$5 billion budget boost for pensions

People just don't get it because they've been stuck in the system too long. You show up to work, and you assume the government handles the rest. These older folks think they earned their houses, vacation homes, and pensions through pure grit, but honestly? The state basically handed them those things on a silver platter because Western powers were footing the bill to meet certain geopolitical goals. The party ended, but we haven't quite sobered up yet—those same powers are still effectively paying for our cars and retirements today. Only difference is, this time, we have to pay it all back with interest. It puts any future Government in a total lose-lose spot: they'll get crucified if they try to cut pensions, but they'll get crucified for taking out more debt just to keep those same pensions afloat.

Hm, I guess I should weigh in too. Our core issue is just a weak economy. This country produces X goods and Y services annually; some gets exported or provided to foreigners to bring in the foreign currency needed to import stuff.

Then all of that gets distributed among the population—though obviously not equally: Ivanka Trump might get a little more, while an old lady like Mary gets a little less.

Raising the retirement age is probably a decent move, I suppose. There’s also this other measure they aren't talking about much. Basically, until now, unemployment benefits were tied to meeting the requirements for early retirement, and then they stopped. So people were essentially forced into retirement. Now, those benefits will continue until someone hits the criteria for regular retirement.

But what have we actually achieved? Person X works a few years longer, but then Person Y, who was supposed to take Person X's spot once they retired, ends up unemployed. The number of jobs is pretty much fixed. If Person Z is unemployed, they won't just take early retirement; they'll just collect unemployment. For any of this to make sense, that benefit really ought to be effectively smaller than a pension. And if Person Z does find a job, then someone else just becomes the unemployed one.

It feels like we're just pouring liquid from one canister to another: the amount of wine stays the same.

The government should probably reserve certain jobs for people who struggle to find work—like janitors in schools, clerks at service counters, or registry offices. Older folks could handle those. But then you end up with younger people being unemployed because those roles are taken.

It all boils down to the fact that there isn't enough industry or enough jobs to employ everyone.

And here's another thing: an unemployed 60-year-old lives off the state, but an unemployed 30-year-old will likely pack up and head to Austria or Germany, or maybe just work under the table. They'll pay taxes in another country, and our ratio of workers to retirees won't see a dime of it.

At this rate, we'll have no choice but to import retirees from wealthy nations. The central fund pays the pension, but the spending happens right here...

What could we even do for work? It seems like Mediterranean countries generally struggle. We could build a high-speed rail to Cleveland to haul containers for Canadians, but that's expensive. We could have done something with oil or gas with the Russians, but that went nowhere. We built a tram, but we can't sell it to anyone in the world. Are we all just going to farm tuna and manufacture screws?

Paul Anderson2 said:Hm, I guess I should weigh in too. Our core issue is just a weak economy. This country produces X goods and Y services annually; some gets exported or provided to foreigners to bring in the foreign currency needed to import stuff.

Then all of that gets distributed among the population—though obviously not equally: Ivanka Trump might get a little more, while an old lady like Mary gets a little less.

Raising the retirement age is probably a decent move, I suppose. There’s also this other measure they aren't talking about much. Basically, until now, unemployment benefits were tied to meeting the requirements for early retirement, and then they stopped. So people were essentially forced into retirement. Now, those benefits will continue until someone hits the criteria for regular retirement.

But what have we actually achieved? Person X works a few years longer, but then Person Y, who was supposed to take Person X's spot once they retired, ends up unemployed. The number of jobs is pretty much fixed. If Person Z is unemployed, they won't just take early retirement; they'll just collect unemployment. For any of this to make sense, that benefit really ought to be effectively smaller than a pension. And if Person Z does find a job, then someone else just becomes the unemployed one.

It feels like we're just pouring liquid from one canister to another: the amount of wine stays the same.

The government should probably reserve certain jobs for people who struggle to find work—like janitors in schools, clerks at service counters, or registry offices. Older folks could handle those. But then you end up with younger people being unemployed because those roles are taken.

