Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Prunestand t1_j3t38pk wrote

Reply to comment by xybet in Walmart cashier, 82, retires after TikTok raises $100,000 by greatestmofo

> Well... Personally I'd make better saving and investing the deducted amount, but I do like the safety net as well in case something goes wrong.. It just allows a lot of unemployment and abuse, and is not sustainable with growing population. Which means I'm probably paying for pension that I'll never receive, whereas investing it, it would stay mine..

I'd say it is even worse without a safety net. You literally have to work if your savings is somehow wiped out.

2

xybet t1_j3uuw12 wrote

Yeah.. And even a normal savings account that hardly caters for inflation will be better than forced safety net that is negative and abused.

0

Prunestand t1_j3z20p7 wrote

> And even a normal savings account that hardly caters for inflation will be better than forced safety net that is negative and abused.

So great 80-year olds can't retire?

0

xybet t1_j3zyctk wrote

Why couldn't they?

What you're obviously not wanting to understand or take in to account is that you've PAID for the safety net yourself, it doesn't just exist for free. And the payments have gone with negative investment rate because the safety net is not built to account for population growth or abuse. Literally the same as investing with negative rate.

If you invest like a moron, you will lose your investment like a moron. If you invest stupid but enough to cover inflation, you're already better off than losing forcefully deducted negative capita. If you invest smart enough to gain profit on top of inflation, you're good enough to retire earlier than planned.

1

Prunestand t1_j3zzys2 wrote

>if you invest like a moron, you will lose your investment like a moron. If you invest stupid but enough to cover inflation, you're already better off than losing forcefully deducted negative capita.

If the stock market crashes due to an unforeseeable event and it causes all your savings to be wiped out, is that your fault?

1

xybet t1_j400de2 wrote

You think the money the government took to do the same thing is somehow immune to that? It's value will crash just the same. A dollar is a dollar.

1

Prunestand t1_j44z2it wrote

>You think the money the government took to do the same thing is somehow immune to that? It's value will crash just the same.

The money the government took will certainly have less risk, yes. You may be the unlucky one to choose a bad portfolio, but everyone shares the loss with the money the government took. It's essentially just spreading the risk among the whole economy.

You might lose your savings because your stocks crash, but it takes the whole market crashing to lose the money the government has invested. Governments may also have better leverage to protect assets from crashing than you individually have.

1

xybet t1_j451wts wrote

It's not like the government takes all taxes and piles them up to have leverage. Pension system is built like shit, and its handled as it's own thing, just like any company would handle it's own investment money separately, it's invested just the same and will crash the same.

The only leverage a government has against crashing money value, is if they have their own currency and availability to print more to regulate.

Like I said, I live in Finland, which probably has one of the best social safety net systems built and I've been trying to tell you it doesn't work that way, it's built in a way that will crash just the same, wont sustain growing population and abuse. I worked in KELA for 2 years, which literally is short for national pension institute. (KansanEläkeLAitos)

I'm just guessing since you don't have this system you have no idea how it works and have imagined up a working better system, but it's not like that in reality.

Best of luck with your pension though I'm done talking about this.

1