Work in electronics until death?

[Zero999]

at least in Australia i wonder what would happen if the ministerial pension was cut back to a fixed 1.5 - 2x the minimum wage, (they would never agree to 1x) they keep on crying poor about money, but how many fat paychecks are there towards the top of the ladder?

I don't know about where you live but here in the UK, politicians aren't that overpaid, certainly in comparison to top company executives.

They would never be able to get anyone decent for those figures, especially for a position with no job security.

[Corporate666]

Only problem with the system is that it's run by private companies who mostly invest your money in shares unless you specifically opt-out of that. So it's possible to lose a huge chunk of it at any time, and they take their couple of percent cut every year regardless whether they make you money or lose your money. There is no option for a fixed interest rate government guaranteed system which is what is really needed.

That's essentially what we have in the USA - in the form of the so-called Social Security program.  A small tax was added to each workers paycheck which would be paid back out to them when they reach retirement age, based on how much they paid in and how long they worked.  However, the money in the program was quickly raided by politicians and used to pay for various other things, and replaced by an IOU.  Now, the money paid out in the form of social security each year is a perennial hot-topic during any election cycle.

The latest ideas are to remove the cap on income taxed and implement a means test.  The cap on the income taxed was implemented because there is a cap on the payout... so no matter how much you earn, you are only ever eligible for a (relatively small) max payout, which is funded by the taxes you paid on the portion of your income which is taxed for social security.  Eliminating that cap means that someone earning, for example, $10 million a year would be paying perhaps a couple hundred thousand per year in SS tax, while only ever being eligible for the $1,200/mo payout at the end.  The means test is supposed to be that you must have a net worth below a certain amount to be eligible to receive SS at all.

Both of which transform SS from a worker-funded mandatory retirement program into simply another welfare program.  I would be furious if I was paying thousands and thousands into the program, only to be told when I retire "sorry, you earned too much in your life - you saved and provided for your own retirement, so we're taking your government promised retirement and giving it to folks who didn't save any of their income and need your savings more than you need it".

In other words, like all government programs, it will start out with promises and justifications and will end up being just another way to buy votes, but paid for by those who work.

[lowimpedance]

In other words, like all government programs, it will start out with promises and justifications and will end up being just another way to buy votes, but paid for by those who work.

Now that is a familiar ring no matter where you are and from what time !.

[VK3DRB]

at least in Australia i wonder what would happen if the ministerial pension was cut back to a fixed 1.5 - 2x the minimum wage, (they would never agree to 1x) they keep on crying poor about money, but how many fat paychecks are there towards the top of the ladder?

I don't know about where you live but here in the UK, politicians aren't that overpaid, certainly in comparison to top company executives.

They would never be able to get anyone decent for those figures, especially for a position with no job security.

In this low population country (Australia), our politicians are some of the highest paid in the world - and we have three levels of government where two could suffice.

Electronics technicians and engineers generally work not for money, power or fame, but for the passion for what they are good in - creating technology that benefits humanity. They often work very long hours because they simply want to meet project targets on time, on budget and to meet of exceed requirements.

Most politicians in the west are lawyers and the like, who have zero experience in manufacturing, zero understanding of technology, zero understanding of control theory and no vision statement.

In contrast to electronics professionals, politicians can on well into their 70's because you don't need a high IQ to be a artist.

[Tris20]

Frankly if you have no interest in politics and are just in it for the money we can do without you anyway. Career politicians are a blight on our democracy. Our government is made up of millionaires who have no idea how most of us live.

MPs should be paid the national average wage. That would encourage them to do something about if. If they are only in it for the money they can go find another job.

Couldn't agree more. But then again, if they give themselves wages which place them into the more socially elite class then it's easier for them to detach themselves from policies that completely fuck the ordinary people/cannon-fodder over.

I would be furious if I was paying thousands and thousands into the program, only to be told when I retire "sorry, you earned too much in your life - you saved and provided for your own retirement, so we're taking your government promised retirement and giving it to folks who didn't save any of their income and need your savings more than you need it".