It all boils down to the fact that there isn't enough industry or enough jobs to employ everyone.

And here's another thing: an unemployed 60-year-old lives off the state, but an unemployed 30-year-old will likely pack up and head to Austria or Germany, or maybe just work under the table. They'll pay taxes in another country, and our ratio of workers to retirees won't see a dime of it.

At this rate, we'll have no choice but to import retirees from wealthy nations. The central fund pays the pension, but the spending happens right here...

What could we even do for work? It seems like Mediterranean countries generally struggle. We could build a high-speed rail to Cleveland to haul containers for Canadians, but that's expensive. We could have done something with oil or gas with the Russians, but that went nowhere. We built a tram, but we can't sell it to anyone in the world. Are we all just going to farm tuna and manufacture screws?

😲
Man, you sound like you might secretly be an economist or something, right?

Andrew Booth29 said:Look, the issue with the economy here in the States isn't really about figuring out what to build or how to innovate—it’s more about deciding who to squeeze for a handout so nobody actually has to break a sweat. 🤣
It is pure rent-seeking,
pushed to a level that is frankly absurd.

Andrew Booth29 said:The truth is, most people fail to grasp a fundamental reality: their pension is always being funded by their children. The government—it’s really just a middleman here—forcibly collects that money from the next generation and takes a massive cut for itself along the way. 😬
This might be why we see such a lack of genuine interest in parenting these days. Why bother with the heavy lifting of upbringing when the system ensures the kids will eventually foot the bill for the parents' retirement through taxes? It's a cynical cycle, isn't it?
Modern sociologists tend to overlook the economic drivers behind human behavior, while economists, on the flip side, seem almost entirely blind to the sociological nuances of the economy. But let's be honest—every community formed by human beings is, at its core, an economic one.

I’m signing off on both of those posts. And look, when it comes to sociologists and the whole field of sociology, we're talking about a group of people who have been completely sidelined—honestly, I’d go as far as saying they were kicked to the curb back in the late '80s. As someone coming at this from an engineering perspective, my take is that we actually need them; they serve as a vital corrective factor for society and for corporations alike. I just can't wrap my head around why they were booted out of things like that ridiculous economic social council that handles all the negotiations and legal amendments. Why even exclude them?

ruggeddriver70 said:So, I guess the Americans have an aging ratio of 1.67:1—which, honestly, makes us look even worse by comparison—and their EF is predicting that in a few decades, there’ll actually be more retirees than people actually working. Just great.
[Link to GIF]

And you can see right here that over the last decade—if you look at the data—the average number of years an American retiree actually collects benefits has jumped from 14 up to 17. I guess things are shifting, maybe?
[GIF Link]

It’s honestly hilarious because the Americans do the exact same thing we do—they even stick to the same ridiculous deadlines:

So, the Department of Labor is actually floating this idea—apparently, they want to bump the retirement age to 65 for everyone, men and women alike. I guess they think we’re all just getting younger by the day? It's pretty wild to think about, honestly. Maybe they're just looking for ways to squeeze a few more years out of us before we can finally call it quits. Who knows? Just one more thing to add to the pile, I suppose.So, looks like nothing's actually changing when it comes to qualifying for retirement—you still need those same 15 years of coverage to get anything at all. They’re dragging out this transition period forever, too... I guess that means women won't even hit that 65 age mark until after 2020. Typical.

So, I guess the Americans have an aging ratio of 1.67:1—which, honestly, makes us look even worse by comparison—and their EF is predicting that in a few decades, there’ll actually be more retirees than people actually working. Just great.
[Link to GIF]

And you can see right here that over the last decade—if you look at the data—the average number of years an American retiree actually collects benefits has jumped from 14 up to 17. I guess things are shifting, maybe?
[GIF Link]

It’s honestly hilarious because the Americans do the exact same thing we do—they even stick to the same ridiculous deadlines:

So, the Department of Labor is actually floating this idea—apparently, they want to bump the retirement age to 65 for everyone, men and women alike. I guess they think we’re all just getting younger by the day? It's pretty wild to think about, honestly. Maybe they're just looking for ways to squeeze a few more years out of us before we can finally call it quits. Who knows? Just one more thing to add to the pile, I suppose.So, looks like nothing's actually changing when it comes to qualifying for retirement—you still need those same 15 years of coverage to get anything at all. They’re dragging out this transition period forever, too... I guess that means women won't even hit that 65 age mark until after 2020. Typical.
Looks like the Canadians are setting the pace, and now the Czechs are following right behind them.

