Do as I say, not as I do

"pay now or cry later"

so it's madatory but voluntary? oooooookkaaaaay, They ever hear of payroll deduction?

Japanese actresses aren't cartoons?

Shoulda hired Aya Sugimoto.

Good use of tag...

By 2025, Japan is expected to have one person over 65 for every two of working age, the highest ratio among industrial countries.


I blame raidoactive fallout
.
.
.
/one ticket,redeye special please

a GIS for the actress (Makiko Esumi) shows her "trademark hard stares" and also her not so trademarked boobies. enjoy.

Since you're all wondering...

I'd hit it.

For Relaxing times, I use the Santori Pension fund.

adler: a GIS for the actress (Makiko Esumi) shows her "trademark hard stares" and also her not so trademarked boobies. enjoy.


A "trademark hard stare":



Not so trademarked boobies (NSFW)

I think the boobies help her "hard stare". I'm like a deer caught in those headlights!

Shouldn't it just be accepted that celebrities live in an entirely different world than us 'mundanes'?

So we Americans aren't the only ones being screwed in this way...

Esumi-san can give me a hard stare any time she likes. I'd hit it like Godzilla stomping through Tokyo.

I want to pay now and cry later. Hurt me plenty, baby.

Wow, I couldn't contain my surprise when I found out this had nothing to do with Bush.

"We're very disappointed," a spokesman for the Social Insurance Agency said.

Translation: "You're fired".

He added that the agency was considering its next move, which could include legal action.

Translation: "You are so fired!"

The main opposition Democratic Party demanded that Esumi appear in Parliament to explain herself.

Translation: "You would not believe how fired you are!"

Individuals' contributions to the scheme are about 37 per cent short of where they should be, reflecting a growing belief among young people that they are unlikely to get much out of the system so there is little reason to pay in.

Well, of course contributions are short. I wouldn't pay into a scheme either if I had a choice.

In the commercials, the 37-year-old Esumi gives the camera one of her trademark hard stares, saying "pay now or cry later".

What a coincidence! I'm wanting to give her a trademark hard... um, never mind, just noticed some kids in the audience.

AnonymousGuy

Well, of course contributions are short. I wouldn't pay into a scheme either if I had a choice.

I wouldn't, either. Why should I finance somebody else's retirement and make it harder to save for mine?

Yay, editors

Isn't someone supposed to do fact checking?

380 million Yen hasn't equaled anything near 4.8 million dollars for a long long time.

I swear to GOD I should be an editor.

Pay now, or no happy fun time later.

So, anyway...pensions...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The position is further complicated by the rising numbers of young Japanese opting for a life of casual job-hopping.

Sounds familiar ...

/I'd definately hit it

And don't even get me started on the Ponzi scheme that is the US Social (In)security system.

/would do a better job investing the 7.65% yanked from his paycheck
//fires up the flames

Syn`sthe

/would do a better job investing the 7.65% yanked from his paycheck

You forgot about the 7.65% that your employer is *also* required to "contribute" for you, making the total close to 16%. Thats the real rip-off.

Social Security - Here we go.

As a 27 year old, it kills me to know that I will never see the $$$ I throw into SS twice a month. The system was developed with a retirement age of 65, when life expectancy was 68. People were expected to survive on the system for three years, not thirty. As I pay for the retirement of the baby boomers, I'd rather be saving for my own retirement. Instead, I'll probably get Dick Slapped (see previous article) by Uncle Sam instead.

My solution is to scrap the retirement portion of Social Security (let me plan my own retirement, thank you very much), and keep the disability portion for those TRUELY in need.

/Enough with the rant ...

a0helsux

You forgot about the 7.65% that your employer is *also* required to "contribute" for you, making the total close to 16%. Thats the real rip-off.

I think we can both agree that FDR's Socialist Insecurity scheme is nothing but fraud and extortion. Why that power-lusting, thieving cripple is considered a hero is beyond me.

sounds like the japanese <40 aren't going to let the older generation screw them over. Good for them.

OK...if we're going to have a Social Security discussion...

1. It is obvious that the system, if left unaltered, will collapse within most of our lifetimes.

2. It is obvious that even if the government had not regularly been raiding the so-called "trust fund" from Vietnam to the present, the system would still go broke due to the number of Baby Boomers vs. the number of younger workers. The ratio is getting closer to 1:2, which is not sustainable.

So what do we do about it? Realistically? We can't just stop paying into it cold turkey...doing so would blow a hole in the federal budget or leave millions of seniors without a significant portion of their incomes and little options.

And what do we do about the greater millions of boomers who are closing in on retirement, haven't done much retirement planning, and are counting on SS to provide a good portion of their income?

I'm not posting this for flame bait...I'm seriously asking what we do about it. Continuing as is is not an option. Scrapping it tomorrow is not an option. So what's in the middle?

