Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A Universal US Pension

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 27, 2013, 5:22 p.m. EST by shoozTroll (17632)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

With the condition of today's defined pension plans and various forms of IRAs, it appears the time is correct for an expansion of Social Security.

"NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Here's an intriguing concept: Every American should have a pension.

Far-fetched? Maybe not.

A study shows the vast majority of U.S. adults (especially millennials, the generation of U.S. adults born after 1976) say the current retirement system is in major disrepair and needs an overhaul. To many Americans, a national pension plan is the way to go."

http://business-news.thestreet.com/the-oakland-press/story/vast-majority-wants-a-us-pension/11853378

74 Comments

74 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Try to keep in mind who ran that poll. Like FOX coming out and saying 88% of all Americans think "Obama is ruining the economy"

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I knew you didn't read the link.

You never do.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

The corporations and municipalities everywhere are gonna love this one, yea baby.

[-] 0 points by whaddyathink (-89) from Millville, NJ 1 year ago

I'll tell ya something. I've contributed to my IRA, no one else. I've managed it responsibly so that I'm not a burden to anyone else. Keep your hands off of my IRA (and 401K).

If you don't, that's when the long knives come out. That's not a threat, it's a promise. I've earned it, stay away.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I'm sure you didn't lose a dime in the crash.

WallStreet has been SO generous with you and you alone.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

All the pensions and ss payments in the world dont matter when inflation is rampant and the government is in the middle of a global takeover.

Personally, I dont want war criminals in charge of my retirement. If people do, thats fine.

Im not too fond of a government as corrupted as this one, investing for me over the next 40 years. And after this past election, it appears most Americans could care less, which is even more terrifying.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Of course. Turn all of your money into bling and stuff your mattress full of dried beans.

Or do you just prefer to give it to Wallstreet unfettered?

Oh, and if you had read it? You would know that most Americans disagree with you.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

So because most people disagree with that, it means its not valid? You dont think I could do a better job with my money than to bomb poor people? Or bailout banks?

This entire sequester nonsense only futhers the point- 85 billion in cuts, while Wall St gets 85 billion a month.

Go ahead, keep feeding them and bowing down. That outta get you some change.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Do you ever make a comment anymore that's on point?

It's obvious you didn't follow the link.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I did. People want other people who bomb and kill to manage their retirements. Good luck with that.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Don't buy anything that pays a single dime to Wallstreet.

In fact.

Stay off the internet. That pays for it too.

Cut off their money supply. If you believe what you are saying.

But yuo don't.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

We are talking about retirement packages. Lets not start making comparisons like that...

Its like right wingers telling me I drive a car, therefore Im a hypocrite on the environment. Its just semantics.

We are all in teh system regardless, unless we move.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

No you weren't.

There was no we about it.

You like WallStreet.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

NeoLibe(R)tarians? haha

"A study shows the vast majority of U.S. adults (especially millennials, the generation of U.S. adults born after 1976) say the current retirement system is in major disrepair and needs an overhaul. To many Americans, a national pension plan is the way to go."

Der der derrrrr.... Did Murdoch's check come in yet?!! :( Very sad.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Was the meant to be coherent?

It was just meaninglessly off topic.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Actually it was the main piece of your title.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

OK

sure.

And the 99% are asses, 'cause you say so.

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

Hmm. Sounds like Social Security under a different name. How would it be funded? Would it be in addition to social security or would it replace social security?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

This is all I have, so far.

Corporatist's raiding and underfunding pensions is why SS came into being.

They are doing it all over again.

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

I know this is an old, tired cliche, but I am not personally putting much stock in social security once I retire at the age of around 75 or 80 by my reckoning. It might be there. Not much I can do one way or the other. Perhaps a national pension may come about after a hard look at ways to fix social security. But I am not hooking my wagon to that star

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You need a nice job on an assembly line building compact cars.

I want to see you climbing in and out of them in the required time, when you are 80.

Fool.

Don't worry, WallStreet will "fix" everything for you.

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2022) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

I will see your pension and raise you to "buy out!"

Considering the billions we've thrown and lost at dubious economical problems, and our continuing high unemployment, why don't we buy off early retirees and give our economy a giant boost?!

Since rampant employer agism is already discriminating against new hires over 45 anyway (another problem in need of addressing) why don't we take [them] out of the job market with a $million buy out with the condition that they have to buy a house. That would free up needed jobs, sell a lot of houses, give us about the best economical bang for the buck possible, and help a whole lot of needy and exploited people! And it's less than 100 million people, that's maybe a damn fighter jet and way less than a nuclear submarine! We may want to consider raiding our Pentagon budget and going Kuwait.

