Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Unintended (multi-decade) consequences of private accounts 6 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Your description of the Australian private retirement accounts is interesting. It makes the intermittent US proposals to privatize social security look even more like a scam.

    Achieving socialism by other means is amusing.
    • Please note that:

      1. The government is still the welfare provider of last resort. If your super money runs out during your retirement, you move onto the standard Old Age Pension, fully funded by government. But the standard Old Age Pension is NOT a lot of money. It really is a last resort.

      2. Australia has never really had corporate pension funds like the US, or government "social security" entities. Pensions are funded out of general revenue. That is, out of normal taxes.

      3. This has all been introduced over
      • Obama's prospects look good, though it is hard to say how much that mean at this early date. Unfortunately I don't think he will be able to do anything radical, even if he wins an overwhelming victory. The separation of powers that is the basis of the American government prevents that, as it was designed to. I fear we will not solve our financial problems with any radical new ideas; I assume we will just debase our currency in the traditional way.

        • Obama's prospects look good, though it is hard to say how much that mean at this early date. Unfortunately I don't think he will be able to do anything radical, even if he wins an overwhelming victory. The separation of powers that is the basis of the American government prevents that, as it was designed to. I fear we will not solve our financial problems with any radical new ideas; I assume we will just debase our currency in the traditional way.

          Better that, than what Obama would do, which is violate our Constitution and destory our liberty.

          Not that I feel strongly about it or anything.

          • Re:Interesting... (Score:1)

            by railmeat (6131) on 2008.02.21 2:18 (#61188)
            Well debasing the currency is survivable, we have been through that before. Pudge why do you say Obama would violate the Constitution and destroy our liberty?

            • Pudge why do you say Obama would violate the Constitution and destroy our liberty?

              Oh, where to start. We could talk about his attempts to get rid of most guns, violating the Second Amendment. Or his desire to take away the right to hire and fire employees at will, violating the First Amendment right to association, the Fifth Amendment right to due process, and the Tenth Amendment right to keep unenumerated powers at the state/local level.

              (For those who don't know what it means, the Tenth Amendment means that if something is not a power delegated to the federal government -- and "gener

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.