Why are people obsessed with getting a pension

KyussB wrote: »

Even though I don't agree with you there - you do realize the overall position you're advocating, is to fuck away all ethical concerns?

People don't need to be 'perfect' ethically, to have valid and practical ethical concerns...

I am simply pointing out that one persons definition of un-ethical is another persons definition of ethical - it's a pointless tangent of an argument.

A Canadian pension fund has a major stake in the Irish National Lottery - is this an ethical investment? Would you be okay if an Irish pension fund you were involved in had a similiar stake?

A pointless tangent of an argument, would be to delve into a philosophical discussion of what ethics mean, and where to draw the line.

The vast majority of people will have a fairly similar ethical framework, following certain rules/logic, which it's very easy to point out inconsistencies with, if they were to invest in certain companies (much of it quite objectively - with e.g. the legal system and laws) - and most people will care about companies that aren't consistent with their ethical framework.

You can try to drag us into a pointless discussion, to blur the lines - but ethics still matter.

KyussB wrote: »

A pointless tangent of an argument, would be to delve into a philosophical discussion of what ethics mean, and where to draw the line.

The vast majority of people will have a fairly similar ethical framework, following certain rules/logic, which it's very easy to point out inconsistencies with, if they were to invest in certain companies (much of it quite objectively - with e.g. the legal system and laws) - and most people will care about companies that aren't consistent with their ethical framework.

You can try to drag us into a pointless discussion, to blur the lines - but ethics still matter.

Investment in Lottery.ie ethical or unethical?

KyussB wrote: »

Or we can have proper social supports and a properly structured public pension funded by government spending - which is not equivalent to 1:1 funding from taxes - so that nobody's private pensions need to be dipped into at all...

There is already a political consensus that we need such a social safety net - we simply need to protect that now, by not falling for the Divide and Conquer shite that finance industry shills perpetuate, pretending that pensioners gains in the future, are workers losses - when that is total bollocks.

Ahh the Homer Simpson argument - "Can't someone else do it?!"

So this money that will come from the governments "properly funded" spending....can you give a bit more info as to where this comes from if it doesn't come from taxes?
And bearing in mind that the population is growing ergo the requirements for this fund are only going to grow...how does that work? How is it sustainable?
It sounds a lot like a defined benefit scheme.

BTW, lets assume this magical pot of money does appear, why would anyone have a private pension then?

KyussB wrote: »

As I predicted: You refuse to state what pension fund you're invested in, because you know full well it's invested in a fuckload of unethical companies - you want me to 'prove' your pension is unethical, without even stating what pension fund it is!

Anyone can see you are deliberately withholding, because you know it contains unethical investments.

You're deliberately mischaracterizing what I wrote, and deliberately pretending I haven't discussed at length (like, practically all of yesterday), funding of pubic pensions.

You've whittled your posts down to pure rhetoric - where you're not actually engaging with anythhing I'm posting - just trying to piss at it because you dislike it, and haven't anything better to say.

I dont need to tell you what Im invested in as you are saying they are all unethical.

Its up to you to prove the are all unethical since I cant prove a negative.

Henry Ford III

Ethical pension funds are available. End of that argument.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Ethical pension funds are available. End of that argument.

What's ethical about amassing money when the majority of the world can barely feed themselves?

Again, most of what we do as a populace is grossly unethical when you break it down - yet we are happy to talk ourselves into believing we behave ethically.
I'd rather this tangent were finished.

kippy wrote: »

What's ethical about amassing money when the majority of the world can barely feed themselves?

Whats ethical about relying on others to pay for your future?

Robert_Beach

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Ethical pension funds are available. End of that argument.

Yes, I've linked to a few already if you read a few pages back. Invested in oil, companies which are clearing the rain-forest etc etc. Very ethical!

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont need to tell you what Im invested in as you are saying they are all unethical.

Its up to you to prove the are all unethical since I cant prove a negative.

Don't paraphrase me, thanks - I've pointed out the difficulty of identifying ethical investment funds - and I've even pointed out a specific pension fund (first result on Google for 'ethical pension') - which turns out to have a load of unethical investments - I haven't said all funds are unethical.