So, according to The Wall Street Journal, the Czech Social Security Administration is looking at a massive $1.66 billion hole in its budget—about 32 billion koruna—mostly because everyone seems to be hitting retirement age all at once. I guess the math just isn't mathing lately.

So, Miroslav Kalousek has been grinding away at some pension reform plans leading up to 2012—basically trying to slash the fiscal deficit and give the country's credit rating a much-needed facelift. Standard & Poor's basically gave us a little carrot to dangle, promising they'd bump up our rating if The Government actually follows through on its promises—which, of course, includes fixing this whole pension mess. We don't really know exactly which direction these changes are headed yet, but it's pretty obvious that the deficit from the current pay-as-you-go setup is absolutely wrecking public finances. To cover the gap, The Government is stuck borrowing more and more, and honestly, if we want to see that credit rating move in the right direction, cutting down state spending is pretty much the only way out.

The new coalition Government that took over this summer is already mulling over a bunch of different proposals—it’s kind of wild how fast they started moving. Maybe they'll try something like bumping up the retirement age too—just when you think they can't squeeze any more out of us. So, about that whole mess regarding the introduction of private retirement accounts... I guess we're finally seeing it happen.
I couldn't access that specific link—looks like it might be broken or behind a paywall—but if you can paste the text here, I'll get to work. Just drop the content, and I’ll give it that dry, sarcastic overhaul you're looking for.

The circus continues

French Parliament gives the green light to pension overhaul

The socialist reps were fighting it tooth and nail, obviously, but Labor Minister Eric Woerth basically stood his ground defending The Government's plan—especially the big one about bumping the retirement age from 60 up to 62.

Romania's parliament also just passed their pension reforms

So, under this law—which is part of the whole deal they made with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Union (EU)—retirement age for guys is going up to 65 by 2015, and for women, it hits 65 by 2030.
The public pension system has been bleeding cash since 2008, and by the end of 2010, they’re looking at a massive three billion euro deficit. Guess what? The state is gonna have to go into debt just to keep those checks coming.

The Government should reserve specific roles for those who struggle to find work—think janitors in school districts, clerks at DMV offices, or staff in municipal buildings. These are positions older citizens could easily fill. However, doing so simply displaces the younger workers who would have occupied those roles.

It all boils down to a fundamental lack of industry and sufficient job openings to support the entire population.

There is also the matter of the demographic drain. An unemployed 60-year-old becomes a burden on the state, whereas an unemployed 30-year-old will simply pack their bags and move to Austria or Germany, or perhaps just work under the table. They will pay taxes in a foreign country, leaving our dependency ratio—the balance between workers and retirees—with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Our only option seems to be importing retirees from wealthier nations. The central fund pays the pension, but the spending happens right here...

What can we even offer as a workforce? It is clear that Mediterranean economies, in general, are struggling. We could build a high-speed rail line to Cleveland to transport containers for Canadians, but the capital requirements are prohibitive. We could have partnered with Russians on oil or gas ventures, but that led nowhere. We built a streetcar, yet there is no global market for it. Are we destined to just farm tuna and manufacture screws?

You have distilled our predicament into a few sentences: we are fundamentally uncompetitive in the global division of labor and the marketplace.
The Social Security Administration model we rely on—built on generational solidarity—only functioned as long as each successive generation was larger than the last. Ultimately, pensions are a German invention from the late 19th century; they concluded then that it was more efficient for the state to care for the elderly and infirm so the youth could focus entirely on production.

