New deal: when you get your pension deal it’s locked in and guaranteed. But now you are a dependent and that means no voting, just like dependents under age. Enjoy the deal, let people with a stake in the future decide.

You get a pension because you pay ~~taxes~~ into it all your life. I literally fucking pay into it, it already is “locked in and guaranteed”, it is not like the US social security.

Is he mixing this up with OAS? You know what, I don’t actually care because this is a huge misunderstanding of basic Canadian personal finance and civics.

How about this deal: you don’t get to complain about CPP unless you understand how it works.

[–] brax@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

let people with a stake in the future decide

Exactly, this is why people at the top need to be laughed out of existence. So the rest of us with a stake in the future can go back to deciding.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago

You can ask if 80 year olds should be deciding the future, but that's completely orthogonal to whether they're receiving benefits or are poor.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You get a pension because you pay ~~taxes~~ into it all your life. I literally fucking pay into it, it already is “locked in and guaranteed”, it is not like the US social security.

Not American (or Canadian), but don't you also have to pay into social security in the US? At least that's what I've heard. FICA I believe is what you need to pay.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't know, so I don't talk about who should get US Social Security. All Canadian workers have to pay in to CPP, again, not sure about Americans.

The US model is basically what CPP used to be: taxes payed in by workers pay for benefits to current retirees. But people started having fewer kids and living longer and it became clear that this was unsustainable, so the system was changed.

Now CPP is partially funded, meaning I pay in and a portion pays for retirees, but a portion gets invested for my own benefits when I retire. Eventually I think CPP becomes fully funded, it's taken us like 30 years to get here, and with current rates it's solvent until the end of the century.

I have no idea what happens when the US Social Security runs out of money.

[–] festus@lemmy.ca 3 points 22 hours ago

Afaik US Social Security running out of money is kind of an illusion as all the money is "invested" with the US government anyway, which is to say that the money is already coming out of the same pot of as all their other spending. It's not as if once that account hits $0 that to maintain benefits they'd have to ramp up their spending - rather once it hits $0 they'll be cutting spending, and to maintain benefits would require them to spend what were before it hit $0.

It's kind of akin to their "debt limit" - it's just an artificially constructed barrier to their spending they impose on themseves but can tweak whenever they want. This isn't to say that real barriers won't appear - for instance maybe the bond market is expecting them to cut spending once it hits $0 and will react poorly if they don't.

[–] dsav@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 day ago

Considering we all vote with our money by deciding where we spend it, these billionaires have over 100000 votes to my 1 vote. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to vote because they already have too much influence with their wealth. Just a thought.

[–] switcheroo@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

Love how those greedy fucks think they're so much more important than the backbone of society. You do jack shit except drain money from the citizens!

[–] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I want to reward entrepreneurship, but once you meet a certain dollar amount you should be taxed at 100%, and donating to politicians should be taxed as well. It would encourage more giving donations to non-profits, and help encourage innovation from other investments being made to try and stay under that dollar amount.

[–] Peanutbjelly@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 day ago

at this point we'd get much more entrepreneurship just helping people afford their basic means. you can't start a personal business or project if all of your time goes into basic survival.

similar with copyright. it was there to give creators some buffer room before big wigs copy their design and distill it for their own market capture. now it exists purely to facilitate the hoarding of IP and market spaces/public salience for IP which small artists must compete with. disney types pushing copyright law to be less of a few year buffer for artists, and more a century post-artist-death so that it can be sold to disney/warner by living relatives, and disney/warner types get to claim that they 'do something' by 'supplying' constant slop (lion king 2019 is a good example for slopifying their own creations.) but all of this is more funny when you think about how much of early disney was only ever possible with the rich commons available for artists to use.

now we get billionaires pushing their companies with impossibly low prices or deals until they capture a market, and then hike everything to the n'th degree with automated and targeted pricing.

too many rich people fucking up too many things. art, commerce, politics. all made worse by rich people with too much time, and an addiction to number go up no matter how many must suffer or die.

now we have rich assholes arguing that having more capital should mean you get more political voting power, because somehow things aren't already skewed enough to give rich people more autonomy over those who weren't born with a silver spoon up their arse.

the lie of "just trust the rich more and give them more" has done incredible damage to every part of society.

/rant

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 12 points 1 day ago

I notice their idea of a "weighted" voting system isn't based on percent of income tax compared to their wealth........ convenient for a billionaire.

[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Perhaps a dual class voting structure. If Money paid in taxes decides votes on how to spend said tax dollars, then the poor and hungry should get to vote on whether we eat him and his kind and how best to prepare and serve them.

There is potential here.

Lutke is a sick psycho fuck.