Asking someone to prove that your pension fund is unethical, when you don't even name the fund or the firm providing it, is retarded - and is just a childish level of obstruction, that identifies your posts as just rhetoric.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Ethical pension funds are available. End of that argument.

Pension funds claiming to be ethical are plentiful - and often they turn out to have a bunch of unethical investments.

The funds that the government are trying to auto enroll people into, though, I would bet dont even try to have the pretense of being ethical.

Dodge

KyussB wrote: »

Pension funds claiming to be ethical are plentiful - and often they turn out to have a bunch of unethical investments.

The funds that the government are trying to auto enroll people into, though, I would bet dont even try to have the pretense of being ethical.

And people can choose to opt out

I think it’s been fairly clearly proven that if people want a decent standard of life after they retire they should save for it

How they do so is another discussion IMO

Jim2007

KyussB wrote: »

Except you know that state pensions is not what was being discussed, there - you're deliberately pretending that it was, knowing that it wasn't, for rhetorical effect.

We are talking about pension funds in general and not ethical investing etc....

You have made several claims now about state pensions and have been unable to back then. Time to just put you on ignore.

Dodge wrote: »

And people can choose to opt out

I think it’s been fairly clearly proven that if people want a decent standard of life after they retire they should save for it

How they do so is another discussion IMO

People shouldn't have to opt-out - the government should not be including people in unethical pension funds in the first place!

Public pensions are meant to provide a decent standard of life once people retire - that's the entire point of them, being a social safety net.

Jim2007 wrote: »

We are talking about pension funds in general and not ethical investing etc....

You have made several claims now about state pensions and have been unable to back then. Time to just put you on ignore.

I spent much of yesterday discussing state pensions at length - repeatedly backing up every aspect of what I said. If people follow the quote links in your post, they see that line of discusson was about private pensions.

You're not going to actually stop replying to my posts, because you and others have made clear that you wish to respond to them with rhetoric, and try to misrepresent my posts and pretend there are things I have not backed up - as you don't like what I have to say, but don't have valid arguments against it.

Squall Leonhart

This has descended into a ****show of a thread.

And before you pipe up KyussB, I don't set out to make money off unethical investing or pensions. If there's a more ethical option available that still gives good returns, I'll take it. At the same time, I wouldn't lose sleep if I dug deep and found out that my pension was part funded by Exxon or the likes. It is what it is.

BailMeOut

I drive a car that runs on petrol that Exxon and BP supply - is that ethical?
I have a mortgage that has probably been sold to a pension fund - is my mortgage now ethical?

This thread clearly shows why the gorenment need to step in do more to get the population to protect their own futures and retirement. If you do not like the government options then opt-out and risk an uncertain future so do your own self managed pension. One thing is certain is that depening on EUR200 a week from the state to fund your retirement is not a good idea.

coylemj

KyussB wrote: »

I spent much of yesterday discussing state pensions at length - repeatedly backing up every aspect of what I said..

In your imagination.

Colonel Claptrap

A former poster would have loved this thread.

- Hardly any hysterical criticism of the pension industry.

- Well thought out, reasoned and approachable debating positions.

- A genuine willingness to listen to what many, many other posters are patiently explaining to you.

I miss him. Come back Komrade! Boards misses you!

Liam D Ferguson

KyussB wrote: »

As for GDP Per Capita: That is increasing well in advance of the dependency ratio, so workers have nothing to worry about, regarding the future - they'll still be better off.

Just catching up on this thread now and am somewhat concerned about your willingness to make statements like this as if they were facts, without any factual back-up.

Have you anything you can point us to that will back up a statement like this? In particular the prediction of what is going to happen in the future.

Squall Leonhart wrote: »

This has descended into a ****show of a thread.

And before you pipe up KyussB, I don't set out to make money off unethical investing or pensions. If there's a more ethical option available that still gives good returns, I'll take it. At the same time, I wouldn't lose sleep if I dug deep and found out that my pension was part funded by Exxon or the likes. It is what it is.

If you're happy to buy-in to exploitative/unethical industries, at least you're being open/honest about it - most of the other posters who are fine with that, are making a song and dance of avoiding being open about that.

