How Government Robs You

https://www.10x.co.za/faq/umbrella-fund-faqs/is-it-illegal-for-employers-not-to-pay-over-pension-fund-contributions/

it is a very serious offense not to pay over pension fund contributions, for which the directors of your husband’s company will be criminally prosecuted. Our law requires that pension fund contributions MUST be paid over the fund within seven days of month end. Of course, it is fraud to withhold this money in the company’s bank account as it – and the investment income thereon – belongs to the employee.

basically you have to give money to government, and they promise to give them back to you if you are lucky to live long enough to qualify for retirement. Less money means you will eat cheaper food and use cheaper health care, so naturally you will die quicker for just the junk food.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/695797/Pensions-EU-referendum-Brexit-funds

if that is not communism, then what is communism?

>>2
A theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

>>3

government owns everything, so it must be communism then.

>>1
Your pension fund contributions do not belong to the government, they do not hold your pension fund for you. Government-enforced pension funds are personal savings and investment account(s) that individuals are not allowed to consume for personal use until retirement. This is a good thing because the vast majority of people have no concept of "saving for retirement". Without this government initiative, the vast majority would not consider saving for retirement until 5-10 years before they retire by which point is an extremely late time to start saving.

If you have a better retirement plan than what the government mandates, then it's quite sensible to make use of this initiative as part of your own plan. You are allowed to contribute to this fund beyond what the government requires of your employer. You are allowed to manage and grow this fund under your direct management if you desire to do it. I have my own pension plan and I personally don't need this government-enforced pension fund to help me for my retirement. However, since it is a mandatory part of my life, my own pension plan includes concessions for my government-enforced pension fund. My plan today includes making contributions to this pension fund as well as managing my own pension fund that isn't regulated by government pension fund laws.

>>5

personal savings and investment account(s) that individuals are not allowed to consume

That is called robbery and the state is the felon.

This is a good thing because the vast majority of people have no concept of "saving for retirement".

That is their own problem. Then again, wast majority of people doesn't deserve to live. If we kill off say 85% of the worst human beings, Earth will say us "thank you".

>>6
You're clearly hopelessly uninformed.

That's socialism for you. Government takes half of people's money and then claims that taxes need to be raised even further because rich people are "too rich".

>>5

individuals are not allowed to consume for personal use until retirement

In other words, they are robbing everyone of lots of money.

This is a good thing because the vast majority of people have no concept of "saving for retirement"

This is a hateful, totalitarian, false stance. People are better than the socialist bastards think of them. What about people who DO have a concept of saving for retirement, or people who don't WANT to ever save for retirement? Why are these people stripped of their freedom to do with their money as they please?

You are allowed to contribute to this fund beyond what the government requires of your employer.

Oh how kind of the government: take away half of our money in taxes and security funds, then allow us to use whatever scraps we have after paying for rent and food and clothes. They're allowing us to use our own money! Fucking pieces of shit.

>>6
That's really how socialism is destroying society. Instead of investing in their children and families, which would allow the society to reproduce itself, people have to give money to the government. Thus the society has a deficit of the young, the working population decreases, and the pension funds go bust while the society becomes lifeless and is conquered by immigrants and/or foreign armies. Socialism is like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease for the society.

Looks like some people in this thread are dense enough to believe that monarchies are socialistic governments just because the monarch owns everything.

>>11
We're not living under a monarchy, we're living under socialism.

>>12
Nonsense.

>>13
One-worded posts are no argument when you're wrong.

>>11>>12
There is little difference between king and a socialist dictator. In most cases socialists pass power by birthright. For example:
1. USSR and now Russian apparatchik dynasties;
2. North Korean Kim dynasty;
3. Cuban Castro dynasty;

In fact, British Queen has order of magnitude less power, than Kim Jong-un.

In China there is currently power-struggle inside of CPC, where one family tries to undermine the other family. So when you read about the execution of some corrupt official, that is just indicator that he has lost it to even more corrupt official.

>>15
"King" is a vague term which doesn't designate the economic structure of society. There were some kings and emperors who robbed their own peoples; there were others who encouraged free trade and capitalism. For example, the British Empire was fully monarchic, but it certainly didn't strangle its own people with taxes and pensions, which allowed the British people to bloom, creating huge economic and population surpluses that allowed them to control the world and colonize America. The British Queens were nothing like socialist dictators who hate their people.

>>11
Falling birthrates are due mainly to the fact that the nature of the economy no longer rewards large families. That's not the government's fault; even if people were allowed to keep all their earnings, children still wouldn't be a good investment, so people would just end up blowing their earnings on consumer goods and junk.

>>17
There is reverse correlation between level of taxation and birthrates. Higher taxes mean more people unborn.

And children have been a good investment for centuries, why would they stop being that now? Children provide help for their parents when they get old. Hell, if people had more children, then the pension funds wouldn't collapse like they are collapsing now. Socialism is killing itself because it's fundamentally unsustainable.

>>17
Does Israel have a modern economy which "no longer rewards large families"? If so, why is its average fertility about twice higher than Europe or USA?

>>17
Besides, there's this thing that applies to childbearing called "happiness". You know, the thing that can't be measured in economical terms. Many people would gladly have kids had they roof above their heads and were they not smothered with student loans. Socialism and immigration have created a society where half the young live with their parents until 30 because they can't afford to live separately. That is why people have fewer kids, and we have leftist faggots to thank for it.

