Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A world without retirement?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 169 posts

Re: A world without retirement?

#21

Post by tanderson92 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #19
simonsarris wrote: post #5

I'm currently writing a list of things to consider when creating a UBI scheme (concerns that I often don't see addressed), and this is an easy way to illustrate one of them. One simple way to implement "single payer" healthcare in the US would be to slowly expand the medicare (US program for people 65 and older) coverage by moving the age lower every year. Very similarly, a simple way to incrementally implement UBI w…

UBI is a redistribution expense, that means, the government takes taxes from richer people, and distribute it to everybody. Retirement is an entitlement pyramid, that means, people pay the government for it to take care of older participants, and by doing so they get entitled into receiving something in proportion to what they paid. Besides it being a pyramid, a UBI scheme where total received is proportional to tota…

> Retirement is an entitlement pyramid, that means, people pay the government for it to take care of older participants

This is news to those who retire and live on investment income.

Re: A world without retirement?

#22

Post by gkya »

Neliquat wrote: post #11

If your retirement is not self-funded, you likey don't have one. Your future is your responsibility, if you are able. Do it while you can, or grow old without.

Oh yes and everybody should set up their sewage systems and raise their own crops in their own backyards. Society doesn't function like that.

Re: A world without retirement?

#23

Post by dragonwriter »

simonsarris wrote: post #5

I'm currently writing a list of things to consider when creating a UBI scheme (concerns that I often don't see addressed), and this is an easy way to illustrate one of them. One simple way to implement "single payer" healthcare in the US would be to slowly expand the medicare (US program for people 65 and older) coverage by moving the age lower every year. Very similarly, a simple way to incrementally implement UBI w…

> How do people who think a feasible UBI future is possible square with this?

You have to address the revenue to pay for it, which in most places means ending preferential tax treatment of capital income. Right now, pretty much the whole world has, at any income level, heavier taxation of labor than capital (in the US, higher direct taxes coupled with employer mandates that act as additional taxes; as well as addressing​ direct taxes those mandates need replaced with public social programs so they aren't burdens on employing labor.)

Re: A world without retirement?

#24

Post by aianus »

simonsarris wrote: post #5

I'm currently writing a list of things to consider when creating a UBI scheme (concerns that I often don't see addressed), and this is an easy way to illustrate one of them. One simple way to implement "single payer" healthcare in the US would be to slowly expand the medicare (US program for people 65 and older) coverage by moving the age lower every year. Very similarly, a simple way to incrementally implement UBI w…

> Very similarly, a simple way to incrementally implement UBI would be to lower the "retirement age" every year

Why would you first give UBI to the richest people (old people at the peak of their careers with a lifetime of savings)?

Sounds backwards to me.

Re: A world without retirement?

#25

Post by VLM »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #18

Step 1: Oh my god we can't pay for retirement! Step 2: Raise the age of retirement. (Phew!) Step 3: Oh my god unemployment is raising! (Those no-longer- retirees must find a job, right?) Step 4: Get rid of unemployment insurance (in part or in whole). Step 5: things get real ugly real quick. --- Seriously, raising the age of retirement in the face of raising technological unemployment is nuts . Those who push for thi…

Step 4 was implemented in the USA with SSDI. There's heavy emotional baggage to tag people as permanently totally disabled merely because the economy is too small to let them participate. Also its kinda a mess mixing essentially fake claims (from a medical disease perspective) vs real claims. So the same program takes care of a guy with 100% disability back pain who sells his pain pills (a whole nother problem) and plays video games all day but is actually physically healthy while merely economically dead, with another dude missing some limbs or brain damaged.

Its weird but mostly seems to be working rather than your step #5.

Around 1 in 20 people in the USA are on SSDI. The exact ratio of who's economically damaged vs physically damaged is unclear but you can guess by looking at rate graphs over the last couple decades, since the 80s perhaps.

Re: A world without retirement?

#26

Post by FT_intern »

groestl wrote: post #9

Where do the jobs for the elderly come from, if even young, healthy people are gradually priced out of their jobs by technology and automation? Right now, good jobs are replaced by bad, underpaid ones. Desperate people are serving burritos to a smaller group of people who are lucky to have the skills necessary in this time of transition. All of them work to aggregate productive capital in the hands of the very few. I…

Technology has made maintaining a job infinitely easier for the elderly compared to physical labor jobs.

The problem is that many who approach old age are not trained in technology

Re: A world without retirement?

#27

Post by shorttime »

tradersam wrote: post #2

> Bismarck did, however, have a further vision that was genuinely too radical for his era: he proposed a pension that could be drawn at any age, if the contributor was judged unfit for work. Those drawing it earlier would receive a lower amount. I wonder how well this would work in today's society. Pretending disability doesn't exist, and just making it a simple rate decrease for the earlier you withdraw.

Isn't this essentially social security disability?

Re: A world without retirement?

#28

Post by paulddraper »

aianus wrote: post #24
simonsarris wrote: post #5

I'm currently writing a list of things to consider when creating a UBI scheme (concerns that I often don't see addressed), and this is an easy way to illustrate one of them. One simple way to implement "single payer" healthcare in the US would be to slowly expand the medicare (US program for people 65 and older) coverage by moving the age lower every year. Very similarly, a simple way to incrementally implement UBI w…

> Very similarly, a simple way to incrementally implement UBI would be to lower the "retirement age" every year Why would you first give UBI to the richest people (old people at the peak of their careers with a lifetime of savings)? Sounds backwards to me.

You'd give UBI to those least able to work and generate an income.

Re: A world without retirement?

#29

Post by paulddraper »

TillE wrote: post #8
simonsarris wrote: post #5

I'm currently writing a list of things to consider when creating a UBI scheme (concerns that I often don't see addressed), and this is an easy way to illustrate one of them. One simple way to implement "single payer" healthcare in the US would be to slowly expand the medicare (US program for people 65 and older) coverage by moving the age lower every year. Very similarly, a simple way to incrementally implement UBI w…

UBI is very simple if you allow the state to acquire capital and cultivate it in a sovereign wealth fund. Imagine, for example, public ownership of 50% of the most valuable real estate in the country, which is then rented as usual. You don't need sky-high taxes when there's income from capital to distribute.

Using taxes to crowd out investment markets...can't go wrong there.

Re: A world without retirement?

#30

Post by shorttime »

Neliquat wrote: post #11

If your retirement is not self-funded, you likey don't have one. Your future is your responsibility, if you are able. Do it while you can, or grow old without.

This certainly seems to be the trend in America today. Looking at history, clearly we are moving toward the individual being the pinnacle of importance. Gone are the days of family, unity, knowing neighbors, big social gatherings. Even interactions with others today are not as community-oriented, barely anyone knows their neighbors, people rarely communicate in public scenarios (subways), everyone wants their own sovereignty without having to lend a helping hand. I can only mention these opinions from things I've read on the past and my own experiences but it seems that the individual is the importance in today's society. Not sure if that's a good thing either. The individual must be precise and unfailing if there is no safety net. A group can better handle risk and mitigate negative consequences. The only benefit I see from focusing more on the individual is freedom. Freedom at what cost?
Post reply on HN