Do you have a pension?

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 03:37PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh so you've performed a 'bait and switch' now, where instead of talking about pensions, you've now moved into talking about the entire social welfare system...

We're also dealing with very-long-term forecasts here, which are notoriously inaccurate - and which assume no change in long-term policy, and which make uncertain long-term demographic assumptions (which can be counteracted by our highest-in-EU fertility rate and future immigration, we may hit beyond 10 million people by that time) - what you have showed is that current revenue probably won't be enough to fund it, it does not show that future increases in revenue won't be enough (brought through productivity/GDP increases, harder to predict population/migration changes, likely restructuring of the pension system, and increased taxes).

Defined Contribution schemes - with Ireland at an average starting age of 37, when it comes to people beginning pension contributions - are simply not going to provide the population with sustainable pension finances. Pretty much only the government can guarantee that, for the whole population.

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 03:38PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why would it be incumbent on you, to list some fuel efficient alternatives? It would have zero relevance to your criticism.

Permabear · 16-03-2016 03:39PM

This post has been deleted.

Squall Leonhart · 16-03-2016 03:43PM

animaal: And it's a proper pension, with benefits dependentant on what you pay in (not like here, where the person who pays PRSI for 40 years ends up the same as somebody who never paid a cent)?

Not to be a pedant, but in the interests of having correct information out there, the non-contributory pension and the contributory pension aren't exactly the same, but your point is taken (and I too have issues with it)

State Pension (Non-Contributory) Rate per week (maximum)
Personal rate, aged 66 and under 80 €219
Personal rate, aged 80+ €229

State Pension (Contributory) Rate per week (maximum)
Personal rate, aged 66 and under 80 €233.30 (assuming an average of 48+ PRSI contributions per year)

Extra benefits

You are automatically paid an extra allowance of €10 per week when you reach 80 years of age. This increase is not paid to qualified adults.

Sources;
http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/248_State-Pension-Non-Contributory.aspx
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/older_and_retired_people/state_pension_contributory.html#l62fd2

ancapailldorcha · 16-03-2016 03:44PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Why would it be incumbent on you, to list some fuel efficient alternatives? It would have zero relevance to your criticism.

Without a constructive criticism, in this case a proposed alternative then such a complaint is just inane moaning.

Permabear · 16-03-2016 03:52PM

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 03:53PM

animaal wrote: »

I think your core point is valid. Each person has their own set of ethics/morals, and they should at the very least consider whether the money they invest is working actively against the positions he/she has adopted in life.

However, I think you've gone further than that. Your views on funding retirement would seem to be far to the left of the majority, to the extent that I wonder if you're playing devil's advocate.

You're not willing to give examples of good ethical investments. In a way I can understand that; I wouldn't answer the question, because it would provide a window on my own ethics, and my ethics are personal; I wouldn't hold them up to the good citizens of Boards for ridicule.

One thing we might agree on is that investment managers are often rubbish. How can we assume the average person would do any better at picking stocks? However, the solution to that is to invest in passive funds that track an index. By its nature, you probably don't know what it's investing in, and it may change from day to day.

Thinking out loud - don't countries like Germany tax your pay in order to provide you a pension when you retire? And it's a proper pension, with benefits dependentant on what you pay in (not like here, where the person who pays PRSI for 40 years ends up the same as somebody who never paid a cent)? What does the German state do with the contributions? I assume they invest it somewhere to actually fund the pensions.

An example of a standard that I gave, is simply avoiding investing in companies that knowingly commit illegal acts - that's not really far to the left at all, it's just, many of the posters I'm replying to are so far to the 'right' that they are notorious for misrepresenting/smearing any remotely 'left' posters as hard left.

There are investment funds that exist, which actually explicitly market themselves as ethical funds - where they allow investors to choose whether to avoid oil/tobacco/unenvironmental/etc. type companies - so investors shouldn't need special knowledge to achieve this.

I don't know if funds like that exist in Ireland though, but the solutions to the ethical problem exist - and people have the ability to roughly tailor them to their personal ethics.

The posters arguing against me though, appear to be taking a particularly extreme position: They seem to want to exclude any concern about ethical issues.

The question that posters keep presenting is, at this stage, exclusively a smear tactic. It's a deliberately dishonest method of rhetorical argument, where they know I won't answer the question - and I've amply explained at length why I won't, and how it doesn't detract from any of my arguments - but they don't care, as they know it can be used to 'attack the poster, rather than their arguments'. There is no 'playing devils advocate' here - I don't do that.

