National pension is a ponzi scheme and as our population declines it will be impossible to pay it back.
With private insurance, you are given worse options and they will do anything in their power not to pay it. For the average person, you will also have paid more in the long run with insurance than without it, even if you had an accident.
Chiropractors are harmful for your body even if your issue is spine-related. Go to an orthopedist.
I also just really hate the idea of applying financial logic to something like this. Like, are we just gonna go and label the entire human race as a Ponzi scheme? Grandpa’s not able to pull his weight lately so fuck him? That’s a rhetorical question, obviously. The reality is that old people are going to cost what they cost and everyone else just has to suck it up because the alternative is way uglier.
Just on a slightly grander scale. I feel like it’s malicious in a different way. Instead of tricking the unaware consumer into thinking they are getting the same product they are getting people to buy what they can now whether it’s due to distance or price
I mean yeah, obviously they’re profitable. It’s the convenience though. Sometimes they have good deals if you don’t want to buy a giant pack of something.
I mean yeah. There are some decent deals sometimes though. The dollar store near me sells name brand dishsoaps and cleaning solutions in normal sized bottles. You just need to be smart about what you get.
I agree with this so much. Political parties should just be given one tv ad and one pamphlet. Only allowed to talk about their own policies and nothing else. Exclusively government funded. Any extra donations and you’re no longer representing the people’s interests so you’re murdered or something idk.
The “one ad/one pamphlet” concept is a horrible idea. Reactionary political platforms rely on regressive ideas that have remained in the popular political consciousness for centuries - meanwhile, the positive development of society requires an understanding of complex things that won’t be adequately expressed in such a brief format. Think economic planning, human ecology, etc.
This is a recipe for a cruel, inhumane, and backwards society. In short, bourgeois democracy.
I don’t understand how that addresses campaign finance.
Even under socialism it will still be essential for the people to keep a close eye on their chosen representatives (and also other leaders such as those in the leading revolutionary party), but it will no longer be virtually impossible for those representatives to truly represent the interests of the people
How will these representatives be chosen? Well they be able to campaign and will there be a limit to how much they can spend on a campaign?
If direct democracy is what you’re advocating, how can that work? Does every citizen have to spend an hour reading legislation every day then vote through an app on their phone?
401k plans are a scam not because of what they are, but what they replaced.
Companies used to offer pensions. These were retirement benefits that were handled by the company, and the company bore the risk of underperforming markets.
For a number of reasons, pensions were much better for workers. Now, only some unionized workers get them.
There’s so much inflation these days that pensions are impossible unless the pension money is invested to keep up with inflation. So it’s the same thing at best out a worse option.
So it’s the same thing at best out a worse option.
It’s not though. With a pension someone work that knowledge manages that investment. With a 401k, the employee is. Except most employees don’t have that kind of time or expertise. So, it’s “our fault” that we end up with a poorly managed retirement when… we could just do pensions.
I don’t know about you, but when I’m 70 and the company that pays my pension suddenly goes bankrupt, I don’t want to be caught with my pants down. I would rather not put all my eggs in one basket.
Like people don’t lose their saving in the market anyway? But when your 401k goes in the tank, your broker doesn’t have the legal obligation to fund your retirement.
If that happens to your 401k, that’s your fault. As you get older you are supposed to shift things to be more conservative… You can even put your money in things that are guaranteed to not go down. There are target date funds that do this for you without you having to think about it (although I think target date funds are a little too conservative from the start).
In my country, 401(k) is rare. My wife’s company is one of the few that offers it, and it’s way better than the government pension my dad is getting as a retiree.
I don’t know if it is quite as simple as that. Most recently the bank failures were because those banks got upside down on bond holdings due to rate increases. If everyone chilled out and took their money out in appropriate time, then the bank would have had all the money. They just couldn’t get all the money immediately due to the duration of their bond holdings.
My bank wanted my to pay to have an account. I asked why and the answer was some bullshit about having access to their expertise on growing wealth. I told them, I would be growing wealth more quickly if I didn’t have to pay monthly fees, canceled my account and took my money to a bank that doesn’t charge for a basic money dump account.
It’s ridiculous, banks make money by investing the trusted money of their customers. Why would I need to pay them in order to let them make money. They should pay me.
For-profit housing is a massive racket. Investment firms posing as housing developers get tax breaks for buying up properties, inflating the market, pricing out families, and renting those same homes back to the community to pay the mortgage on their investment, plus profit. What fucking purpose do they serve society? Pure predatory capitalist greed at the expense of our housing. For-profit housing needs to be banned. Investment real estate needs to be regulated until all our citizens can afford to buy homes in their localities.
Is it though? You get the same home and get to own it if you had enough down-payment. The only thing landlord has the renter doesn’t is the capital for down-payment.
There are people who can’t save up for a down payment and therefore wouldn’t be able to responsibly take care of a house even if they were given one.
There’s people who don’t want to own a house. A house comes with a bunch of costs and responsibility.
Your furnace goes out in winter, bam, that can be an expensive service call or several thousands of dollars to replace.
Your sewer line backs up because of tree roots on a Sunday or holiday and now it’s several hundred dollars to get a drain company out there.
Need a new roof? That’s a $5,000+ expense all at once.
These are just a few examples. There’s quite a number more. Some people like knowing that expenses like that are covered by someone else.
In the grocery store example, there’s people who like growing their own food. For others, they’d rather someone else do that even if they’re paying a markup to buy it from a grocery store, because they can get everything in one place.
60-65% of households in the USA are homeowners, either outright or through a mortgage. 80-90% of households in Eastern Europe are homeowners. It’s pretty clear that people who are perennial renters are mostly people who cannot clear the financial hurdle of a down payment. I don’t think the “some people don’t want to” line is a solid argument. It’s the exception thata proves the rule.
The repairs and property taxes and mortgage all add up to a total that is less than the rent, on average. Otherwise, landlords would have a disincentive, and every landlord would be operating at a loss.
The points you made are points that landlords use as justification for their occupation/position. Are you a landlord?
Add comment