From Xinhua:
Brazilians took to the streets on Friday for a nationwide massive protest against the social security reform proposed by the government.
According to local media, there were protests in at least 190 towns in all Brazilian states.As a full strike was called, buses halted in 19 state capitals, subway and urban train workers in several cities joined the strike, classes were cancelled in public schools and many private schools in at least 23 state capitals, and road blockades were seen in the country. ...
Why can't we learn to do this in the USA?
ReplyDeleteBecause we are too fat and lazy and expect someone else to do it for us.
ReplyDeleteBrazil's social security system is unsustainable. The average Brazilian can retire at age 55 on 70% pay. There are not enough workers paying into the system to keep paying out those benefits. The reforms would raise the retirement age to 65.
ReplyDeleteSee this article if you want to be informed; and then form your own opinion:
https://panampost.com/david-unsworth/2019/06/17/bolsonaro-and-guedes-fight-to-reform-brazils-unsustainable-pension-system/?cn-reloaded=1
@3:30
ReplyDeleteI read your article. It's not a precise comparison. In Brazil, Social Security taxes are 11% for the employee, 20-22.5% for the employer, or 31-33.5% in total. In the US, it is 6.2% by both employee and employer, 12.4% in total. So money coming in is nearly triple in comparison to the US. As to 70% wages as a retirement benefit, in the US, the average annual wage is $47,060 whereas the average social security benefit is roughly $1,461 per month, or $17,532 per year. That's only 37% of average wages. So basically Brazil is paying nearly triple as much in as a US worker, and getting only twice as much out as a US worker.
That would appear to be more sustainable than even the US system, but there is the 10 additional years of benefits to account for. The lifespan in the US and Brazil are similar, with Brazil only being a year or two shorter than US. Those additional years probably accounts for why there is any hint of a shortfall given the disparity between money coming in and money going out which would on it's face suggest the system is entirely sustainable, but as I see it, the two system are of comparable sustainability given the increased duration of benefits.