Whilst I understand your viewpoint, people who are paying that much into it can afford put some aside themselves and don't need to depend on the government. Remember, the amount paid out on welfare and government pensions is still pretty feeble and anyone who is classed as needing to pay more into it will already be earning enough to put good money aside and will STILL be able to have a better quality of life than those who couldn't. Much like they will have had for most of their lives anyway. No right to complain IMO. I'm quite happy to pay higher taxes for a healthier society

[zapta]

... No right to complain IMO. I'm quite happy to pay higher taxes for a healthier society

If they take your money and give it to other people you have all the right in the world to complain.

Taking from citizen A to give to citizen B isn't 'healthier', it's oppression.

[Zero999]

Are you kidding? They get a basic salary of £66,396, but on top of that they get masses of expenses. Frankly if you have no interest in politics and are just in it for the money we can do without you anyway. Career politicians are a blight on our democracy. Our government is made up of millionaires who have no idea how most of us live.

MPs should be paid the national average wage. That would encourage them to do something about if. If they are only in it for the money they can go find another job.

Is that it? £66396 is not a rediculas amount. Most high level management positions pay a similar amount and offer better job security. And expenses, if not abused are just to compensate for additional costs of doing the job, like if you have to travel for your employer, you should be able to claim expenses to cover the train faire, mileage etc.

It's true abuse of the expense system does occur and when it does, it should be dealt with more strictly but pay isn't excessive, compared to other leadership roles.

[Corporate666]

Whilst I understand your viewpoint, people who are paying that much into it can afford put some aside themselves and don't need to depend on the government. Remember, the amount paid out on welfare and government pensions is still pretty feeble and anyone who is classed as needing to pay more into it will already be earning enough to put good money aside and will STILL be able to have a better quality of life than those who couldn't. Much like they will have had for most of their lives anyway. No right to complain IMO. I'm quite happy to pay higher taxes for a healthier society

That's just pure socialism.

Our government pension program was never meant to be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".  It was supposed to be that the individual pays in over their lifetime and their proceeds are paid back out to them throughout their retirement.  And the social security system is already progressive - those that pay in more get proportionally less back compared to those who pay in less. 

We already have plenty of welfare programs which are used and abused to high heaven.  The reason the government is talking about eliminating the cap on SS and implementing a means test is because they raided the fund and took all the money to pay for other things.  And villifying "the rich" even more is an easy way to get the average dopey voter to agree with screwing the earners over yet again.

I have no problem with the ability for people to opt out of SS if they so choose, in which case they are responsible for their own retirement, but continually making the welfare of the unproductive the responsibility of the productive has to end somewhere.  Or we all end up like Greece, except without productive Germans to bail us out.

[Corporate666]

Well, the nature of taxation is that the more you earn and pay in the less you tend to get back out, at least directly. Arguably as you get richer you benefit more from law and order (people not taking your wealth) and from mass education and healthcare (providing your business with an educated and healthy workforce).

One of the reasons why pension contributions are mandatory deductions from wages are to make sure everyone pays in at least a minimal amount. Of course some people never earn enough to cover their costs in retirement... Well, you could just throw them out on the street I suppose, if you felt okay about doing that, but then there is a very real danger they will just come and steal your stuff rather than die quietly. I've never really heard a credible plan on this front, other than building very high walls around your home (if you can afford it).

The reality is that the state pension is very low, so if you did provide for yourself you will definitely be a lot better off. Anger and rage at the less fortunate is mis-placed, you should be upset by the bankers and super rich who are the real reason your quality of life isn't better.

The idea that the wealthier benefit more from the taxes paid in the form of more "protection" is absolutely untrue.  Our Supreme Court has even ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect the individual.

Also, the idea that there is a binary choice between "force the people who can afford it to pay for them" and "let them die in the street" is also untrue, and a false choice given by politicians to coerce folks who don't think it through themselves.  It is the basis for the ever increasing welfare state we (and certainly you) live in.

The fact is that before we had all this progressive taxation and welfare programs, there were not dead bodies littering the streets, nor did we live in anarchy.  People fended for themselves much more so than they do today.  I don't think anyone (with any integrity) has a problem helping out those who truly need help, but in the USA (and UK) those that truly need help are a miniscule fraction of all those who are happy to accept help, whether needed or not.

