Germany is weighing sweeping pension changes, including raising the retirement age to 70. Meanwhile, football fans are celebrating after the men's national side qualified for the World Cup knockout stage.
My body is aching, and I’m not even 40. Couple of weeks back I listed something not that heavy, but my back went out and I could not walk for three days (all fine now). Knowing that I might not be able to work until I’m 70 the cist of living etc., there’s a high probability that I’m going to take my own life. It’s been fum while it lasted, though.
So, let me understand. You consider a situation where we live longer, we (want to) work less and we keep the same living condition (after retiring) possible.
Care to explain how ? Don’t come up with the “tax the rich”, they must pay their fair share of taxes but that does not means that they should pay for the longer retirement of everyone else.
While I agree that the higher productivity of the work should be paid more, I don’t see how this difference can offset 15 or more years of additional retirement, even less if, like you suggest, we want to work less years.
And on what your pay would be based ? The hours you work or the productivity ?
As I said, I agree that some of the productivity gains tranfer to the worker pay.
I simply do not belive that even if this trasfer happens then you can retire earlier having a longer live expectancy.
We can maybe work less every day for the same pay, like we work 7 hours a day and the hours we pool are used to hire some more workers, but that would not change the problem with retiring earlier and living longer (which are not problems per se)
Why not, though?
Because that could be applied also to you, I bet you are richer than someone else.
In the end, once someone pay their fair share of taxes the question is over. How much money is left to the someone is irrelevant.
We can discuss how to make the rich pay their fair share of taxes eventually.
You asked about maintaining wealth and not expanding wealth. Productivity is output per work. If the output per work grows, we need less work to maintain the current output --> workers can chill more. Whether they retire earlier or have a 4-day-week.
Right now that surplus of productivity is just grabbed by the owning class.
once someone pay their fair share of taxes the question is over.
Yeah, right. And if our society wants to take that fair share to expand retirement for everybody, that’s cool. And to what a ‘fair share’ is…that depends. In Germany in the 50ies they basically took 50% of everybodys assets and had an maximum income tax bracket of 95% (which would start at 850k € yearly income today, if they had kept it), literally a max income, if you want. And apparently people thought that to be fair, so there’s that.
Well the root problem is of course money, as always. We are already producing enough to feed everyone on earth for example. But since number must go up, the metric for rich assholes isn’t actually productivity or needs being met, but growth.
For decades and decades we have automated more and more and yet work has not become less. Where do you think this surplus of value, created by automation and additional work by the working class ended up? I don’t want to just “tax the rich”, that is merely the first step. The goal has to be abolishing a system which not only allows for this concentration of wealth but is designed to do so.
Well the root problem is of course money, as always. We are already producing enough to feed everyone on earth for example.
True.
But since number must go up, the metric for rich assholes isn’t actually productivity or needs being met, but growth.
I don’t think you can simply decouple productivity and growth.
For decades and decades we have automated more and more and yet work has not become less. Where do you think this surplus of value, created by automation and additional work by the working class ended up?
Partially to the rich but partially (a maybe too small part, I agree) to the workers, to pay for all the new things we have in our life. We don’t live like our parents or our grandparents honestly.
I don’t want to just “tax the rich”, that is merely the first step.
As long as the tax is proportional and not something like “you are a billionaire, so we will grab everything over 1.000.000 a year” I agree, else you will end up with nothing.
And not because billionaires will flee the country but because nobody will care to go over the 1.000.000/year (or whatever limit you decide)
The goal has to be abolishing a system which not only allows for this concentration of wealth but is designed to do so.
To replace it with what ? I honestly don’t see a better system actually.
And people are getting older (and stay healthier). Something has to give. Boomers are the largest generation in German history. Since then every generation has shrunk. Fewer workers have to support more retirees. We have been seeing this demographic shift coming and still have taken on more and more dead. And yes, I desperately want the rich to pay taxes, but that alone will not fix the issue. Not by a long shot.
We also have much better technology and produce much more stuff with significantly less labour.
This is not really about the rich people paying taxes, it’s more about the fact that if we have better technology and production why do people have to work more?
Indeed, boomers are more; but I think we are able to sustain their lives without them having to work.
if we have better technology and production why do people have to work more?
Because you pay people for the time they work, not for what they produce. You work 8 hours a day and you are paid for these 8 hours basically without taking into account of how much you produce.