An exit from this stalemate is possible if we move in two directions simultaneously. First, families must return to caring for their own elderly and sick, regardless of how difficult that transition may be. Second, we must realize that we need to "reclaim" jobs from the countries we currently import goods and services from. Initially, we should pivot back to manufacturing low-tech goods like clothing, food, furniture, and construction materials, while gradually integrating higher technology such as electronics and automobiles.

In fifty years, we might actually be back on top. :-D

If we fail to fight for our place in the global market and secure a fair share of the international division of labor, we will remain exactly what we are today.

Robin Jones2 said:

The Government should reserve specific roles for those who struggle to find work—think janitors in school districts, clerks at DMV offices, or staff in municipal buildings. These are positions older citizens could easily fill. However, doing so simply displaces the younger workers who would have occupied those roles.

It all boils down to a fundamental lack of industry and sufficient job openings to support the entire population.

There is also the matter of the demographic drain. An unemployed 60-year-old becomes a burden on the state, whereas an unemployed 30-year-old will simply pack their bags and move to Austria or Germany, or perhaps just work under the table. They will pay taxes in a foreign country, leaving our dependency ratio—the balance between workers and retirees—with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Our only option seems to be importing retirees from wealthier nations. The central fund pays the pension, but the spending happens right here...

What can we even offer as a workforce? It is clear that Mediterranean economies, in general, are struggling. We could build a high-speed rail line to Cleveland to transport containers for Canadians, but the capital requirements are prohibitive. We could have partnered with Russians on oil or gas ventures, but that led nowhere. We built a streetcar, yet there is no global market for it. Are we destined to just farm tuna and manufacture screws?

You have distilled our predicament into a few sentences: we are fundamentally uncompetitive in the global division of labor and the marketplace.
The Social Security Administration model we rely on—built on generational solidarity—only functioned as long as each successive generation was larger than the last. Ultimately, pensions are a German invention from the late 19th century; they concluded then that it was more efficient for the state to care for the elderly and infirm so the youth could focus entirely on production.

An exit from this stalemate is possible if we move in two directions simultaneously. First, families must return to caring for their own elderly and sick, regardless of how difficult that transition may be. Second, we must realize that we need to "reclaim" jobs from the countries we currently import goods and services from. Initially, we should pivot back to manufacturing low-tech goods like clothing, food, furniture, and construction materials, while gradually integrating higher technology such as electronics and automobiles.

In fifty years, we might actually be back on top. :-D

If we fail to fight for our place in the global market and secure a fair share of the international division of labor, we will remain exactly what we are today.

Retirees are an economic cost to society, period. I guess mathematically or economically, it doesn't matter if they're funded by the family or through a social safety net. But if you move away from any sense of solidarity, you risk losing the moral and sociological fabric of society—like when certain people can't have children...
In any case, an unfavorable ratio of workers to retirees is irreversible. It leads to everyone's standard of living dropping because, honestly, if nothing gets produced, there's nothing to go around.🤷
For a country like America, the only way out would be forced euthanasia or stopping pension payments for anyone over, say, 71. 🤣
The thing is, cutting retiree standards is becoming unacceptable since pensions are already incredibly low compared to average wages. So, there isn't much choice left besides what you wrote in your second point, which Lj. Jurčić used to talk about quite a bit. Regarding the pension system, maybe we could bridge the gap using an "Australian model"—basically, if you have assets, you fund your own old age.
Essentially, we need a comprehensive sustainable development program that anticipates everything from energy needs to demographics, adjusting retirement ages, taxes, and everything else accordingly...
As for accountability, the masks are falling now with public admissions that "they didn't know what they were signing," essentially. It's the same story regarding responsibility for this current mess, which really stems from the 90s onwards. 😠

So, a study from the insurer Aviva shows that workers across the European Union are looking at a massive €1.9 billion shortfall when it comes to funding their pensions. If people don't start tucking away more cash right now, they might be facing some pretty rough years in their old age—I guess you could say things are looking grim. According to the Associated Press, these deficit estimates are based on how much each current worker would need to save to ensure they actually get a pension worth 70 percent of their last paycheck.