It is human nature to take the path of least resistance.  It's inherent in our species to not work for X if you can get X for free.  A big part of the problem is that it's so easy to live quite well on 100% social assistance that we're made it uninteresting for people to bother working. 

As for retirement - the social security system is already progressive.  Those who never earn enough to pay for their retirement are already subsidized by those who earn more.  The fact is that more and more are getting more than they are paying in.  The reason for that is because people are living longer, and because politicians are loathe to raise taxes on anyone except 'the rich'.  So when social security has been paying out for 20 years instead of the anticipated 5-10 years, and when the politicians have raided the coffers, it means there is a huge shortfall.  The correct decision is to either raise the age of retirement, or increase the tax rate for social security.  That maintains the current fairness and lives up to the promise of what SS was supposed to be.  Keeping the tax rates low, telling higher earners "too bad, we promised you will get SS, but we're rescinding that because your money is needed to pay for lower earners we don't want to raise rates for" is unfair and does not live up to the promise of what SS was supposed to do.

The choice seems pretty clear to me.  The only reason it's even a debate is because the politicians all want to be the hero of the working man and tell him "the rich" are the ones screwing him over and keeping him from prosperity... and if they'll give said politician their vote, he'll right this wrong.

[mcinque]

Here in Australia the politicians are pushing to raise the pension age to 70, saying "the country cannot afford to pay the pensions". (Strange how they can afford their own big pay rises, and bloated pensions after leaving politics.)

The shit thing, they can do that well well before retirement age.
I can't recall the exact time they have to stay in office to get their lifetime pension, but that 20yo who won a federal seat at the last election can likely retire at 30 with a lifetime pension. It's disgusting.

Here it's the same story, both for the pension age and for the lifetime pension for a 20yo who won a seat on an election. "Disgusting" is reductive. Every country do the same shit because the same shit persons live on the same planet.

[Tris20]

Well, the nature of taxation is that the more you earn and pay in the less you tend to get back out, at least directly. Arguably as you get richer you benefit more from law and order (people not taking your wealth) and from mass education and healthcare (providing your business with an educated and healthy workforce).

One of the reasons why pension contributions are mandatory deductions from wages are to make sure everyone pays in at least a minimal amount. Of course some people never earn enough to cover their costs in retirement... Well, you could just throw them out on the street I suppose, if you felt okay about doing that, but then there is a very real danger they will just come and steal your stuff rather than die quietly. I've never really heard a credible plan on this front, other than building very high walls around your home (if you can afford it).

The reality is that the state pension is very low, so if you did provide for yourself you will definitely be a lot better off. Anger and rage at the less fortunate is mis-placed, you should be upset by the bankers and super rich who are the real reason your quality of life isn't better.

The idea that the wealthier benefit more from the taxes paid in the form of more "protection" is absolutely untrue.  Our Supreme Court has even ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect the individual.

Also, the idea that there is a binary choice between "force the people who can afford it to pay for them" and "let them die in the street" is also untrue, and a false choice given by politicians to coerce folks who don't think it through themselves.  It is the basis for the ever increasing welfare state we (and certainly you) live in.

The fact is that before we had all this progressive taxation and welfare programs, there were not dead bodies littering the streets, nor did we live in anarchy.  People fended for themselves much more so than they do today.  I don't think anyone (with any integrity) has a problem helping out those who truly need help, but in the USA (and UK) those that truly need help are a miniscule fraction of all those who are happy to accept help, whether needed or not.

It is human nature to take the path of least resistance.  It's inherent in our species to not work for X if you can get X for free.  A big part of the problem is that it's so easy to live quite well on 100% social assistance that we're made it uninteresting for people to bother working. 

