The USA Today reports that the best nations for retirees are (in order): Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Germant, Canada, Netherlands, Iceland, Japan, USA, and UK.

The article from today's paper says:

"In Switzerland, by law, each worker's retirement fund must consist of contributions from a state-run pension plan, in addition to the pension from employers and tax-free personal savings similar to IRA accounts.

This combination of funds means that when workers retire, they receive a relatively high percentage of their former salary through the pension plan."

Interesting, isn't it that these places that provide most for retirees are the "socialist" countries?

Originally Posted by Guest

The USA Today reports that the best nations for retirees are (in order): Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Germant, Canada, Netherlands, Iceland, Japan, USA, and UK.

The article from today's paper says:

"In Switzerland, by law, each worker's retirement fund must consist of contributions from a state-run pension plan, in addition to the pension from employers and tax-free personal savings similar to IRA accounts.

This combination of funds means that when workers retire, they receive a relatively high percentage of their former salary through the pension plan."

Interesting, isn't it that these places that provide most for retirees are the "socialist" countries?

Yep, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. I traveled overseas and lived in several countries. Maybe reading something in an article glosses over several important issues on what retirement costs over there. Germany is especially interesting since I have an acquaintance that still isn't retired because he hasn't reached the minimum age requirement. Oh, and by the way, have you checked out the amount of taxes they pay out of their paycheck? Last I checked, which was admittedly a couple years ago, a German paid somewhere around 55% of his pay in taxes and an average Swede pays at least 30% more in taxes than we do.

Of course, there are a lot of needy folks in America that would just as soon allow the nanny government to take full control of their wages and supply them with they food, clothes, housing and transportation.

Americans are pretty ignorant of preparation for the future. Most like to live for today and let the gov worry about supporting them later.

Granted, if we had our money from Social Security invested properly, we would all be living high off the hog right now. If they would have allowed me to invest my own money instead of borrowing it, then I would be living much better than I am now.

But, beware of the socialist that brags about how much the government is doing for them. A lot of nothing is still nothing. I suggest that before anyone compare our country with other countries, they go live in some other countries and observe how socialism works.

The grass is always greener on the other side.

I have heard many times, "If I did not have to have my money put into Social Security and could have invested it myself, I would be very rich."

What percentage of Americans would have taken 7 percent from eacg paycheck and actually done that instead of spending all their paycheck - even if there was no safety net of Social Security at all?

We would have lots more people living in refrigerator boxes under bridges if there was no Social Security.

Originally Posted by Guest

I have heard many times, "If I did not have to have my money put into Social Security and could have invested it myself, I would be very rich."

What percentage of Americans would have taken 7 percent from eacg paycheck and actually done that instead of spending all their paycheck - even if there was no safety net of Social Security at all?

We would have lots more people living in refrigerator boxes under bridges if there was no Social Security.

Do not know if this is the same poster who harps on this over and over.

If so, you always leap to the far end of any discussion, and do not even try to understand.

Nobody ever said, on this forum, nor anywhere I ever heard of to abolish social security.

YET, you take this extreme view every time.

The only proposal I am aware of was a proposal to allow personal investment of a small portion of earned social security benefits, never all of it, and never to abolish. It was mocked, at the time and the proposal never saw the light of day.

Where, may I ask, have you ever heard a discussion about the doing away of social security ?

Originally Posted by Guest

The USA Today reports that the best nations for retirees are (in order): Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Germant, Canada, Netherlands, Iceland, Japan, USA, and UK.

The article from today's paper says:

"In Switzerland, by law, each worker's retirement fund must consist of contributions from a state-run pension plan, in addition to the pension from employers and tax-free personal savings similar to IRA accounts.

This combination of funds means that when workers retire, they receive a relatively high percentage of their former salary through the pension plan."

Interesting, isn't it that these places that provide most for retirees are the "socialist" countries?

Yes, it is "interesting" Having been to your top five I will tell you that they are great, but they could NEVER replace the USA ever.

I also can tell you that they have immigration quotas, and if you hurry up, you may be able to get in.

If you like socialism, and I assure that theses
Countries are NOT socialist as you think.

True socialism has never worked anywhere, and is considered through history as a failed experiment.

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes, it is "interesting" Having been to your top five I will tell you that they are great, but they could NEVER replace the USA ever.

I also can tell you that they have immigration quotas, and if you hurry up, you may be able to get in.

If you like socialism, and I assure that theses
Countries are NOT socialist as you think.

True socialism has never worked anywhere, and is considered through history as a failed experiment.

Originally Posted by Guest

I have heard many times, "If I did not have to have my money put into Social Security and could have invested it myself, I would be very rich."

What percentage of Americans would have taken 7 percent from eacg paycheck and actually done that instead of spending all their paycheck - even if there was no safety net of Social Security at all?

We would have lots more people living in refrigerator boxes under bridges if there was no Social Security.

So, where would you get all that money to live high on the hog like Germany, Sweden, etc?

Ever heard of the Federal Thrift Savings Plan? Google it and look at how well the funds have done.