The biggest mess is happening in the United Kingdom, where the gap is sitting at a staggering €379 billion—that's like 26 percent of their entire GDP. Germany and Spain aren't doing much better either, trailing behind with gaps of 24 and 18 percent of GDP, respectively.

Aviva is basically saying that if we don't see an uptick in savings, folks in the EU will end up having to sell their houses just to survive, or maybe delay retirement altogether—or, you know, just settle for a much lower standard of living. They've called on the Union to step up and help plug these holes by setting national targets for pension savings, while also warning regular people not to bank entirely on government pensions to bail them out.

coppercyclist2 said:Retirees are an economic cost to society, period. I guess mathematically or economically, it doesn't matter if they're funded by the family or through a social safety net. But if you move away from any sense of solidarity, you risk losing the moral and sociological fabric of society—like when certain people can't have children...
In any case, an unfavorable ratio of workers to retirees is irreversible. It leads to everyone's standard of living dropping because, honestly, if nothing gets produced, there's nothing to go around.🤷
For a country like America, the only way out would be forced euthanasia or stopping pension payments for anyone over, say, 71. 🤣
The thing is, cutting retiree standards is becoming unacceptable since pensions are already incredibly low compared to average wages. So, there isn't much choice left besides what you wrote in your second point, which Lj. Jurčić used to talk about quite a bit. Regarding the pension system, maybe we could bridge the gap using an "Australian model"—basically, if you have assets, you fund your own old age.
Essentially, we need a comprehensive sustainable development program that anticipates everything from energy needs to demographics, adjusting retirement ages, taxes, and everything else accordingly...
As for accountability, the masks are falling now with public admissions that "they didn't know what they were signing," essentially. It's the same story regarding responsibility for this current mess, which really stems from the 90s onwards. 😠

It might be, well, let's say, mathematically indifferent how a pension system is funded, but in practice? It isn't—because it dictates how people actually behave. This whole "generational solidarity" model essentially incentivizes consumption at the expense of investment. And what happens when you overconsume and underinvest? You inevitably erode the future economic base—we are quite literally spending tomorrow's earnings today.
A system built on individual savings naturally adjusts to demographic shifts, economic fluctuations, and the like. A generational system lacks that inherent flexibility, which leads straight toward massive, systemic disruptions. Then there is the issue of moral hazard—where politicians essentially buy votes using money pulled from the pension fund.
Furthermore, in a savings-based system, you don't even need to set arbitrary retirement age requirements—though, of course, politicians love to meddle with that question anyway.

Someone mentioned this earlier, and I want to expand upon a similar idea:

1. We must establish a minimum monthly amount required for a dignified life. This should be the baseline pension that the government guarantees and pays out to every retiree, regardless of whether they worked as a janitor or a cabinet minister, or if they contributed for one year or forty.

2. Since most retirees typically own some form of real estate—though we really ought to calculate exactly how many there are—I believe having $667 per month would be sufficient for a decent life. If that isn't enough, they can sell a larger property to buy a smaller apartment, or leave their home to the state via a will. In exchange, the government would build dedicated senior living communities providing housing, food, and medical care. If they don't own property, their children should take them in. If they have no children, or if their children refuse to help, then the state will step in with those aforementioned senior homes. However, any child who refuses to care for their parents should be financially penalized, footing 50% of the costs for that parent's stay in such a facility.

3. For those still in the workforce: if you have extra, save it in banks, mutual funds, gold, precious stones, or even under your mattress. The more you save, the easier your retirement will be. Those who have nothing will simply live hand-to-mouth until they reach retirement age, at which point we will move them into those designated homes.

4. Retirees whose benefits exceed the minimum established in point 1 should have their pensions adjusted down to that amount. That surplus should be reinvested directly into building the senior homes mentioned in point 2.