Together with some other reforms ~ like cracking down on offshoring jobs, tax havens/evasion, and massive fund hoarding ~ we could really do some good, has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? "Good!"

[-] 2 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

100 million multiply by 1 million .. ? 100 trillion !

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2022) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Ooops! Fitting handle.

Obviously math was not my major. Got a good laugh out my nebulous oversight. I was definitely channeling W!

Corrections will have to be made. Fewer people, less money, bigger boat. Over 55 to 62? $500K? A few subs? No Kuwait!

Other contexts and reforms withstanding.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

bigger boat .. lol

The answer is "profit sharing" With an efficient running economy, we could all retire early if profits were fairly divided.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2022) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Mind set changing: 180 degree reversal of GREED!

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

As long as it's the corporations footing that bill.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I like the idea of every person should have a living allowance; from the day they are born.

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I never understood the logic the government should take care of us cradle to grave. Who will pay for it. What freedoms will be forfeited to get it. It would make me feel the government owns me.

Sorry, not for me. I believe in self reliance as much as possible. I know some people, for whatever reason, will need to be taken care of. But even that should part of a family’s job.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Have you ever played the game of Monopoly, Everyone gets a turn at the dice and each time they pass go they get $200. And with that $200 they begin to build their lives .. investing and growing .. They use it to grow .. But what if .. they did not get the $200 .. they got nothing at all .. there would be no investing .. no growing ..

Now in the real world .. if everyone recieve a living allowance .. they could than grow from there .. with a living allowance they could atleast attain their first job .. perhaps pay their way through an education .. A living allowance is something to start and build on .. and eventually fall back on in the retirement years ..

It would work great .. for everyone ..

Currently we have no living allowance .. and some 400 people have 30 trillion in off shore accounts ..

EDIT: Do the Math.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (387) 1 year ago

One problem with your anology. There is a limited number of players so funding them is quite easily done. And yet the game is played until one person has all.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

You' re missing the point. A living allowance gives everyone something to work with.. A starting point.

I know many retired folk whom still participate in the community.. Why? they do not need the cash .. they simply enjoy being involved .. being active ..a sense of usefulness .. a sense of accomplishment.

If everyone recieved a living allowance , most would still pursue adventurous careers .. Life would become an event of pleasure ..fullfilling necessary tasks as a joy .. and not as a demand.

It's a difficult point to get across ..

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

It's not a difficult point to get across. It's a point that relies on irrational ideas. 1) the idea that there's a magical pot somewhere from which all this money would come from, and that all the money would continually magically renew itself indefinitely. 2) that all things being equal, the human race would suddenly be made up of perfectly happy, content, agreeable people who would all be involved simply from the sheer pleasure of involvement.

You can give every single person the same amount of money but you cannot insure that they all spend it wisely and use it to grow success or benefit others. People are people.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Whats your point ?

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

You missed my point? Apparently it's too difficult to get across to you. Sorry.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

You can give every single person the same amount of money but you cannot insure that they all spend it wisely and use it to grow success or benefit others. People are people.

Why would you say this ?

This statement tells me you clearly do not understand the purpose of a living allowance. It's not make the world a better place , it's to make an individuals life a better place.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Then let me rephrase-

You can give every single person the same amount of money, but you cannot insure that they will spend it wisely and use it to make their lives better.

So why is it that we don't give people a living allowance now and they aren't all dead?

[-] 2 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

..and my point is,

  • If we give people a living allowance they will still be productive .. and, have a happier life.
[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

People are productive WITHOUT a living allowance and happiness is a choice. Some of the poorest tribes of people in the world are some of the happiest.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2687) 1 year ago

Sure, but lots of kids in world die from hunger too, if we look at whole world of people.

The world is facing a hunger crisis unlike anything it has seen in more than 50 years. 925 million people are hungry. Every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes.

http://www.bread.org/hunger/global/

People need sufficient food to be happy,

There are also working poor around world and in usa

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I agree with you. But where does the money come from to give the whole world a "living allowance"?

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago
  • see formula a few comments up.
[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Yep. Not to mention a whole lot of cards where you don't get to pass go or get your $200, and "bad" things happen and money must be paid out.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Would you like to be the banker !

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Not for all the money on the board, or in the world.

[-] 0 points by gsw (2687) 1 year ago

That sounds great but does the math add up? Billions don't go far divided by 150,000,000 people close to poverty.

I'd like a food/drink credit on income taxes. Fuel credit. Paid for by corporations tax for market access in USA, especially corps getting off tax free in past years. Maybe a technology credits too. Also on utilities, cable.

