Originally posted by KlawAnd what happens if you don't?
The argument about forced Government retirement plans being a good thing is a horrible argument.Anyone could do better than CPP.
Stop forcing me to contribute to a Government plan, and let me do it myself.
What happens if you don't plan well?
Do we just let you die on the street because of your poor planning?
Originally posted by ilikecomicsThat's a faulty analogy. For one the lady wouldn't have any money if she wasn't working in the society that is also taxing her.
Do you think if I rob an old lady, then give her a pearl necklace I bought from the money I stole that we're square ?
The fact you want to equate taxes to theft doesn't make it so.
The truth is we are social creatures. Not a one of us can survive on our own. If you wanted to live in a world where there is no such thing as pulled societal resources then perhaps you should have existed as a rock instead of a complex social creature.
This is why to me libertarianism is flawed. It tries to pretend the individual lives in a bubble and only works if that is case but it couldn't be further from the truth.
Originally posted by KlawYeah it's almost like history isn't filled with recessions and bad economic times where those types of things go away very easily.
What's wrong with forcing people to contribute to either a public or private plan?
Although I do have a question for you... if you're forcing people to do it what's the difference?
EDIT: Also what would be the punishment if they didn't do it?
Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah it's almost like history isn't filled with recessions and bad economic times where those types of things go away very easily.Although I do have a question for you... if you're forcing people to do it what's the difference?
EDIT: Also what would be the punishment if they didn't do it?
You can do better with a private plan
Originally posted by Klaw
The argument about forced Government retirement plans being a good thing is a horrible argument.Anyone could do better than CPP.
Stop forcing me to contribute to a Government plan, and let me do it myself.
And as for forcing people, unfortunately people won't save for retirement on their own, that's why we have CPP in the first place so they're not screwed when they're older and have to rely on tax dollars to support them.
Originally posted by Artol
If the private plan goes under should they then also have to suffer or should the public pick up the tab?
I would hope that if people were free to contribute to private plans instead of CPP, that there would be enough money so they wouldn't go under.
But if they do go under, another private company can buy the assets which we see all the time.
Originally posted by Klaw
I would hope that if people were free to contribute to private plans instead of CPP, that there would be enough money so they wouldn't go under.But if they do go under, another private company can buy the assets which we see all the time.
My question is more should there be a safety net in terms of retirement for people who did try to use a private pension plan, but for whatever reason (like for example a significant economic downturn just at the time of retirement) do not have enough to retire on as planned?
Originally posted by KlawThat didn't answer my question.
You can do better with a private planAnd as for forcing people, unfortunately people won't save for retirement on their own, that's why we have CPP in the first place so they're not screwed when they're older and have to rely on tax dollars to support them.
What should happen if they choose not to participate in this idea and they don't put money into the plans?
Originally posted by Artol
My question is more should there be a safety net in terms of retirement for people who did try to use a private pension plan, but for whatever reason (like for example a significant economic downturn just at the time of retirement) do not have enough to retire on as planned?
I'm in favor of social safety nets so retirees don't have to live in poverty.
Originally posted by Newjak
That didn't answer my question.What should happen if they choose not to participate in this idea and they don't put money into the plans?
They can't choose not to.
It's forced like I said.
Originally posted by Artol
I can see the argument for someone considering taxes theft, but the overriding problem to me is that people don't have access to resources, means of production or commons, so they are forced to sell their labor for survival, which is coercion on the part of the owners against the ones who have nothing. This extraction of part of their labour is just as much theft as taxes are, in my opinion, and are the bigger more real problem for most people, hence the institution of the state working against that to a degree is justified to me.
Thank you for agreeing that taxes are theft.
I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't.
What would happen if there wasn't a state, or someone to sell their labor to ?
With that question answered, would you want a society with only a state ? Would you want a society with only a market ?
And again, a market is just a price matrix compromised of free(or semi free) people's choices, nothing else.
What job have you worked at where the boss used coercion to get you to work there, and it wasn't you signing up ?
Because that's what coercion means.
You're kind of twisting it to say:
'we exist, therefore we will die if we don't eat. The only way to feed yourself is working, therefore business owners are using violence to force people to work for them.'
I don't agree with that line of thinking, because you would be describing slavery, not a mutually consented upon work contact.
Everyone has a cell phone, so I'm not sure how poor people don't have access to resources.
There's: uber, lyft, air bnb, instacart, etc........
All of those are digital infrastructure aka means of production.
Originally posted by Newjak
That's a faulty analogy. For one the lady wouldn't have any money if she wasn't working in the society that is also taxing her.The fact you want to equate taxes to theft doesn't make it so.
The truth is we are social creatures. Not a one of us can survive on our own. If you wanted to live in a world where there is no such thing as pulled societal resources then perhaps you should have existed as a rock instead of a complex social creature.
This is why to me libertarianism is flawed. It tries to pretend the individual lives in a bubble and only works if that is case but it couldn't be further from the truth.
I don't want to equate them to theft, taxes are definitionally theft.
Look up the definition. Me and Rob just did this. Imposition is in the definition of taxation. Pretty sure cuomo is getting in trouble for sexual imposition, no ?
I agree we're social creatures, hence why I support the division of labor under a free market.
As opposed to the division of labor under the state or workers.
One is the choices of free people, one is not.
No, libertarianism doesn't. I could give you quotes from human action, which is the magnum opus of ludwig von mises.
It goes into great detail about how the division of labor is critical to the creation of society, so that we may all pursue our goals free or violence.
But even von mises takes the state as a given, as he was under the misconception that negative rights could only be upheld by a monopolization of force.
Lucky for us, rothbard recognized the contradiction between civilization requiring non violence, while being controlled by one of the most violent entities on the planet; the US government.
Originally posted by Artol
If the private plan goes under should they then also have to suffer or should the public pick up the tab?
Who gets the help?
Only people that refused to plan accordingly, and need a bailout?
What about people who worked from 6-7 in the morning every day, to 9-10 every night, for 30 years before taking their first vacation, eventually retire in their nice homes, suffer a fall, need to be hospitalized, lose their ability to be independent, banish most of their assets on the advice of a social worker so the state can give them 24/7 care, and get denied any help because they aren't a minority? (This is exactly what happened to my grandfather, including the state representative telling his son that most aide is reserved for minorities).
Originally posted by Newjak
So what's the punishment if they don't do it?Or are you taking money out of their paychecks?
I don't have the specifics, but I would think you would have to sign up for either a public or private plan when you have a job.
Similar to how you fill out tax forms when you get a job, you'd do the same for your retirement.