5. For those receiving disability benefits, we must strictly verify the validity of those disabilities. If the disability is legitimate according to the initial assessment, fine; if not, the benefit must be adjusted. Furthermore, if anyone caught working while collecting a disability pension is discovered, their benefits should be terminated immediately, and they should be declared fit for work with no right to appeal for the following five years!

I believe this is fundamentally fair. Someone who earned well throughout their life will have bought a home or saved money; someone who didn't will live modestly and rely on social safety nets, but if they make it to retirement, they will be secure until death. Look, it is an irrefutable fact that not everyone can be wealthy—that's just utopia talking. These fake veterans and the fraudsters collecting disability checks while working would call this "cruel," but looking at the baseline in point 1 and the reality of point 3, I am willing to bet my life that both my parents and I will be subject to this exact same process in 30 or 40 years.

Well, here we go again, folks...
It’s easy enough to play the social welfare hero when you're just shifting money from one pocket to another—taking from one person to hand to someone else. But now? Now they actually have to take from people without offering anything in return (other than perhaps narrowing the deficit, if we're being optimistic). That is a net loss of votes, plain and simple. 😬
So, the game continues: borrowing more just to patch up the holes. It's a cycle where you essentially steal from someone five years down the line—those future voters—just to appease the current crowd today.

Andrew Booth29 said:It might be, well, let's say, mathematically indifferent how a pension system is funded, but in practice? It isn't—because it dictates how people actually behave. This whole "generational solidarity" model essentially incentivizes consumption at the expense of investment. And what happens when you overconsume and underinvest? You inevitably erode the future economic base—we are quite literally spending tomorrow's earnings today.
A system built on individual savings naturally adjusts to demographic shifts, economic fluctuations, and the like. A generational system lacks that inherent flexibility, which leads straight toward massive, systemic disruptions. Then there is the issue of moral hazard—where politicians essentially buy votes using money pulled from the pension fund.
Furthermore, in a savings-based system, you don't even need to set arbitrary retirement age requirements—though, of course, politicians love to meddle with that question anyway.

I agree with everything mentioned here, and I assume Robin Jones2 also felt the same way. But even with these strong economic arguments, I think behavioral economics as a relatively young field might not yet be able to fully examine or anticipate all the issues surrounding this topic.

The reality is, our generation is definitely the one that will actually have to "save" for our own old age, though I don't think everyone is thinking about that. It was similar during that era of "greedy eyes" from the 90s up until this recession, where people set impossibly high standards for their current lifestyle without caring about tomorrow. That clearly impacts today's macroeconomic picture (consumption vs. investment).
So, a lack of adaptability could cause huge gaps. On the other hand, there’s the big question of what to "reliably" invest personal savings into, especially when "behavioral economics errors" repeat themselves here and are hard to fix (real estate bubbles, stock bubbles... human naivety will always create bubbles).
In that spirit, I don't think we should completely scrap any sense of generational solidarity (we still rely on it a bit...), because doing so might trigger real social problems for a certain segment of people who are totally "unadjusted" (they have zero concept of saving for tomorrow) or those with different life circumstances (no children, etc.). So, maintaining solidarity just enough to smooth out those "bottom edges" makes sense.
Consistent implementation of the "Australian model" would be great, but that requires much more organized systems...

Therefore, while relying on savings might be economically superior for future growth, maybe some of that growth should be offset by income reductions, which has already been discussed.
I fear governments will always find a way to blow money they don't have and just push the debt onto the future.

EDIT: Maybe it's a similar issue regarding health insurance... Personally, I still can't wrap my head around it (I don't have all the info or a firm stance), but a doctor friend of mine in the USA insists that health is strictly a personal matter/risk—essentially an individual cost. I think if medical neglect is provable (though how—it's tough), everyone should pay for their own mistakes. But again, how do you make that distinction..?