This might free up some money and get economy and maybe some jobs back.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I actually have a formula for this.

  • Take the average wage of every man woman and child.

  • Subtract the average wage from your wage.

  • If the result is positive , you pay one third the difference.

  • If the result is negative , you recieve one third the difference.

Do the Math.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2687) 1 year ago

That seems logical. I really like to see real figures with math, I avoided the subject as a general rule.

So do we have the mean, or average income of every man, woman child?

The idea sounds interesting and intriguing.

So let's say a couple with 1 child have a gross income of $65,000.00 maybe hat would be in middle and there might or might not be a net gain, but you idea does make sense for ensuring "better living wages"

Or maybe there would be a little increase, as the average of the 3 would be about $21,670?

You're not the problem solver moniker for nothing.

So I discovered this...

[-] 1 points by gsw (2687) 1 year ago

In 2006, the "real" (adjusted for inflation) median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.[7] The real median earnings of men who worked full-time, year-round climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113 (about 3.6 times minimum wage in 2006 to 3.7 times minimum wage in 2007). For women, the corresponding increase was from $33,437 to $35,102 (2.8 and 2.9 times minimum wage respectively). The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006.[8]

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

..the numbers are certainly attainable.

[-] -1 points by TheBlackSun (-32) 1 year ago

So are you one of the people that is talking about confiscating everyone's 401K's?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You're obviously hearing things again, besides WallStreet already does that. Little by little, or all at once.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27996) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yeah and no one has the temerity to call it what it is - stealing to pay bad gambling debts or to cover a bad gambling habit.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

It's the biggest pyramid scheme on the Planet.

A pyramid scheme that's run not unlike the way the mafia is run.

That's why they want to use SS in an unfettered fashion.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27996) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - more funds to fuel their gambling - where the only loser is the people - they have rigged the house to win while losing.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

That's how the mafia works...........:)

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27996) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The mob has been moving into legitimate business to hide it's operations - so - here is where the move has been made visible.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

WallStreet was never really a legitimate business. So it becomes a chicken and egg kind of question.

They are the loan sharks of business.

Shysters and shylocks, the lot.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27996) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - I gotta agree - the game was set in motion a long long time ago to separate people from their money - so someone else could play with it.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

That's it, in a nutshell.

That this was the first movement in my lifetime that recognized that, is what brought me here in support.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27996) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It is gr8 having a site to speak out against the criminals and all of the ills of society - to be able to unite - discuss - reach out and educate - and provide alternatives for society to support.

[-] -1 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

that would be the squawking of nuts such as Teresa Ghilarducci. If you listen to Forbes, there is no concern right now, but I do not like hearing anyone talk about these ideas.. Still haven't heard anything about funding of this national pension plan

[-] -1 points by TheBlackSun (-32) 1 year ago

Too true. And notice all the stinkle you are getting. In other words the DNC doesn't want us to talk about it.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

LOL! You get a twinkle for that.

[-] -1 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

the more stinkle, the better. I like tip toeing into enemy territory:) More to achieve.

[-] -2 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

Lets see.Social security,We pay in the goverment takes out.We go to collect but the moneywent to fund corporate wars.We paid in but when we go to collect it is a "Entitlement".Anyone remember when Georgie Bush wanted to turn it over to Wall ST.It is a good idea for Americans to have a just social contract.All that money makes it hard for the piggie's to control themselves.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

So was that a for, or against?

The majority is for.

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

A slippery slope for, opens the money up to theft by the bankers using their in the pocket politicians.Against has deep social and economic ramifications to our people. I Do not think this problem will resolve itself unless we stop Wall st.If I was young etc I would not use this system.I am not young and have paid into it for a good amount of time as did my employer.The Bankers have had eyes on this pot of gold from it's inception.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Slippery slope???

That's not an answer, but then, what isn't these days..

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

I am for it.

I am also for public education.

Public roads

Public transportation etc.

After our elders built and paid for them they are now freely going private.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Cool.

I know you and I don't agree on everything, but I figured you would find this interesting.

It doesn't have a canary's chance in a cat cage of becoming law at this time, but it sounds like it will be necessary some day.

Shorting pensions, if they even offer them, is a part of the corporate way of, life these days. And if WallStreet wants for their vig? You won't have a pension.

An IRA gambling chit, isn't much better. I made $0.16 on $7,000 last quarter.

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

You can play with the money if you have a number of years if front of your exit date.Things happen and life never stays on course.Saving is good.It allows for a degree of flexability.The less exposure to market fees is what will give you the best long term results.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Yeah, but $0.16 a quarter?

I'd like Dimon to live on that.

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

It's like that sometimes.