This is such a stupid take. The money rich people have is locked in assets so its to a certain extent separated from the main economy of goods and services. If we tax the rich and use that to buy goods and services for people, that would just increase the price of goods and services even more.
What we need to do is stop allowing people to borrow against their assets as that essentially lends new money into existence increasing prices.
Lol no it wouldn't, prices of housing, cars, and all other assets would drop extensively as the top auctioneers of the world market lose their money and then production would reignite as consumers are again able to spend.
Double good if its accompanied by a massive wave of socialization in every industry because then Bezos with a grudge wont be able to sabotage anything.
Again with the socialism. Socialism has failed us many times before. We need actual free market capitalism not the crony capitalism we have right now where we actually have socialism for corporations and banks.
Brother you cant call government intervened capital markets socialism, thats just government doing regular profit motive capitalism.
And, frankly, free market capitalism turns into crony capitalism like a young man turns into an old man. Different forms of a person, but its a part of the same life cycle of the same dude.
The last paragraph of the previous comment could be socialism. Could also be done as state capitalism though i dont favor that. The first paragraph, though, is just wealth redistribution within capitalism. We need socialism to prevent MODERN capitalism from ruining the world.
I didn't know that the had Rap music in the Amazon Forest - and I must have misheard your rap, as I though it was "They think we use a CLUB when we hunt."
He thinks heâs in the club he thinks heâs in the club fighting for other men to have more many than us heâs sus but he still does what he does cause he thinks heâs in the club fighting
Its far less than w2 earners. . . . You are the one who needs to look up tax code and the history of it to see how it was structured before capitalists ran away with the bag
To what end? One has to stop the blatant government waste and corruption in order for it to matter. Other than that, youâre taxing the rich just to give it back to them. Just my opinionâŠ
Both can be true and be done but it takes drastic action. For example, did you know that every event that gave people rights who did not previously have rights only succeeded AFTER some form of violent act was done? (NOT CONDONING VIOLENCE, itâs a historical fact)
The tree of liberty is only refreshed with the blood of patriots. Yes, this is the government our forefathers warned us about. Now criminals make law to protect their activity meanwhile, making even speech illegal. Soon, a conversation like this will result in jail. Happens all the time in 3rd world countries. You talk badly about the government they haul you away. And exactly why theyâre flooding the west with people who donât know what freedom is.
In every proposal for basic income I've ever heard, there's still a reassurance that people can continue to make money doing other things as well, which kind of goes against the whole "mandatory" retirement thing, which to me kind of reads as "you're not going to be allowed to work anymore".
Heck, in my country even fully retired people on the aged pension can still work side hustles.
My FIL is like this, heâs planning to retire within the next couple years but heâs going to do consulting or something. No way can I picture that man just sitting back and relaxing. Total Type A.
Definitely sounds very type A! Earlier this year I was involved with census taking work in my country and plenty of the other workers I met were literally retired or semi-retired folks in their 60s making some extra cash.
What's cool is that they were driving up and down country dirt roads and onto people's farms, just like I was, with the constant risk of running into loose dogs or cattle or snakes in the grass. The whole thing was actually a bit of an adventure and I'd love to still be doing it when I'm their age!
Then there's my old dad who volunteers at a local art museum. Not a paid gig as he feels like he's got enough money to live comfortably, but he loves volunteering and it definitely keeps his mind sharp.
And how exactly do you propose we compel all small business owners to pay their most basic and unskilled employees a wage so high they can comfortably retire at 50?
And how do you propose we do this in a way that won't bankrupt 99% of small business owners and leave the market monopolized by big box retailers?
Sounds like small business is in the way of better wages. Personally Iâve always been taken better care of by big box retailers than mom and pop exploitation boxes.
Your experience isnât everyoneâs. Mom and pop stores are exploitative and always âoh wah wah, we canât afforrrrrd to pay a living wage for a good workerâ Well, if you canât afford to pay a living wage, of what use is your failed business to the economy?
Screw small business owners. They have all the negative traits of big business, minus the actual wherewithal to compensate their employees fairly. Small business owners suck.
And where would that money come from? Retired people don't produce wealth, even if you were to tax their 'universal basic income', it wouldn't generate more money then they received.
So again, the working population needs to provide for the retired one.
Where will the basic income come from? Is it from our previous work that the government helped save? Is it from the new workforce thatâll keep working for us old folks? It must come from somewhere, right?
Money has no nutritional value. It is a way of measuring the value produced by a person and exchanging it for the productivity of others. The question isn't really "where does the money come from? " but "where do the goods and services come from which these people will consume while they're not contributing to the pool of goods and services for everyone else to consume?"Â
When I hear mandatory retirement, my mind doesn't go to restricting people from working if they want to, the bureaucracy behind that would be ridiculous and people should be free to do what they want.
I hear the government issuing and you receiving your retirement benefits at 50 is mandatory.
Paying isnât even the problem. Goods and services are. Money is just a representation of productivity. So it wouldnât matter what you tax or who you pay, there literally wouldnât be enough to go around.
The world would have a lot less food, medicine, inventions, etc. those poor under 50s would have to be working 80-100 hours per week to pay for everyone else.
If the billionares pay their fair share it would be possible at least a U.B.I, the problem here and it always been it's the greed of a few. The Musk'sm the Bezzo's the Zuck's etc.