>>6
That's an appallingly simplistic approach to social politics. If you were in power, I guarantee that the citizens will openly call for your assassination for these policies.

>>9
Social Security Payments. For as long as the citizens are entitled to social security, the government is within its mandate to enforce people to save for their retirement. Individuals who are so selfish that they spend all their earnings before retirement then demand a pension during retirement is guaranteed to drain the government much faster than is happening at the moment. This is a social policy designed to protect everyone from individuals who don't save for retirement which is the vast majority of society. If your answer to these people is to say "just let them die", then you will never be in accord with the rest of society, you will never be a politician who has the support of the populace.

>>20
How does socialism and immigration result in a society where people can't afford to move out their parent's home? I don't see any direct connection.

>>21

citizens are entitled to social security

We have found the problem! Just eliminate all niggers, so there will be no need in social security.

>>21

If your answer to these people is to say "just let them die", then you will never be in accord with the rest of society, you will never be a politician who has the support of the populace.

Hitler said "just let them die" to commies other troublesome individuals, yet whole Germany has supported him.

>>24
The Germans at that time had two choices: support Hitler or be executed for opposing Hitler. The common sense choice (assuming that they didn't choose to flee) would be the choice that supported your own life rather than your own execution.

>>21
The government is not entitled to decide for everyone what to do with their money.

Individuals who are so selfish that they spend all their earnings before retirement then demand a pension

What about individuals who do not demand a pension? Why can't they opt out of this government robbery and invest their money freely? And yes, it's a robbery when there is no option not to give up your money.

individuals who don't save for retirement which is the vast majority of society

This is anti-human, socialistic bullshit. Stop thinking the people are stupid and need your nanny state. For thousands of years people managed to live without government pensions. Yes, there were fewer people reaching retirement age, but such people there were, and they survived without the Big Brother babysitting over their entire lives. Those who did not save were usually helped by this thing called "kids and large family" which was a thing before socialism smothered it.

If your answer to these people is to say "just let them die"

But that is what the socialistic governments of the West will have to reply when their pension/social security funds go belly up, which is within years. What do you propose the retired people do then? Obama entered office with national debt at $10 trillion, and will leave office with debt at $20 trillion. Socialistic pensions are just a huge Ponzi scheme that we all have no option not to participate in. If you put the government in charge of the Sahara desert, there would be a shortage of sand in several years.

>>26

This is anti-human, socialistic bullshit. Stop thinking the people are stupid and need your nanny state.

The data proves you wrong. All governments around the world who pay a pension know that government can't afford to pay a retirement pension until eternity. The answer to this without forcing people to die is to force people to save for retirement. This is as much robbery as giving your car to the valet to park it: it's not robbery.

For thousands of years people managed to live without government pensions. Yes, there were fewer people reaching retirement age, but such people there were, and they survived without the Big Brother babysitting over their entire lives.

These people had substantially lower standards of living which translate to substantially lower financial requirements. We cannot return to this lifestyle without dismantling all the infrastructure that support us today.

Those who did not save were usually helped by this thing called "kids and large family" which was a thing before socialism smothered it.

This is a thing today. It's all your choice to have a large family.

If you put the government in charge of the Sahara desert, there would be a shortage of sand in several years.

I would love to see this happen. However, I don't think it will happen like you say it will.

>>25

Nope. Germans have two choices: support Hitler or accept Communism. Given such choice, any sane persons will pick Hitler, because communism is so much worse than Nazism. Of course parasites love communism, because it gives them freebies, while at the same time punishing hardworking entrepreneurs.

>>28
Hitler made it obvious that he'd execute anybody who opposed him. Opposing Hitler didn't imply that they accepted communism.

>>29

People, who hindered Hitler's struggle against commies, were the supporters of communism.

>>12
We live under a monarchy, God save our noble queen Elisabeth the II.

God save our gracious Queen!
Long live our noble Queen!
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us:
God save the Queen!

O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies,
And make them fall:
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix:
God save us all.

Thy choicest gifts in store,
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign:
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause,
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the Queen!

>>27
I'm tired of arguing with you. You are wrong on every count.

>>32
No he isn't, he just isn't as much of a lolbertarian retard as you.

>>18

There is reverse correlation between level of taxation and birthrates. Higher taxes mean more people unborn.

High taxes aren't a new thing. Falling birth rates is.

And children have been a good investment for centuries, why would they stop being that now? Children provide help for their parents when they get old.

Because there's insufficient demand for labor. Which means that for children to be a worthwhile investment, you have to dump massive amounts of money into them for them to be competitive in the job market. And if they end up unable to find a high-paying job, all that money you invested in them goes to waste.

>>20

Besides, there's this thing that applies to childbearing called "happiness". You know, the thing that can't be measured in economical terms.

Plenty of people have claimed that childbearing causes a LOSS of happiness. And if happiness cannot be measured (hint: it can), it has no place in discussion of rational economic behavior.

>>26

What about individuals who do not demand a pension? Why can't they opt out of this government robbery and invest their money freely? And yes, it's a robbery when there is no option not to give up your money.

They can do this by declining the social contract and leaving the country. By living in a country, you implicitly agree to do whatever that country's government wants. It's not robbery, because you already consented.

>>26

But that is what the socialistic governments of the West will have to reply when their pension/social security funds go belly up, which is within years.

They're more likely to establish price ceilings so that even a small pension is enough to live on.

>>32

I have no argument

Also check my doubles.