hard they've worked) and replace them with new entry-level unskilled employees, who'll receive a bit less pay. And the cycle repeats itself a few years later.

I know that out in the suburbs, many of the unskilled fast-food jobs, and landscaping jobs, are filled with teenagers, who'll only remain at these jobs for a short while, and will eventually move on to something better, as they acquire better skills. But in urban and rural areas, most of the people filling these jobs are middleaged, and the jobs that they're filling are the only ones that they'll ever be qualified to do. And for these people. they'll never be able to afford an I.R.A.. and Social Security will be their only form of retirement.
Do you have some economic statistics to support these statements?
 
Jul 2016
8,713
USA
#33
Actually, I consider skilled-laborers ( plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc.) to be in the middleclass. They have fairly good incomes, and usually can afford to buy a house, buy a car, raise a family, and take a modest annual vacation once in awhile. By working-class, I'm referring to nurses-aides, home-health-aides, teachers' aides, janitors/custodians, security-guards, salesclerks, landscape-laborers, warehouse-workers, assembly-line factory-workers, food-prep workers, etc. Most of these people earn minimum-wage, and most of them are in the same occupation (though not with the same employer), throughout their entire working careers. A few move up the ladder to become managers, but most remain unskilled laborers. They work hard, and hold down jobs that are just as necessary to the economy as any others. Through no fault of their own, they don't have the innate talent or intellect to move into higher-paying positions. Or sometimes, they live in locations where these are the only jobs available, and due to family circumstances, are unable to move away.
Again, the official definition of working class is wage earners/fixed salary earners. They are separate terms. Middle class refers to an older system, of a class of merchantmen between noble and peasant. Working class is essential the proletariat of Marx's retardation, they include all those "exploited" by those who own and control the means of production, who aren't wage slaves (look up Cicero's feelings on that). The only occasional stipulation often added to working class is manual labor, but the reality is that is only really a stipulation between another class of describing jobs, which is white color and blue color.

The only raises they get are when the minimum-wage goes up, and Social Security is the only retirement system they'll ever know.
Nobody gets a raise when minimum wage is raised, it only causes everything else to become more expensive. Either massive inflation occurs, prices are raised onto customers, and/or they go out of business.

If Social Security is the only retirement system they'll ever know its because they never planned for it. That's it, end of story. If they couldnt even save a few thousand dollars, its THEIR OWN FAULT. Its the same reason they worked minimum wage (aka Zero Skill Jobs) their entire lives, because they made bad life decisions. Minimum wage type jobs are those that are so easy that business owners don't bother paying anything besides garbage. Get one, stick with it a year or two, spend free time learning a new skill, get a better job. Its literally that easy. Earn $1, don't spend 50 cents. If you can't save that much, find a better paying job or just cut your personal expenses and don't live so expensively. Live within your means, and this includes the ability to pay for your own retirement (if you so choose, or just work until you're dead).

I n days past, they used to be able to make some progress by remaining with the same employer for their whole career, and thus were able to get step-raises and seniority, and get some pay-raises that way. But those days are long gone. Almost all employers now have periodic layoffs. They shed senior unskilled employees regularly (no matter how long or hard they've worked) and replace them with new entry-level unskilled employees, who'll receive a bit less pay. And the cycle repeats itself a few years later.
Promoting from within isn't done based on seniority, its based on skill. One doesn't just work the same place in same job for 50 years without getting better at the job and still getting pay raises. If one is a janitor at 19 years old and doing the exact same job, with no additional skills learned at 65, then they have a learning disability or are extremely lazy. Either way, its not societies job to save them from themselves. Life is supposed to be painful for such people.

I know that out in the suburbs, many of the unskilled fast-food jobs, and landscaping jobs, are filled with teenagers, who'll only remain at these jobs for a short while, and will eventually move on to something better, as they acquire better skills. But in urban and rural areas, most of the people filling these jobs are middleaged, and the jobs that they're filling are the only ones that they'll ever be qualified to do. And for these people. they'll never be able to afford an I.R.A.. and Social Security will be their only form of retirement.
Then that is their problem. They made their bed, they sleep in them. If one lives in a disaster area full of crime or war or natural disasters, move to a better area. If one lives in a place without sufficient job prospects, MOVE TO A NEW AREA. If one is too lazy to pick up and go where the work is, again, its their own fault and they deserve what they get. Its not society's job to save them from their own bad decisions.

and the jobs that they're filling are the only ones that they'll ever be qualified to do
ROFL. In and Out Burger voluntarily pays burger jockies $15/hr and gives them medical/dental. It pays its shift managers about $50,000/year and up, and gives them additional benefits, including paying for business education. Nobody forced this business model on them, it wasn't the choice of socialists trying to win poor people voting blocks. They chose it themselves and they make it work. They aren't attempting to automate their workforce like McDonalds, who pays minimum wage, because In and Out Burger's business model is more efficient, menu is simple and good, they have good supplies, they hire better people, manage them better, train them better, and hold them to a much higher standards.

If someone is telling me that a person can't get and keep a job at In and Out Burger, or one of the other hundred and one easy to land jobs that provides unskilled individuals much better pay than minimum wage, I'm calling that person an ignoramus or someone who has honesty problems.
 
Likes: Bobbaloo

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,136
#34
Whether its 40% or 14% or 4% I dont need any government to tell me how much I should be saving and where I should be investing it.. If I CAN save 40%, I will.......Of course I have friends who prefer to get their kicks here and now, but who am I to tell them their wrong.... Any of us could drop dead tomorrow....

A mammoth fund would be a huge problem...

First there would be operating costs (all kinds of bureaucrats doing useless work and flying to places ...... spending YOUR money) which would turn these 40% into less, and perhaps much less..

Second no government is able to resist a huge stash of money..... they are just hypnotized by it... you can bet they WILL get their hands on it and spend it on stuff you dont need......

Third who 's to say those investments will pay off..... Last year patrimonial funds in Europe for example lost an average of 10%...... and it can get a lot worse

Still want a fund ?

1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal - Wikipedia


In 2015, Malaysia's former Prime Minister Najib Razak was accused of channelling over RM 2.67 billion (nearly USD 700 million) from 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a government-run strategic development company, to his personal bank accounts.

Political leader Anwar Ibrahim has openly questioned the credentials of 1MDB. He told Parliament that according to the records held by the companies commission, the company "has no business address and no appointed auditor."According to its publicly filed accounts, 1MDB has nearly RM 42 billion (USD 11.73 billion) in debt.Some of this debt resulted from a $3 billion state-guaranteed 2013 bond issue led by Goldman Sachs, who is believed to have made as much as $300 million in fees from that deal alone

Malaysian authorities barred Najib Razak from leaving the country, seized a huge haul of cash and valuable items from premises linked to him, and charged him with criminal breach of trust, money laundering and abuse of power, while Jho Low was charged with money laundering. Having filed complaints alleging that more than US$ 4.5 billion was diverted from 1MDB by Jho Low and other conspirators
 

Similar History Discussions