Not sure what Germany does exactly, but that type of a pension scheme, would be one of the more sustainable ones. If it's setup as a kind of 'universal' pension fund, it's the kind of thing that the population should strongly hold government to account to, including on ethical standards.

mahoganygas · 16-03-2016 03:54PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think I can guess...

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 03:59PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Actually, I've been arguing against posters who seem to be saying that there should be no ethical standards.

Also breaking the law should be a pretty clear ethical standard (one that posters still try to attack, e.g. by pretending it's exclusively aimed at petty issues like board members taking drugs).

If someones personal ethics, include profiting from breaking the law - in the case of Apple, profiting by operating a wage-fixing cartel, which effectively illegally held down worker wages - then they totally deserve judgement for that, if they view that as acceptable. Which you appear to.

See, to PermaBear, breaking the law and operating an illegal wage-fixing cartel (something that actually is illegal) - the idea of that being bad, appears to be a 'left wing' perspective to him...

You can see how far some of these posters go, to smear people and their concerns, when they consider the idea of breaking the law like this being a bad thing, as 'left wing'. Objections to breaking the law like this, are very much a 'right wing' thing as well, I can guarantee...

mahoganygas · 16-03-2016 04:13PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Actually, I've been arguing against posters who seem to be saying that there should be no ethical standards.

I haven't seen any poster say this?

ancapailldorcha · 16-03-2016 04:15PM

mahoganygas wrote: »

I haven't seen any poster say this?

Nor have I.

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 04:16PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The problems there don't even get as far as ethics - more complex synthetic ETF's are getting increasing widescale attention from regulators, due to multiple issues including lack of transparency and their potential to destabilize markets.

The average joe would be well advised to stick to more simple pension investments, to avoid any hidden risk/costs.

Permabear · 16-03-2016 04:17PM

This post has been deleted.

pkvader · 16-03-2016 04:20PM

I've been paying into a company pension for the last 11 years,im 35,nothing huge,about €200 a month that includes the company's contribution.

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 04:22PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Without a constructive criticism, in this case a proposed alternative then such a complaint is just inane moaning.

You don't need to provide an example of an ethical company, for an alternative to exist (the alternative being: invest in ethical companies...), or for the criticism to be constructive.

Finding and investing in ethical companies is either:
1: Possible and practical, or
2: Not Possible or practical.

If posters think '1', then why the fúck are they making a show of rhetorically demanding an answer to that question...they seem to want to imply that '2' is the case, or they just want to smear the very idea of having ethical concerns, using a cheap rhetorical trick.

Do you think it's possible/practical to identify and invest in ethical companies?

ancapailldorcha · 16-03-2016 04:23PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Do you think it's possible/practical to identify and invest in ethical companies?

Name one.

NewCorkLad · 16-03-2016 04:26PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Do you think it's possible/practical to identify and invest in ethical companies?

For the average person, who has a life to live, no.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 16-03-2016 04:54PM

jimgoose wrote: »

Hear-hear. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. VAT is Not Included. :pac:

And don'don't forget the nonsense of All profit is theft.

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 04:59PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Except the report is projecting in the context of active and tabled policy at the time - not counting other future policy changes...

It did not factor in the possibility of Ireland reaching the population figures I linked either, because the demographic report it's based on, undershoots that by about 1 million.

Eh, I haven't stated that the way the pensions are being funded, doesn't have to change - I've stated that properly funding the state pension system is what is needed.

I think people can see that finances, which are affected by government policy, are exactly not analogous to the inevitability of climate change - given that the projected trend in finances can be changed, through changing government policy...

When you project based on current and tabled policy, you get a projection matching that policy...when you change active policy, the projection changes...

Permabear · 16-03-2016 05:02PM

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 05:04PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, it's absolutely not a clear ethical standard. Plenty of companies have been found guilty of breaking laws that are vague, overly broad, or so confusing that even judges cannot agree on how to interpret or apply them. Furthermore, legislators are constantly adding more impenetrable and labyrinthine new laws that many companies only come to understand after they unwittingly fall afoul of them. Ridiculous prosecutions happen all the time. In one case in the United States, an ISP was prosecuted under a wiretapping statute (which prohibits the interception of transmitted messages) for making backup copies of e-mails stored on its servers. Even though this is a routine thing for an ISP to do, and is not in any way an ethical violation, it almost resulted in a criminal conviction.[/QUOTE]
Look at what you quote above, and look at what you deliberately cut out from the quote:
"Also breaking the law should be a pretty clear ethical standard (one that posters still try to attack, e.g. by pretending it's exclusively aimed at petty issues like board members taking drugs)."