In the end in a sane system what you set aside while you work should be what pay your pension when you will stop working (but it is not true anymore). You cannot expect to work less or equal and live longer and keep the same standard of living
Indeed, boomers are more; but I think we are able to sustain their lives without them having to work.
No, we cannot. Many pension systems have been designed thinking that for every retired person there will be more than one worker. It worked at the time, when families had 3 or more children, it not work now when families have just one or two children, if even.
Exactly, the claim of disaster is moronic but typical for many politicians.
It disregards the fact that many elderly are way more self helped, so the life expectancy increasing doesn’t have a similar requirement for care and healthcare. And productivity per capita is increasing.
We have higher pension age here (Denmark) too than we had in the 70’s. But way more women are working and automation and computers and generally improved methodologies have resulted in way way higher productivity.
We could live with the standards of the 70’s and only work 5 hours per week, or have a pension age of 40.
The only reason to raise the pension age is the ever ongoing race for more wealth.
What we have now is slavery to the 1%, who take in 50% of the wealth generated! Just getting rid of them, and we would only have to work half, and maintain the same wealth for the rest.
Because 50% or your salary are instantly taken out of your paycheck for other taxes, which you cannot invest in your own savings or towards your own house?
Because Germany does not let foreigners in to work and contribute to the retirement fund, because foreigners are very scary?
Because taxing the rich and preventing tax fraud would instantly increase the budget by a few billion euros that could be given to the retirement fund?
Because rents and home ownership are unaffordable because a lot of homes are in the hands of investment firms and rich people who try to get the most money out of renting, leading to raising costs that eats more than 50% of the renters remaining income each month?
Having children means finding a large enough and affordable house, which is a nightmare in most cities with a lot of competition. Then you have to pay for childcare, extra food, extra utilities and other expenses. This would ruin a lot of young people who don’t earn a lot or already struggle with money, and don’t have rich parents to back them up.
Why?
Because the current system is unsustainable and if it isn’t adjusted, it can only end in a disaster.
Having to work until you are fucking 70 already is a disaster
My body is aching, and I’m not even 40. Couple of weeks back I listed something not that heavy, but my back went out and I could not walk for three days (all fine now). Knowing that I might not be able to work until I’m 70 the cist of living etc., there’s a high probability that I’m going to take my own life. It’s been fum while it lasted, though.
Save up and get out if you dont like your job. I know someone who stopped at 50 and now just works as a skiing instructor and wine farmer
– you, apparently
He certainly isn’t wealthy, but he enjoys this lifestyle much more. Small car, no big journeys, no house, … but constantly doing something he likes
GG.
I suppose it depend on the work you do, but it is inevitable that if we live longer we somehow work longer.
Lmao no it is not. This is not a rule of physics or nature. This is a condition willfully brought upon us by the rich.
So, let me understand. You consider a situation where we live longer, we (want to) work less and we keep the same living condition (after retiring) possible.
Care to explain how ? Don’t come up with the “tax the rich”, they must pay their fair share of taxes but that does not means that they should pay for the longer retirement of everyone else.
While I agree that the higher productivity of the work should be paid more, I don’t see how this difference can offset 15 or more years of additional retirement, even less if, like you suggest, we want to work less years.
Productivity gains.
Why not, though?
And on what your pay would be based ? The hours you work or the productivity ?
As I said, I agree that some of the productivity gains tranfer to the worker pay.
I simply do not belive that even if this trasfer happens then you can retire earlier having a longer live expectancy.
We can maybe work less every day for the same pay, like we work 7 hours a day and the hours we pool are used to hire some more workers, but that would not change the problem with retiring earlier and living longer (which are not problems per se)
Because that could be applied also to you, I bet you are richer than someone else.
In the end, once someone pay their fair share of taxes the question is over. How much money is left to the someone is irrelevant.
We can discuss how to make the rich pay their fair share of taxes eventually.
You asked about maintaining wealth and not expanding wealth. Productivity is output per work. If the output per work grows, we need less work to maintain the current output --> workers can chill more. Whether they retire earlier or have a 4-day-week.
Right now that surplus of productivity is just grabbed by the owning class.
Yeah, right. And if our society wants to take that fair share to expand retirement for everybody, that’s cool. And to what a ‘fair share’ is…that depends. In Germany in the 50ies they basically took 50% of everybodys assets and had an maximum income tax bracket of 95% (which would start at 850k € yearly income today, if they had kept it), literally a max income, if you want. And apparently people thought that to be fair, so there’s that.
