$5 billion budget boost for pensions
in Economy ·
Andrew Booth29 said:Look, robbery is more of a moral failing than some legal category you decide on via a referendum... but fine, if that's how you want to play it.
And why on earth would you think the government is suddenly going to conjure up pension funds out of thin air just because the economy can't support them? The state doesn't actually own money—it can only take what it can squeeze out of the private sector. Pension funds have the option to diversify their assets globally, spreading wealth abroad to insulate themselves from a local crisis here in the States.
When you transfer your balance from one fund to another, you’re taking your assets with you. 😬
I don't know, these funds are owned by big banks, and we all know how they operate. They need to turn a profit, so they hike interest rates—they’ll likely do the same thing with pensions, cutting payouts just to pad their own bottom line. You can put pressure on the government, and politicians might listen to some proposals, but dealing with Wall Street is a different beast entirely. It’s going to be an uphill battle there.
Besides everything I mentioned above, maybe pension benefits should be pegged to the average salary. Like, somewhere between 20% and 80% of the median income. Pensions are supposed to provide a peaceful retirement, right? If we expect young people to handle things like buying a house and starting a family on an average salary, then a pension capped at 80% of that average should be plenty for people who have already put in their time. Plus, seniors often get perks like free public transit and other discounts.
Basically, the system could be restructured to actually work.
My bigger headache is that $24 billion being used this year just to service debt while the total deficit keeps climbing.
Just think about it: if we weren't pouring that much cash into interest payments, payroll taxes could be significantly lower. We'd actually have money left over.
Around $22 billion goes toward federal employees. But about a third of that flows back to the government through taxes and payroll contributions. So, that's roughly $7 billion right there.
There are about 110,000 people working in government-owned corporations. By eliminating certain payroll taxes, we could use that same amount to cut subsidies to companies, or we could tax the increased profits of the ones that are actually doing well.
That’s another $4 billion.
Then you've got about 80,000 people employed in local government. There could be savings of about $3 billion that the federal government wouldn't have to hand over to municipalities. And since labor costs would drop, the goods and services they buy would get cheaper too...
$24 billion + $7 billion + $4 billion + $3 billion. That adds up to $38 billion already, not counting other savings, the fact that people wouldn't be working under the table or reporting lower wages, and the boost in corporate tax revenue.
That brings us to a total of $44 billion—which is pretty much what we pay in payroll taxes.
With a few more cuts elsewhere, we might not even need to tax payroll at all.
http://ericperez9.blog.com/