What do you then do? You put forward 'special pleading', by giving examples of laws aimed at analogous edge-case issues.

Pretty clear example, of you deliberately ignoring the point: That lawbreaking is a good standard of determining ethical violations - one that doesn't at all have to ignore areas where the law is petty or goes wrong.

I think the vast majority of people, can agree that operating an illegal wage-fixing cartel is wrong, and that an illegal act like this counts as an ethical violation.

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 05:13PM

NewCorkLad wrote: »

KomradeBishop wrote:

Do you think it's possible/practical to identify and invest in ethical companies?

For the average person, who has a life to live, no.

Finally, after how many fúcking pages, posters finally come out and say what they have been evading :rolleyes: - and these posters support the above 'no' answer:
ancapailldorcha, hmmm, Permabear, Srameen

So, there is proof, that both ancap/PB have been using the question, demanding that I provide an example of an ethical company, in order to make the implicit claim, that it is not practical or possible to identify such companies.

That pretty conclusively shows that the two of you have been deliberately and dishonestly using a rhetorical argument in order to smear, and to avoid coming out explicitly with the claim above, which was implied by the question.

You are wrong as well. Ethical investment funds exist, who assist investors in directing their funds towards ethical investments.

Next predicted argument tactic: Criticizing the idea of investing in ethical funds, for not being 'perfect' in oversight of ethical violations - as if making an effort to be more ethical in investments, is discounted by not doing so 'perfectly'.

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 05:19PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Eh, what you quote, says "The problems there don't even get as far as ethics" - so how do you miss, that the criticism following that, wasn't over ethics...

Synthetic ETF's, as I said, are under increasing fire from regulatory agencies for their risks to markets - claims like at the end of your post, aren't to be trusted, given that regulators are increasingly suspicious of such instruments.

Saying that the average joe, should be as suspicious of such instruments as regulators are - rather than take the advice of a finance industry worker with a probable gaping conflict of interest - is pretty sensible advice.

Permabear · 16-03-2016 06:48PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 16-03-2016 06:56PM

This post has been deleted.

Valmont · 16-03-2016 09:59PM

I know an ex-fireman who has been on a full final salary pension for 27 years while he actually worked as a fireman for only 24 years. The real worry is how the state is going to fund its own retirement obligations in the face of a worsening worker to retiree ratio. Then they will be looking covetously towards the prudent private workers who saved for their own futures. Maybe I'm paranoid. :P

Permabear · 16-03-2016 10:22PM

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 10:44PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If you're claiming it's impractical - and by the way, the measure of 'practical' is not perfection in ethics (by definition impractical, as there is only so much you can do to discover ethical violations) - then the burden of proof is on you, to back that claim.

Given the existence of ethical investment funds - which again, don't have to meet a standard of perfection - people have every ability to invest ethically, and can review ethical funds individually to see their track record on transparency (particularly checking that they provide a company investment list), and reviewing companies themselves.

Downloading a pdf from a fund, and bothering to actually Google some of the companies they invest in, isn't exactly 'impractical' - as on a first-pass, that'll help you weed out a ton of unethical companies.

There is little excuse in not doing a basic first-pass like this, given how extremely easy it is.

A further rhetorical purpose, of your question demanding an example of an ethical company, is that you are aiming to try and use it, to discredit the idea of performing basic first-pass ethical checks above - by asking for an example of company passing various ethical checks, and then nitpicking at it "oh look, an ethical violation you didn't think of - therefore finding an 'ethical' company is impractical".

It's a very special form of weasely rhetorical game that posters are trying to pull off, where suddenly their standards of ethics turn to one of complete 'perfection' - exclusively for the purpose of trying to make finding an ethical company seem impossible. Exactly why I won't entertain that question.

I have shown that it's perfectly practical, to find ethical issues with companies, just by Googling them - through having done so many times already - showing that it is perfectly possible to exclude companies from consideration, based on not passing certain ethical standards.

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 10:48PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, because we all know that the means by which regulators contributed to the Average Joe being screwed, was through being too careful/skeptical, not through being too lax in care/skepticism....

jimgoose · 17-03-2016 12:35AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes, because we all know that the means by which regulators contributed to the Average Joe being screwed, was through being too careful/skeptical, not through being too lax in care/skepticism....

You're either an alien, or have suffered some sort of head-injury. I suggest standing as a Labour candidate in the next election - they could use the help.

Do you have a pension?

Comments