For those that don't know it, the TSP is part of a gov retirement system where you are allowed to invest so much of your salary into a selection of funds. AND they have done very good. I think the only year that they did not do well, was 2008. So, the following year they did great again. If you were able to take half of your SS tax and chose your own fund, you would do very well by the time you retired. Trouble is that congress doesn't want you taking your money and tying it up somewhere that they can't use it. And in case you think that when the stock market tanks, you will lose all your money, thing about this. If EVERYONE is investing in the stock market, bonds, gov CDs, etc. the economy is going to be pretty stable. Of course, I am no expert so I am just guessing at that part.

Basically, the federal gov could/could allow contributions to SS to invested in the fund of the contributor's choice, within the selections available. Similar to the TSP or even using the TSP. The TSP has a great record, so why not?

Did anybody besides me notice that the first 7 countries on that list have cold climates. Wrong! I'll stay where I'm at.

and most have no idea of the cost of living in the so called socialist countries.

I would think most loyal American citizens would not trade anyplace else for the good old USA. (please note I said most).

There are not too many, if any, of the modern world non US countries that I have not been to visit...for extended periods. And while many are nice, some very nice, they do not compare to what we have here in America.

I used to be ALWAYS glad to get back in the USA.

Originally Posted by Guest

and most have no idea of the cost of living in the so called socialist countries.

I would think most loyal American citizens would not trade anyplace else for the good old USA. (please note I said most).

There are not too many, if any, of the modern world non US countries that I have not been to visit...for extended periods. And while many are nice, some very nice, they do not compare to what we have here in America.

I used to be ALWAYS glad to get back in the USA.

Same here. I was always glad to return home.

It is difficult for me, as well as disheartening, to hear Villages residents on here advocating socialism.

Only three reasons that I can think of for that......

1. They are trolls who simply want to stir the pot.

2. They are uneducated totally and have lived in a cave so as to not be aware of the many socialist societies throughout history that have not just failed, but totally collapsed. That would be ALL of them by the way.

3. They are Democrats who are convinced that they MUST be a democrat and MUST vote democrat, and they see the direction of that party and the speed in which they are going there. They are simply trying to catch up and will gather in the inevitable because they are simply democrats for life, no matter what.

Originally Posted by Guest

It is difficult for me, as well as disheartening, to hear Villages residents on here advocating socialism.

Only three reasons that I can think of for that......

1. They are trolls who simply want to stir the pot.

2. They are uneducated totally and have lived in a cave so as to not be aware of the many socialist societies throughout history that have not just failed, but totally collapsed. That would be ALL of them by the way.

3. They are Democrats who are convinced that they MUST be a democrat and MUST vote democrat, and they see the direction of that party and the speed in which they are going there. They are simply trying to catch up and will gather in the inevitable because they are simply democrats for life, no matter what.

Originally Posted by Guest

It is difficult for me, as well as disheartening, to hear Villages residents on here advocating socialism.

Only three reasons that I can think of for that......

1. They are trolls who simply want to stir the pot.

2. They are uneducated totally and have lived in a cave so as to not be aware of the many socialist societies throughout history that have not just failed, but totally collapsed. That would be ALL of them by the way.

3. They are Democrats who are convinced that they MUST be a democrat and MUST vote democrat, and they see the direction of that party and the speed in which they are going there. They are simply trying to catch up and will gather in the inevitable because they are simply democrats for life, no matter what.

Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Sweden, and Germany seem to be doing pretty good.

Originally Posted by Guest

Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Sweden, and Germany seem to be doing pretty good.

Relative to WHAT ?

Make your case, anyone can simply come on here and type jug gibberish. I am not doing your homework for you. Make your case and if it is good...have a great trip

NORWAY

"Norway's energy boom is tailing off years ahead of expectations, exposing an economy unprepared for life after oil and threatening the long-term viability of the world's most generous welfare model."

"High spending within the sector has pushed up wages and other costs to unsustainable levels, not just for the oil and gas industry but for all sectors, and that is now acting as a drag on further energy investment. Norwegian firms outside oil have struggled to pick up the slack in what has been, for at least a decade, almost a single-track economy."

End of oil boom threatens Norway's welfare model | Reuters


SWITZERLAND

"And so the Swiss have arrived at an arrangement for the care of
the poor which, first of all, has to meet the requirement of aiding
them in such a manner that they are temporarily helped--yet not
encouraged to become dependent on government aid. Second, aid
has to be tied to a policy of encouraging the poor to help themselves
as much as possible, and to move them out of poverty as rapidly as
possible, if not in that generation, then at least in the next.

The Swiss have established a far-ranging and expanding program of compulsory social insurance that imposes on each worker and his
employer a compulsory shared-risk program to provide for both the
expected and unexpected financial needs of most other workers.
This primarily self-sustained (with a minor government contribution)
insurance program provides the worker with old-age retirement,
disability and sickness insurance, survivors' insurance, accident
insurance, and unemployment compensation. Unlike the social
insurance policies of many other industrialized nations, however,
these programs are designed so that the beneficiary cannot control
the outcome. Unemployment compensation is given only if the person
is validly out of work and readily available for employment as it
opens up. Disability is strictly defined in such a way that it has not,
as it has in many other nations, become an alternative to work."



http://www.nationalaffairs.com/docli...phsegalman.pdf