101–110 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is. And this is the case in all western countries. It is just being realized in different ways. Fundamentalle there are 3 ways to cope 1. reduce pensions 2. Raise taxes 3. Decrease amount of benefit receivers. Denmark choose number 3
What does "reduce pensions" mean? Pensions are people's property. You can take pensions like you can confiscate property, a la communism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't the fourth way be via increasing either birth rate or immigration?
Raising the birth rate is extremely difficult and immigration will destroy a country's culture if not managed properly. For an interesting case study, compare Japan (who refuses to allow mass immigration and is at risk of going extinct) and the UK (who has embraced it and is on the way to becoming Muslim-majority). It'll be interesting to see in 50 years which one has had better outcomes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. It is about how the system is funded. If pensions were funded by actual retirement accounts, where employees invested money into some state fund and have it paid out for retirement this would be entirely unproblematic. But the pension system in many EU countries is set up in a way in which tax contributions now finance pensions now . This can only work with a steadily growing economy which continually generates m…
This is about public pensions. Denmark has private pensions like the 401k system in the US. People can start tapping into these up to 5 years before they are 70. In reality most people will go down in time and partially tap into private pensions and saving long before they turn 70. This is opposed to other European countries, like Germany, that does not have these private pensions, but only retirement insurance.
Just as in Germany Denmark funds it's pensions through taxes, Germany additionally funds them through employee contributions.
Seems the US will have to do this soon. Just very very unpopular. Not sure which party will actually pull the trigger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The boomers definitely weren’t the first getting in, the original pensions were paid to their own parents It’s not really a Ponzi scheme, it is completely possible for the system to be balanced, it’s just very very hard to get people to vote for you if you say they’ll have less tomorrow
maybe you don't like it to be called a Ponzi scheme, but the reality is that it is one. Definition of a Ponzi scheme: A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investor. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk. But in many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters do not invest the money. Instead, they use i…
pensions on the other hand don't have the quality of deception and the value is straightforward - it redistributes wealth from the younger population to the older ones. this reduces the need for individuals to plan their retirements as the state takes care of it. as pointed by another post, you don't need a pyramid here, just somewhat equal proportions of population on each side.
wouldn't you characterise any tax scheme as a ponzi scheme? unemployment benefits, healthcare etc? what makes them different from pensions?
but i do agree that one should not think of pensions as a given. its worth pointing out that there are two types of pensions - defined benefits and defined contributions.
This is because of their low birth rate primarily right? I think the system has failed at this point, when you are expected to work that long.
But people are living longer, in better health (I think but didn’t verify with data) and entering the workforce later (due to more secondary schooling). Setting aside the issues of declining birth rate for a minute, this seems like a reasonable adjustment to the other factors?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't the fourth way be via increasing either birth rate or immigration?
Raising the birth rate is extremely difficult and immigration will destroy a country's culture if not managed properly. For an interesting case study, compare Japan (who refuses to allow mass immigration and is at risk of going extinct) and the UK (who has embraced it and is on the way to becoming Muslim-majority). It'll be interesting to see in 50 years which one has had better outcomes.
This is because of their low birth rate primarily right? I think the system has failed at this point, when you are expected to work that long.
But people are living longer, in better health (I think but didn’t verify with data) and entering the workforce later (due to more secondary schooling). Setting aside the issues of declining birth rate for a minute, this seems like a reasonable adjustment to the other factors?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Raising the birth rate is extremely difficult and immigration will destroy a country's culture if not managed properly. For an interesting case study, compare Japan (who refuses to allow mass immigration and is at risk of going extinct) and the UK (who has embraced it and is on the way to becoming Muslim-majority). It'll be interesting to see in 50 years which one has had better outcomes.
it is 6% muslim majority?