Anything but taxing the rich.
We need a general strike and we need it yesterday.
They will couple the retirement age to life expectancy and this parameter will drop in future. I’m pretty sure we are currently around the peak value of how old the average person will get. Climate change will result in millions of premature deaths every year worldwide. Heat waves will get much more deadly, more pandemics, more extreme flash floods, tornados, storms will kill additionally. Fungi already kill a lot of old people and nobody really knows that or cares about it, despite the WHO’s warning of 8 very harmful species of fungi and their urge to invest more in prevention. Global food and water supply will get pretty precarious. More toxins accumulate in the environment. We see more wars and violence, less stable economies, more social unrest… How can any sane person expect people will live longer under those conditions? Just because conditions have improved for decades doesn’t mean it will never get worse again.
Are you sure they are gonna implement something smart like that? Your enthusiasm is refreshing tho.
Anything but taxing the rich. No no no, can’t have that now, can we?
I feel like all proposals that change how social benefits work should be benchmarked against why taxing the rich wouldn’t be a better option, laid out plainly, so everyone can see the lies.
It should be illegal to propose anything that doesn’t include taxes for those who can pay them the easiest.
They always say the rich will run away.
Great, fuck 'em. Introduce an exit tax. And they can’t move their houses or other buildings with them.
Already exists in Germany, not perfect as some loopholes still present.
Germany doesn’t have a wealth tax though, right? There’s not really a reason for them to leave as it seems quite advantageous to stay there if you’re rich.
That’s kind of correct. On paper Germany has a wealth tax but it is omitted since 1997. The story is a bit frustrating, surprise. The federal constitution court found in 1995 that property is taxed not enough. So it ruled that the legislative has to reform the tax until end of the year 1996.
The government at the time consisted of conservatives and neo-liberals and guess what, instead of reforming they disabled the tax with the reason: We already tax high incomes with 53% so we should not tax the people more.
Fast forward: still no wealth tax and highest income tax is 45% and many exceptions in inheritance tax. So rich folks getting richer.
That’s fucked up. I don’t understand how the legally accepted response to “you aren’t taxing enough” can be “then we will tax nothing”.
Rich people also don’t have income, and legally pay zero taxes if they are clever.
The most astonishing part to me: in 1996 the government still gave a shit about court rulings.
A country can continue taxing people after they leave. It’s the second suggestion by the leading economists on the matter right now, right after “tax the rich”.
The US does the extreme and says as long as you’re a citizen you’re getting taxed. A better plan would likely by 10 years or something. I think they describe it as paying the difference in taxes of the two locations. So if the ultra-wealthy flee to Dubai or whatever (most won’t), they pay the difference between Dubai and their home country’s taxes to their home country so the movement is tax neutral.
Well the electorate has to vote for that and they’re way too busy hating on immigrants right now.
I’m not. I vote for any party seriously proposing a wealth tax.
Oh don’t you worry, they are also busy with hating the poor, as in everyone with less than 5 million on their bank account.
Thats why i do my retirement now, making sure i get my 10-20 years of free time now, cuz idk if i even make it to 70.
Yeah best decision I made was dropping out at 17 and play games, then around 21 get involved with an underground soundsystem with a full Funktion one rig and rave for 4 years
Nowadays money is meaningless and just stacking since material goods hold little value in my eyes.
Fuck the system
To be fair pension with 70 in 2090 might actually be a decent idea, but way too far into the future to plan for anything.
The real headline should be the end of pensions with 63. The most births after WW2 in Germany were in 1964. So they could start to retire next year. That obviously is going to stress the pension system. However it also means that the baby boomers are at an age, where death is much more likely. So this will be naturally solved in a decade. However obviously the labour market is going to be worse for employers.
Good.
Why?
Because the current system is unsustainable and if it isn’t adjusted, it can only end in a disaster.
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
Just stop being poor
– 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.
explain how
Productivity gains.
that does not means that they should pay for the longer retirement of everyone else
Why not, though?
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.
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.
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.
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