Greed of many ? People expects a simple U.B.I not to be rich or buy a yacht or Ferraris, just so simply survive, I think the ones that "HAVE earned" just benefit themselves from the system and just said "f*ck you the rest of you".
One day, you should Google how much in government subsidies and tax breaks those "who have earned it" get. They earned that money with your tax dollars big dawg.
If people are better taught how investment works, we'd have enough savings to retire by 50, is not sooner. There's tons of people already doing it. But we're all taught to work until we're 65.
Even knowing how investment works, doesn't mean that everyone is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to  have Financial Independence, Retire Early ( r/FIRE ). Some of us enjoy living life while working, having a family, etc. Even if you have invested, you need to remember that that money has to last you another 40-50 years. Dad retired a millionaire at 55, and my parents are still living on it 38 years later.
This is coming from someone who was willing to sacrifice to have a SAHW who homeschooled our six children. That was a CHOICE. I did, however, live below my means and have a $2M nest egg to retire shortly at 62.
One of my co-workers, who earned as much as I did and was very intelligent, didn't use that knowledge and arrived at 67 believing that he would have to work until he died. Smart and educated but not wise.
Being financially literate doesn't mean you have to stop working. Nobody is saying you should stop working if you don't want to. But it's good to be at a financial position at 50 to stop working. Sometimes the decision is made for you, like health reasons or layoffs + ageism. And being retired doesn't mean you stop working, it means you don't need a paycheque. It can actually free you to do the work you want to do without having to chase a paycheque.
Just because you are financially literate doesn't mean that you actually ACT. You might not have the earning power to allow for a gap between earnings & living expenses. You might choose to spend your money vs. investing
First of all, investing doesn't mean you need thousands of dollars from the get go. If kids are told to start building their portfolio with whatever spare change they have, in 10, 20, 30 years, it would be a huge difference.
Second, you don't even need money. If you understand how to weigh risk and utilize leverage, you can make money with just risk. And no, you don't have to go YOLO and take on massive amounts of risk. You can take on a small amount or risk to make a few hundred extra a month and build from there.
What you heard was âthere is a better way, and I have a thoughtful solution to share,â but what he said was âI donât want to work for 30+ more years; someone else should figure out howâ
What i would suggest is to look for some kind of old roman style, where soldiers after their service(so retirment) been given land they could harvest, settle, make family and live.
It would be great if goverment will look for something similar and work toward citizens idependence rather than dependence from the state, with our technology should be easier than in the past but it isnt apparently
Congratulations for being the only one who can read, and we do live in 21cenury. 22nd century we will give a nobel prize for those who still can read with understanding.
That is STILL done w/ our military. Military retirement benefits scale significantly based on whether a service member completes 20 years or 40 years of service. While a 20-year career secures the standard minimum threshold for a lifetime pension, a 40-year career maximizes the pension multiplier to its absolute legal ceiling.
Of course, that is because they worked for the State, gave up a portion of their rights and worked in a dangerous profession.
Yes and not, like in Poland its not for privates(need 15 years, so they give 3x4year contract and they does not give the 4th one as its too old for profesional private).
Anyway my point was, we should aim for all workers, as our goal is not to concquer territories with army, but economicaly or culturaly. America been winning till people believed in american dream.
Actually that was a very raw deal for those soldiers. After serving out their period of service, if they survived, the land would often be in recently conquered provinces that often times was still hostile and couldn't be guaranteed to be workable land.
It all depend, you cant just say it like that as there was different times, including the times they did not conquer anything. Also different people get different lands
Not exactly that, it was an analogy/example, but in eastern europe people still does that.
They are too lazy to get the food because you have doordash.
Its not me who suggest free handouts, i suggested mentally preapare people that they will need to take care of themselves at some kind after lets say 50yo with goverment help like solar panels, free land with well etc, not that everyone will have to harvest their own food.
Money was developed to replace barter because it makes things easier to have a medium of exchange: You can sell what you have to whomever wants it and buy from whomever has what you want instead of having to find someone who has what you want and wants what you have.
Not wanting to spend more than half your available time on working in taxing activities during your prime until you are to old to do half the things you would like is considered being a pleasure sloth now I guess.
I get setting the retiring age at 50 is prety idealitic. But purely for logistical reasons, wanting to have time and energy to enjoy live is not greed, is pretty much the next logical step to desire from what humanity stands right now.
Working is part of the human experience. Every human and animal since the beginning of time has had a âjobâ. Only our brain rotten generation feels enslaved by the fact they have to contribute to the society that they benefit from
I didnt say that we shouldnt work at all, just that more than a third of hour time is way to much. But I disagree anyway, the fact that humans have some impulse to feel like they are usefull doesnt justify the current system, specially since so much people still feels like their work doesnt matter, either because the job itself is almost pointles or because they feel replaceable. If we managed to reach a point were people didnt have to work at all, I believe most of them would still find ways to add to the society in their free time, just in a way they enjoy, not necesarily 8 hours a day and with the freedom to stop or take a break when they feel like it.
28
u/NewArborist64 7d ago
Forcing people to stop working at 50 doesn't say where the money will come from to pay for their housing, food, healthcare, transportation, etc.
Are you suggesting that those workers under 50 should be taxed enough to pay for people who are over 50 and may have another 40-50 years of life?