Well the root problem is of course money, as always. We are already producing enough to feed everyone on earth for example. But since number must go up, the metric for rich assholes isn’t actually productivity or needs being met, but growth.
For decades and decades we have automated more and more and yet work has not become less. Where do you think this surplus of value, created by automation and additional work by the working class ended up? I don’t want to just “tax the rich”, that is merely the first step. The goal has to be abolishing a system which not only allows for this concentration of wealth but is designed to do so.
True.
I don’t think you can simply decouple productivity and growth.
Partially to the rich but partially (a maybe too small part, I agree) to the workers, to pay for all the new things we have in our life. We don’t live like our parents or our grandparents honestly.
As long as the tax is proportional and not something like “you are a billionaire, so we will grab everything over 1.000.000 a year” I agree, else you will end up with nothing.
And not because billionaires will flee the country but because nobody will care to go over the 1.000.000/year (or whatever limit you decide)
To replace it with what ? I honestly don’t see a better system actually.
And people are getting older (and stay healthier). Something has to give. Boomers are the largest generation in German history. Since then every generation has shrunk. Fewer workers have to support more retirees. We have been seeing this demographic shift coming and still have taken on more and more dead. And yes, I desperately want the rich to pay taxes, but that alone will not fix the issue. Not by a long shot.
A few people have so much money, they could easily pay for elderly support and rent if you tax them
But no, let the poor idiots work till 80… you see how this is wrong?
boomers aee already mostly retired you idiot
its us who will pay for their early retirement while we wont get the same
and since we will work forevrr, our kids won’t have kids because they have no grandparents to support them during their retirement
nobody will care for us when we are old
We also have much better technology and produce much more stuff with significantly less labour.
This is not really about the rich people paying taxes, it’s more about the fact that if we have better technology and production why do people have to work more?
Indeed, boomers are more; but I think we are able to sustain their lives without them having to work.
Because you pay people for the time they work, not for what they produce. You work 8 hours a day and you are paid for these 8 hours basically without taking into account of how much you produce.
In the end in a sane system what you set aside while you work should be what pay your pension when you will stop working (but it is not true anymore). You cannot expect to work less or equal and live longer and keep the same standard of living
No, we cannot. Many pension systems have been designed thinking that for every retired person there will be more than one worker. It worked at the time, when families had 3 or more children, it not work now when families have just one or two children, if even.
i thought productivity was up across the board?
Exactly, the claim of disaster is moronic but typical for many politicians.
It disregards the fact that many elderly are way more self helped, so the life expectancy increasing doesn’t have a similar requirement for care and healthcare. And productivity per capita is increasing.
We have higher pension age here (Denmark) too than we had in the 70’s. But way more women are working and automation and computers and generally improved methodologies have resulted in way way higher productivity.
We could live with the standards of the 70’s and only work 5 hours per week, or have a pension age of 40.
The only reason to raise the pension age is the ever ongoing race for more wealth.
What we have now is slavery to the 1%, who take in 50% of the wealth generated! Just getting rid of them, and we would only have to work half, and maintain the same wealth for the rest.
Eliminate the contribution cap. Instant 20% increase in available pension budget.
Why is it currently unsustainable?
Because 50% or your salary are instantly taken out of your paycheck for other taxes, which you cannot invest in your own savings or towards your own house?
Because Germany does not let foreigners in to work and contribute to the retirement fund, because foreigners are very scary?
Because taxing the rich and preventing tax fraud would instantly increase the budget by a few billion euros that could be given to the retirement fund?
Because rents and home ownership are unaffordable because a lot of homes are in the hands of investment firms and rich people who try to get the most money out of renting, leading to raising costs that eats more than 50% of the renters remaining income each month?
All of the above?
It’s better than driving the state budget into the ground, though I still think that it’d be better to get the birth rate up to a sustainable level.
How are you going to convince people to have babies while continuously siphoning off more and more resources from the average person?
Having children means finding a large enough and affordable house, which is a nightmare in most cities with a lot of competition. Then you have to pay for childcare, extra food, extra utilities and other expenses. This would ruin a lot of young people who don’t earn a lot or already struggle with money, and don’t have rich parents to back them up.
if we stopped cutting fucking taxes you derps