Chile went all in on a fully privatized pension model—basically stripping everything back except for a bare-bones safety net for the most vulnerable. So far, they seem fine with it; the only real fallout they’ve noticed is an uptick in under-the-table work among lower earners—I mean, why bother paying into a system when you're just waiting for a government handout anyway? It’s the same story with healthcare, too. They privatized that as well, which led to the predictable split we see everywhere: a basic state-run social tier and a much more robust private option for anyone who actually has some money to spend.

As for security—if you're asking about stability—a diversified savings approach is inherently safer than relying on a generational, state-run system. You can spread your assets across different countries and markets; otherwise, you're just tethered to the whims of the economy in America.

electricsailor13 said:Someone mentioned this earlier, and I want to expand upon a similar idea:

1. We must establish a minimum monthly amount required for a dignified life. This should be the baseline pension that the government guarantees and pays out to every retiree, regardless of whether they worked as a janitor or a cabinet minister, or if they contributed for one year or forty.

2. Since most retirees typically own some form of real estate—though we really ought to calculate exactly how many there are—I believe having $667 per month would be sufficient for a decent life. If that isn't enough, they can sell a larger property to buy a smaller apartment, or leave their home to the state via a will. In exchange, the government would build dedicated senior living communities providing housing, food, and medical care. If they don't own property, their children should take them in. If they have no children, or if their children refuse to help, then the state will step in with those aforementioned senior homes. However, any child who refuses to care for their parents should be financially penalized, footing 50% of the costs for that parent's stay in such a facility.

3. For those still in the workforce: if you have extra, save it in banks, mutual funds, gold, precious stones, or even under your mattress. The more you save, the easier your retirement will be. Those who have nothing will simply live hand-to-mouth until they reach retirement age, at which point we will move them into those designated homes.

4. Retirees whose benefits exceed the minimum established in point 1 should have their pensions adjusted down to that amount. That surplus should be reinvested directly into building the senior homes mentioned in point 2.

5. For those receiving disability benefits, we must strictly verify the validity of those disabilities. If the disability is legitimate according to the initial assessment, fine; if not, the benefit must be adjusted. Furthermore, if anyone caught working while collecting a disability pension is discovered, their benefits should be terminated immediately, and they should be declared fit for work with no right to appeal for the following five years!

I believe this is fundamentally fair. Someone who earned well throughout their life will have bought a home or saved money; someone who didn't will live modestly and rely on social safety nets, but if they make it to retirement, they will be secure until death. Look, it is an irrefutable fact that not everyone can be wealthy—that's just utopia talking. These fake veterans and the fraudsters collecting disability checks while working would call this "cruel," but looking at the baseline in point 1 and the reality of point 3, I am willing to bet my life that both my parents and I will be subject to this exact same process in 30 or 40 years.

I’d call what you’re suggesting social welfare rather than a pension system. Ideally, pensions should be fully privatized—sort of like how I think they handle things in Chile. You’d know exactly how much you’ve put in over 40 years and what your payout looks like, much like a standard life insurance policy. From what I understand, that's the setup in the United Kingdom; once you retire, you can either take an annuity or just withdraw your entire own nest egg. Making that transition here would be a nightmare, but it’s the only fair way to do it. Everything else feels like a scam.
Regardless of the pension issue, point number two seems reasonable (trading an apartment to the state in exchange for lifetime assisted living), provided the government shares some of the risk. If my place covers ten years of care and I pass away early, the state wins. But they also need to shoulder the risk if I end up needing care for fifteen years instead.

I think everyone is overreacting here. It isn't realistic to suggest we scrap our current system just to move toward some speculative model where we guess who stays eligible, who gets what, or when people might pass away in state-run nursing homes.

In my view, the main priority is increasing the ratio of workers to retirees. That is the core issue, and everything else stems from that. We also need to debunk the myth that pensions should be 80 percent of the average salary, or whatever number those union leaders are shouting about lately. Of course, that's a tough sell when seniors make up half the voting bloc, but someone eventually has to step up and do it.