As for retirement - the social security system is already progressive.  Those who never earn enough to pay for their retirement are already subsidized by those who earn more.  The fact is that more and more are getting more than they are paying in.  The reason for that is because people are living longer, and because politicians are loathe to raise taxes on anyone except 'the rich'.  So when social security has been paying out for 20 years instead of the anticipated 5-10 years, and when the politicians have raided the coffers, it means there is a huge shortfall.  The correct decision is to either raise the age of retirement, or increase the tax rate for social security.  That maintains the current fairness and lives up to the promise of what SS was supposed to be.  Keeping the tax rates low, telling higher earners "too bad, we promised you will get SS, but we're rescinding that because your money is needed to pay for lower earners we don't want to raise rates for" is unfair and does not live up to the promise of what SS was supposed to do.

The choice seems pretty clear to me.  The only reason it's even a debate is because the politicians all want to be the hero of the working man and tell him "the rich" are the ones screwing him over and keeping him from prosperity... and if they'll give said politician their vote, he'll right this wrong.

Your opinions genuinely worry me.

[Phaedrus]

Not to sound glib, but that is pretty much what's preached on Fox News in the US. Everyone on Welfare is an unemployed 30yo woman with nine kids who owns a big house and drives a Mercedes, who only has more kids to get more welfare money so she doesn't have to work. The "Welfare Queen". It's a myth of course; >95% of Welfare recipients are people who, you know, actually need welfare. A small percentage use the money to sustain unhealthy habits like drugs or gambling, but the system has safeguards to try to reduce that behavior; safeguards which Republicans will fight against incessantly because it's "spending money on Welfare", despite the fact that it would reduce the "waste" that they complain about. Then there's >0.1% abusers who have found loopholes or have friends in the Welfare office, who cheat the system to get money. Usually they are found out and kicked off of Welfare, or even criminally charged. It's rare in any case. But according to Faux "News" that's all that Welfare is for.



Of course it's fine to spend more money on the military. After all, it's ok for the government to give you free money as "veterans benefits" for the rest of your life, as long as you were willing to help shoot some brown people in over-there-istan. The Navy, Airforce, and Marines are the only part of the US military that matters, the Army is about 80% social welfare and 20% getting drunk off base.

[romantronixlab]

Here in Australia the politicians are pushing to raise the pension age to 70, saying "the country cannot afford to pay the pensions". (Strange how they can afford their own big pay rises, and bloated pensions after leaving politics.)

The shit thing, they can do that well well before retirement age.
I can't recall the exact time they have to stay in office to get their lifetime pension, but that 20yo who won a federal seat at the last election can likely retire at 30 with a lifetime pension. It's disgusting.

Not to worry Dave is not only in Australia that that it is happening but also here in the states and all over the world that same thing and the working people busting their backs `till death. O btw no luxurious retirement for the worker either. Just enough for survival nothing else.

[VK3DRB]

At least most electronics technicians and engineers would remember if they ever received a "gift" of a $3,000 bottle of 1959 Penfolds Grange Hermitage.

Maybe electronics people are simply too honest, too intelligent and too valuable to society to warrant becoming a politician.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-16/nsw-premier-barry-ofarrell-to-resign-over-icac-grange-wine/5393478

[KJDS]

That's just pure socialism.

Good, isn't it?

Our government pension program was never meant to be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".  It was supposed to be that the individual pays in over their lifetime and their proceeds are paid back out to them throughout their retirement.  And the social security system is already progressive - those that pay in more get proportionally less back compared to those who pay in less.

Think back to when pensions started. Anyone retiring a year after the scheme started would have only one year of contributions, and their "pot" would be pretty much empty. That's now how it worked though, the idea was that if you had worked (at any income level) for a certain number of years in your life you were entitled to the full state pension regardless of how much you actually contributed. There is no individual pension pot, you simply do your time and are paid out according to that.

And in fact most of our welfare is given out according to need. If you get ill you get the treatment you need, regardless of how much you paid in. If you live to 105 you get the pension for the entire time, not just until your personal stash runs out.

We already have plenty of welfare programs which are used and abused to high heaven.

According to the Daily Mail and Channel 4, but actually most people on benefits are honest. In fact most benefits recipients are either retired or working. Anyway, abuse isn't a good thing to base policy on. The policy should be fair to those who are honest, with enforcement to prevent abuse. Punishing the honest ones for other people's abuse is wrong.