The problem in this thread, is how the people who are ok with that, are trying to shut down criticism of unethical funds, pointing out how it's almost impossible to choose a fund which is truly ethical, and particularly, criticism of government sponsorship/subsidy of those unethical funds with the auto-enrolment - and at the very same time, those people are speaking as if they want public pensions destroyed/abolished.

BailMeOut wrote: »

I drive a car that runs on petrol that Exxon and BP supply - is that ethical?
I have a mortgage that has probably been sold to a pension fund - is my mortgage now ethical?

This thread clearly shows why the gorenment need to step in do more to get the population to protect their own futures and retirement. If you do not like the government options then opt-out and risk an uncertain future so do your own self managed pension. One thing is certain is that depening on EUR200 a week from the state to fund your retirement is not a good idea.

If you can't be ethically perfect in all aspects of your life, do you discard all ethical concerns?

No - because that's a fucking stupid concept - it makes no sense.

KyussB wrote: »

If you can't be ethically perfect in all aspects of your life, do you discard all ethical concerns?

No - because that's a fucking stupid concept - it makes no sense.

If you want to bring "Ethics" into the conversation, be prepared for these types of arguments.

People continue to fool themselves into thinking they are ethical - stay in that bubble if thats how you think.

Dodge

KyussB wrote: »

People shouldn't have to opt-out - the government should not be including people in unethical pension funds in the first place!

Public pensions are meant to provide a decent standard of life once people retire - that's the entire point of them, being a social safety net.

Seeing as you’re so fond of backing up your points can you point me to any single public pension in the world, that aren’t linked to salary, that claim they will provide a ‘decent standard of life’

They all say they have one aim (including our own quite generous scheme): keep older people out of poverty

Everywhere else in the world, including here, tells you to save for your retirement if you want to have anything other than ‘avoiding poverty’

Liam D Ferguson wrote: »

Just catching up on this thread now and am somewhat concerned about your willingness to make statements like this as if they were facts, without any factual back-up.

Have you anything you can point us to that will back up a statement like this? In particular the prediction of what is going to happen in the future.

Our GDP Per Capita has doubled over the last 20 years - well beyond our population growth (the population has not doubled in the last 20 years...) - and Ireland's GDP Growth rate consistently outpaces our population growth rate.

Unless Ireland's population growth starts skyrocketing (i.e. has high birth rates that reduce the future old age dependency ratio when those people start working...), or Ireland's GDP starts consistently decreasing/stagnating (i.e. we stay in permanent economic crisis) - then GDP Per Capita is set to keep on growing significantly.

If working people have less in the future than they do today, it will be due to the distribution of the economies resources - because the 'economic pie' will have grown more than enough, to give workers more than today, even despite higher old age dependency ratios.

Dodge wrote: »

Seeing as you’re so fond of backing up your points can you point me to any single public pension in the world, that aren’t linked to salary, that claim they will provide a ‘decent standard of life’

They all say they have one aim (including our own quite generous scheme): keep older people out of poverty

Everywhere else in the world, including here, tells you to save for your retirement if you want to have anything other than ‘avoiding poverty’

It's fairly uncontroversial to state that public pensons are meant to provide people with a decent standard of living - that's the point of social safety nets - that's a political statement about the purpose of public pensions, not a statement of how they are actually implemented.

Dodge

KyussB wrote: »

It's fairly uncontroversial to state that public pensons are meant to provide people with a decent standard of living - that's the point of social safety nets - that's a political statement about the purpose of public pensions, not a statement of how they are actually implemented.

So that’s a no then? Sound

You’ve said several times what the “point” of them is. No state body has done anything to suggest that being the point to you. So carry on believing what you want but don’t suggest it is anyone else’s policy

EDIT: It is actually policy (for states everywhere) to promote retirement savings.

Varta

I wonder what people's thoughts are on the tax aspect of pensions. Earlier some posters were none too happy at the prospect of people who did not have private pensions somehow gaining from those who do via a pension levy or through social insurance. How do those people balance this with the tax 'savings' they make on their pensions?

[Deleted User]

Varta wrote: »

....... the tax 'savings' they make on their pensions?

Tax is meant to be fair & equitable 🤓