91–100 of 122 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's often needed for reasons mostly tangential from pensions Such as?
Moving companies is the only way to get a promotion or a substantial raise in the current business climate. Had I stayed at the same company I'd be the highest paid developer but making 40-50% less than what a competitor has paid for my skillset.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's often needed for reasons mostly tangential from pensions Such as?
Companies used to provide pensions as an incentive to stay at the company long term and not change employers, but really most of them don't care to plan for employees to stay and be developed long term.. so accordingly no pension plan is offered either. Even ones that still offer pensions, if the support isn't there then it's in conflict with how a pension matures it's benefits. Many companies treat workers as interc…
I guess that's a reason other than pensions, technically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pensions aren't portable - in the modern labor market where people are expected to have multiple emplyers and possibly even career arcs, that's a pretty limiting. Personally, I feel that too many pensions plans (private and state) are at financial risk and have seen too many companies go under (wiping out pensions), or severely cut back (changing their payouts and coverage). Really, I'd prefer something more portable…
That's why pensions should be provided by the government, as one of the things paid for by all those taxes you paid over the years. Which is why I get really mad when the current Australian government tries to spin it that retirees are 'bludgers' and are a drain on the system when they draw their (paltry) pensions. No, these people paid 40 years' worth of taxes to the government, and being supported by the government…
Any retirement plan dependent on government means that you will get less value out than you put in. Think about “management fees” on an index fund – a fraction of a percent generally. Think about the de facto management fee taken by government – orders of magnitude more. Not to mention your return on “investment” is rather low and you can’t pass on a government pension to your children. So if you die at 50, the government keeps all that excess you “paid in.” That isn’t fair. People ought to have the freedom to opt-out.
A compromise might be to require paying in to a system, but you get to direct where that money is invested. Somewhat like a mandatory IRA. In the US, you are forced to pay into social security – why not “force” people to have an IRA instead? However I think the real reason that doesn’t work is that it would make people less dependent on particular political parties – because the government no longer has as much power over your survival. “Vote for us or else will cut your benefits and make you starve.
Unfortunately, with all the talk of freedom, it’s mostly just talk. Actual freedom means being able to make your own decisions as well as living with the good or bad consequences of those decisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was born and raised in Illinois too, but live in California now. Mind explaining how the third-largest metro economy in the country is ruining our state?
How about having a massive murder rate? Having a great train system is great, but it's not exactly something to brag about and definitely something someone is going to overlook the murder rate for.
I'm disappointed that two other large pieces of the economic puzzle are left out: workers and government. Corporations have more cash than they know what to do with? That means that 1) wages are too low, and 2) taxes are too low. More specific to Apple's case, the hoarding of cash overseas to avoid paying US taxes on it is one of many poisonous symptoms of our international capitalism. The amount of tax Apple would p…
Why should Apple pay any taxes to the US government for things it sells overseas? They already paid (or in this case, avoided) EU taxes on the sales in EU countries. If we're arguing about 'fairness', the EU should be getting approximately all of the taxes the Irish subsidiary allows Apple to avoid. Double-taxing exports (1x from the US government, 1x from the country they are sold in) is a really bizarre policy, esp…
I'm disappointed that two other large pieces of the economic puzzle are left out: workers and government. Corporations have more cash than they know what to do with? That means that 1) wages are too low, and 2) taxes are too low. More specific to Apple's case, the hoarding of cash overseas to avoid paying US taxes on it is one of many poisonous symptoms of our international capitalism. The amount of tax Apple would p…
I guess this may be not popular opinion here, but I don't see anything wrong with legally avoiding taxes. It might be wrong that the whole system is convoluted enough that this would be very hard for your average honest citizen, but easy enough for resourceful corporation, if anything. But avoiding taxes seems only logical, if you think you can manage and allocate resources better than your government. And rest assur…
I'm disappointed that two other large pieces of the economic puzzle are left out: workers and government. Corporations have more cash than they know what to do with? That means that 1) wages are too low, and 2) taxes are too low. More specific to Apple's case, the hoarding of cash overseas to avoid paying US taxes on it is one of many poisonous symptoms of our international capitalism. The amount of tax Apple would p…
This idea that companies should have essentially zero cash is absurd. If that isn’t the argument you are making, then how much is enough? And, who gives you the right to decide that amount? The company isn’t yours. Nobody should tell you how much money you should keep in the bank, so what gives you the right to decide how much money someone else keeps in the bank?
You want Apple to repatriate foreign earnings? Lower corporate taxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess this may be not popular opinion here, but I don't see anything wrong with legally avoiding taxes. It might be wrong that the whole system is convoluted enough that this would be very hard for your average honest citizen, but easy enough for resourceful corporation, if anything. But avoiding taxes seems only logical, if you think you can manage and allocate resources better than your government. And rest assur…
Taxes are intended to raise revenue. I don't see how making the tax code nearly incomprehensible enough people assign moralistic qualities to exploiting it fully is a working system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other side of the coin is that regardless of who is holding the money the government not being able to spend it could be considered a better allocation just because they are so damn wasteful. Just because the government SHOULD be correct doesn't mean it actually is, and just because a law says money shall be allocated for X doesn't mean any real value is coming out of X, and the work the money is doing by being k…
Again, that claim is easily refuted by considering the state of medical spending in the US. Unless by 'government' you mean only the US government. Many other governments are daily demonstrating their ability to deliver more affordable and cost-effective healthcare than the US.
It’s an apples and oranges comparison because The US effectively subsidizes the advances enjoyed by other countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other side of the coin is that regardless of who is holding the money the government not being able to spend it could be considered a better allocation just because they are so damn wasteful. Just because the government SHOULD be correct doesn't mean it actually is, and just because a law says money shall be allocated for X doesn't mean any real value is coming out of X, and the work the money is doing by being k…
Again, that claim is easily refuted by considering the state of medical spending in the US. Unless by 'government' you mean only the US government. Many other governments are daily demonstrating their ability to deliver more affordable and cost-effective healthcare than the US.
One could argue that the medical system the us has right now is inefficient BECAUSE of the current legislation. It is a very regulated industry, it hasnt gotten to this point because of its unregulated capitalism.