When the state pension was introduced in the UK, the average worker on retirement would be collecting it for two years before shuffling of this mortal coil. The cost to the average person still working wasn't to high.

It's now twenty years rather than two, so it's ten times higher. Given that UK PLC is running at almost £110,000,000,000 loss each year that can't continue. Somehow spending by government needs to be trimmed to get the books to balance.  In the words of Gordon Brown, the man who abolished boom and bust, it's prudence. Now taxing the rich doesn't work, mostly because the top 1% are already paying 25% of income tax receipts so some things have to be trimmed.

Moaning about politicians doesn't help. Moaning about rich people doesn't help either. There is plenty of opportunity in the UK, just go and seize it, and put enough aside so you can live comfortably when you chose to retire providing the tax man doesn't take it all.

[grumpydoc]

When the state pension was introduced in the UK, the average worker on retirement would be collecting it for two years before shuffling of this mortal coil. The cost to the average person still working wasn't to high.

Just as importantly many workers died before reacing retirement age - contributing but never withdrawing

It's now twenty years rather than two, so it's ten times higher. Given that UK PLC is running at almost £110,000,000,000 loss each year that can't continue. Somehow spending by government needs to be trimmed to get the books to balance.  In the words of Gordon Brown, the man who abolished boom and bust, it's prudence. Now taxing the rich doesn't work, mostly because the top 1% are already paying 25% of income tax receipts so some things have to be trimmed.

Gordon Brown - that would be the chap who plundered large company investment pension pots because they were "in surplus" thus creating massive problems down the line for those same companies (and the tax-payer) who now don't have enough in the pot to pay pensions (c.f. Royal Mail).

He might have been "prudent" in not spending more than his income but he didn't really mind where he stolegot the income from in the first place.

Moaning about politicians doesn't help. Moaning about rich people doesn't help either. There is plenty of opportunity in the UK, just go and seize it, and put enough aside so you can live comfortably when you chose to retire providing the tax man doesn't take it all.

True enough - there's pretty much no formality to setting youself up in business. Basically you just need to tell the taxman "I'm self employed". Contrast the position in France where the local mayors have enormous power over who can set up and trade.

But, who'd have guessed it, politics is actually hard - especially when it comes to pleasing the electorate. Actually at the level of ordinary MPs the UK system is probably not all that bad. The expenses scandal was a bit of a ruckus but a lot of the time it was MPs claiming for things they had been told were OK. It was only when what they were allowed to claim came under public scrutiny that we all said a collective WTF?

We don't have nearly as bad an issue with lobyists as in the US, for example (though we're trying hard).

[han]

lot of people i know dead fast after they retired..
People must have reason to live, if they spend their time without doing nothing, then degradation of mental and health will come fast..

[Tris20]

That's just pure socialism.

Good, isn't it?

Our government pension program was never meant to be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".  It was supposed to be that the individual pays in over their lifetime and their proceeds are paid back out to them throughout their retirement.  And the social security system is already progressive - those that pay in more get proportionally less back compared to those who pay in less.

Think back to when pensions started. Anyone retiring a year after the scheme started would have only one year of contributions, and their "pot" would be pretty much empty. That's now how it worked though, the idea was that if you had worked (at any income level) for a certain number of years in your life you were entitled to the full state pension regardless of how much you actually contributed. There is no individual pension pot, you simply do your time and are paid out according to that.

And in fact most of our welfare is given out according to need. If you get ill you get the treatment you need, regardless of how much you paid in. If you live to 105 you get the pension for the entire time, not just until your personal stash runs out.

We already have plenty of welfare programs which are used and abused to high heaven.

According to the Daily Mail and Channel 4, but actually most people on benefits are honest. In fact most benefits recipients are either retired or working. Anyway, abuse isn't a good thing to base policy on. The policy should be fair to those who are honest, with enforcement to prevent abuse. Punishing the honest ones for other people's abuse is wrong.

Thank you so much for posting this! It's exactly what I wanted to say but just couldn't muster up the energy to do so