Well without details logic would dictate a slow build up to a new system and the old one is slowly phased out.

They have the *option* to not throw their money into a government blackhole? Sounds cool to me. Wish we had that here in the States.

beeferoni

So what do we do about it? Realistically? We can't just stop paying into it cold turkey...doing so would blow a hole in the federal budget or leave millions of seniors without a significant portion of their incomes and little options.

The federal budget is already FUBAR. As for the seniors: fark 'em. They should have seen this coming and saved for their own retirement.

I hate paying into SS knowing that when I get older it will not be there for me. Unfortunatly, if current and future generations stop paying into it then millions of senior citizens will be left with squat. The way I see it, SS was a good idea when life expectancy was only 68 or so and not what it is today, but thanks to the government raiding the coffers to bail them out every year and not raising the age limit to met the longer life spans of today SS has become defucted. What needs to be done is to set a date when to abandon Social Security. To make things all fair for those who have paid into the system a tax break needs to be givin for those that have already paid, a tax break that will last for say 10 or 20 years. Unfortunalty this would cause a huge shortfall in the federal budget, but if the government would suspend pork projects for a few years then the hit would not be felt.

For those who have not paid into SS then make 401K mandatory but not under government control so as to not have politicans raid the coffers. Just my thoughts on how to try and fix things.

ProgrammerCat: As for the seniors: fark 'em. They should have seen this coming and saved for their own retirement.


So we just allow millions of seniors to fall back into poverty? That does not seem like a plausible solution to me, especially since the reason may of them didn't retire is that they relied on the promises their government (SS, Medicare) and their employers (pensions) made about saving for them. Hindsight is great and all, but I don't think it all that unreasonable that they relied on the promises of others.

Do NOT do a GIS for Makiko Esumi. Repeat: do NOT, if you value your corporate job...

beeferoni

So we just allow millions of seniors to fall back into poverty?

Sounds good to me. Why should I pay because somebody else decided to be a sucker and trust the government to provide for them?

blas

wouldn't mandatory 401K contributions just lead the liberatrians here like ProgrammerCat to resent that, too?

Interesting post...

Like there is going to be a US government in 30 years.

mtt
I swear to GOD I should be an editor.

And that's the reason why you will never be one, you swore to god. All editors think they ARE god.

Like there's going to be anything in 30 years
/nuthin

beeferoni

wouldn't mandatory 401K contributions just lead the liberatrians here like ProgrammerCat to resent that, too?

Yeah, it would. Don't tell me what to do with my money. If I want to blow it all on booze and broads and then eat the gun at 65, that's nobody else's business but my own.

ProgrammerCat


Well, for starters, because of the drain this would have on the economy. If seniors were suddenly left without the SS incomes, they'd exhaust their own savings and then have to rely on either charity or their own families.

So now families with kids have to take on a burden that hasn't been borne by families for 2-3 generations, namely the taking care of their old relatives. Money that could be spent on their children's education, a home mortgage, a new car, or saved for their own retirement/education/whatever is now tied up supporting the seniors.

Re: "allowing millions of seniors to fall into poverty"

You can't save everyone. You cannot. If you save "millions" of Seniors, you still have "millions" of non-Seniors starving in the streets or in their crappy 1-room apt. It wouldn't be so bad to pull this farce-of-a-govt-program out from under everyone's feet on some boring Thursday morning and tell everyone "Have fun!"

The fallout would be immediate and terrible, but the end result would (probably) be a return to family values. You have to be good to your kids AND your parents. I can't afford to pay for your granny and mine, so guess who I'm going to choose???

"Money that could be spent on..."

WAAAAH! They can still spend it on Kaitlyn's Private School education and Billy's new $45,000 SUV, but their Granny has to suffer. I intend to take care of my family with or without Gov't support. If my kids have to go to some *PUBLIC* school to make that happen, I think we'll all live...

beeferoni

So now families with kids have to take on a burden that hasn't been borne by families for 2-3 generations, namely the taking care of their old relatives. Money that could be spent on their children's education, a home mortgage, a new car, or saved for their own retirement/education/whatever is now tied up supporting the seniors.

Don't a lot of middle-aged adults already get stuck caring for their elderly parents on top of taking care of their kids? Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of these greedy, whiny, meddlesome, annoying elderlies starving in the streets because they treated their kids like shiat and have nowhere to go. That sounds like justice to me.

Besides, if the grandparents have to move in, they can make themselves useful by taking care of the grandkids while Mom and Dad work their asses off in their shiatty corporate jobs so that they can keep up with the Joneses.

I can't believe I'm 100% in accord with ProgrammerCat... Dirt... won't... wash... OFF!!!

/i keed, i keed

JaxGator75

I can't believe I'm 100% in accord with ProgrammerCat... Dirt... won't... wash... OFF!!!

You and barjockey should start a support group.