The pension system is the biggest evil ever invented.

[Strange]

This type is better

 

That is your unsupported opinion. So I assume it is wrong.

 

today’s pension system is socialist.

 

Yes, that's great isn't it.

When the today's pension system bunkrupt we shall talk again.

 

OK. Bye.

Also, "biggest evil ever"? Really? Worse than murder, rape, genocide, ... You need to get your mind sorted.

[swansont]

The present pension system is two types.First is called income and expenditure and all pension insurance that are coming in is spend for pension.This is bad to spend all the money for the pensioner.The second type is capital.In this case the pension insurance is spend for bonds and stocks.This type is better but the problem is that the bonds and stocks are toxic and the money for pensions are coming from incoming pension insurance not from the investment in stocks and bonds.Or this type is functioning as the first type.That is why I think that everyone must decide what to do with his pension insurance and that today’s pension system is socialist.

 

You assert a lot of things here without backing them up. Why is "income and expenditure" bad? Stocks and bonds are toxic? Prove it.

 

And why is socialism a bad thing? Roads are socialist. I like roads.

 

When the today's pension system bunkrupt we shall talk again.

 

There is no single pension system, so this is moot.

 

 

More meat to your arguments please, and not so much rant.

[georgi_zlatev]

Where is the problem.Each generation which is coming after is more educated,more productive and get more money than the previous generation and also make more pension insurance.In the case where the pension system is income and expenditure it is not fair to spend all the money for pension.If all the money are spent, the pensioner get more money than they worked. The pensioner must get smaller sum than that is collected in pension fund and the rest shall be invested.When in the pension fund gathered enough sum the pension fund must be destoyed and all the capital to be allocated between depositor.It is not fair the pensioner to get more money and the young generation to pay for that.

[studiot]

Are you a member of the younger generation just bitching that you have to do your bit?

 

Half the population of the world is female and traditionally has been denied the opportunity to participate in your wondrous schemes.

 

Get real and consider others.

Edited September 2, 2015 by studiot

[swansont]

It is not fair the pensioner to get more money and the young generation to pay for that.

 

Define "fair"

[georgi_zlatev]

Defending today's system you want the younger generation always to pay the pensioner.Today's pension system is reason for not having children.The younger generation has no future.The god shall punish you for that.

[Endy0816]

There's not a huge amount of difference between the younger generation carrying the burden collectively vs carrying it individually.

 

Situation isn't completely ideal yet for the elderly, but it is better relative to historical norms. Thinking mainly for those whose children are themselves lost to accidents or otherwise unable to help financially to the extent that modern medical care demands.

 

The old system of "have enough children so at least one survives to care for you" is largely what is causing issues today. Even most religions encourage good stewardship, rather than have Man act as Earth's locusts.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Endy0816

[John Cuthber]

Defending today's system you want the younger generation always to pay the pensioner.Today's pension system is reason for not having children.The younger generation has no future.The god shall punish you for that.

That's broadly true of the UK's first state pension system.

And the system was designed and voted for by the young people who knew that would be paying their grandparents' pensions.

They did it because they knew it meant that, in turn, their grandchildren would be paying their pension.

 

That's how it was originally set up.

What's wrong with it?

Also, leave God out of it unless you can supply evidence for Him.

Edited September 3, 2015 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

Where is the problem.

 

I have no idea. You certainly haven't shown that there is one.

Defending today's system you want the younger generation always to pay the pensioner.Today's pension system is reason for not having children.

 

There is a contradiction in those two statements. So which is it?

 

Also, simply repeating this assertion does not make it true. How about some evidence?

 

The god shall punish you for that.

 

Why? Maybe he thinks it is good idea for people to look after each other. Maybe he thinks it is good to reduce the population. He told me that He thinks you are wrong.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Georgi Zlatev and Everyone else

 

This is the Other Science forum and discussion of God and Religion is out of place. All religious discussion should be within the Religion subforum. Posts making a religious argument may be seen as hijacking and thus risk sanction.

 

[georgi_zlatev]

Let’s talk a little about the money. When in one economy there is a lot of money and there is many businesses which compete each other these bisnesses work for very low profit or even at loss. The investment In such businesses is low even negative. Or those who invested may lose capital. The case with labour is not the same. The money earn with labour may be much than if you are investor. Or the labour is more effective earning money than investment. That is the situation when there is a lot of money in economy. In that situation if pensioner have investments they shall receive very little money-lower than they get from pension fund who gathered the pension insurance. In the nature the young are strong while the old are weak. In the economy is the same. The younger work and get money and they are strong. We must not take money from young people and give the pensioner. The young people must invest that money and when they grew older they will retire and they will become weak because they will rely on their investment. From their investment they will receive less money in most of the cases. But so is in the nature.

[Strange]

The money earn with labour may be much than if you are investor. Or the labour is more effective earning money than investment.

 

So that explains why bricklayers are driving round in gold-plated Ferraris and bankers are living on the breadline.

[georgi_zlatev]

I must say something about the money.There is a paradox.From one hand today’s money have low value than money in past.This is called inflation.But today is much harder to win the money than in the past.In the future will be harder to win the money than today.Knowing that it is very important to appreciate the money won from labour today.The money for pension must come from investment not from pension insurance because of the hardship of winnig money from labour.

[Strange]

But today is much harder to win the money than in the past.

 

Assuming by "win" you mean "earn", you can presumably provide some evidence that wages have fallen in real terms (over some significant period, say 1 or 2 generations)?

[georgi_zlatev]

There is some kind of link between devaluation of the money and money won from labour.Devaluating the money cause much harder to win money from labour.

[John Cuthber]

What is the value of money?

As far as I understand it most people (at least in urban populations) now work fewer hours to earn enough to pay for their food than they did, say, a hundred years ago.

[Strange]

There is some kind of link between devaluation of the money and money won from labour.Devaluating the money cause much harder to win money from labour.

 

Do you have any evidence to support this? Or is it just something else you have made up.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Georgi Zlatev you are being asked for proof and or references for your assertions; we do not allow soap-boxing (which is the continued indifference to / ignoral (*) of any counter-arguments or comments) so please start to respond to these requests.

 

* is this a word? If it isn't it should be

[Strange]

* is this a word? If it isn't it should be

Well, it is a word: it follows the English rules of morphology, orthography and phonemics, the meaning is clear and it is useful. But, oddly, it doesn't seem to be in the dictionary. I assume the -al ending works by analogy with something else, but I'm not sure what.

 

(Maybe this needs its own thread...)

Edited September 8, 2015 by Strange

[Phi for All]

Well, it is a word: it follows the English rules of morphology, orthography and phonemics, the meaning is clear and it is useful. But, oddly, it doesn't seem to be in the dictionary. I assume the -al ending works by analogy with something else, but I'm not sure what.

 

(Maybe this needs its own thread...)

 

Done.