A lot of you are pushing to cut those top-tier pensions. At first glance, I’m right there with you—it doesn't make sense for someone to pull in $2667 when the average salary is only $5,000. But look, they earned that through their work. They likely had much higher salaries and contributed more to the fund. It's a tricky situation. However, we can all agree on one thing: we desperately need to reduce the number of people opting for early retirement...

The way things have been run up until now has been a bit of a mess. It makes you wonder how much we can actually fix, but I think we should at least try to change the game for the future by building a whole new system.

Getting rid of the second pillar isn't the answer—honestly, that feels like a total scam. If we scrapped it, we'd claw back about $4 billion. That would bring our deficit down from $12 billion to just $7 billion.
See, there’s about $30 billion in capital sitting in that second pillar. If we used those funds to pay down the national debt, we wouldn't just lower the principal; we'd also slash the interest payments. That would save the Treasury several billion more in the long run.
Look at it this way: if the national debt is $150 billion and we knock $30 billion off that—which is 20%—then our interest costs would also drop by 20%. Right now, we're spending roughly $24 billion just on debt service. A 20% cut there means saving $4.8 billion.

So, let's do the math: $12 billion gap minus the $5 billion from the second pillar, minus the $4.8 billion saved on interest... we're left with a shortfall of only $2.2 billion.
And if we implemented some debt offsetting, the situation would look even better. The truth is, while the government owes money, plenty of people and companies owe the government in unpaid taxes and social security contributions. By offsetting those debts, we could really stabilize the pension system by tackling the issue of people dodging their mandatory contributions.

What an idiot!

coppercyclist2 said:Retirees are an economic cost to society, period. I guess mathematically or economically, it doesn't matter if they're funded by the family or through a social safety net. But if you move away from any sense of solidarity, you risk losing the moral and sociological fabric of society—like when certain people can't have children...
In any case, an unfavorable ratio of workers to retirees is irreversible. It leads to everyone's standard of living dropping because, honestly, if nothing gets produced, there's nothing to go around.🤷
For a country like America, the only way out would be forced euthanasia or stopping pension payments for anyone over, say, 71. 🤣
The thing is, cutting retiree standards is becoming unacceptable since pensions are already incredibly low compared to average wages. So, there isn't much choice left besides what you wrote in your second point, which Lj. Jurčić used to talk about quite a bit. Regarding the pension system, maybe we could bridge the gap using an "Australian model"—basically, if you have assets, you fund your own old age.
Essentially, we need a comprehensive sustainable development program that anticipates everything from energy needs to demographics, adjusting retirement ages, taxes, and everything else accordingly...
As for accountability, the masks are falling now with public admissions that "they didn't know what they were signing," essentially. It's the same story regarding responsibility for this current mess, which really stems from the 90s onwards. 😠

It’s pathetic. If I were in charge, I’d rather go after the people who actually dragged us down to this level of poverty through their own incompetence.

Eric Perez9 said:The way things have been run up until now has been a bit of a mess. It makes you wonder how much we can actually fix, but I think we should at least try to change the game for the future by building a whole new system.

Getting rid of the second pillar isn't the answer—honestly, that feels like a total scam. If we scrapped it, we'd claw back about $4 billion. That would bring our deficit down from $12 billion to just $7 billion.
See, there’s about $30 billion in capital sitting in that second pillar. If we used those funds to pay down the national debt, we wouldn't just lower the principal; we'd also slash the interest payments. That would save the Treasury several billion more in the long run.
Look at it this way: if the national debt is $150 billion and we knock $30 billion off that—which is 20%—then our interest costs would also drop by 20%. Right now, we're spending roughly $24 billion just on debt service. A 20% cut there means saving $4.8 billion.

So, let's do the math: $12 billion gap minus the $5 billion from the second pillar, minus the $4.8 billion saved on interest... we're left with a shortfall of only $2.2 billion.
And if we implemented some debt offsetting, the situation would look even better. The truth is, while the government owes money, plenty of people and companies owe the government in unpaid taxes and social security contributions. By offsetting those debts, we could really stabilize the pension system by tackling the issue of people dodging their mandatory contributions.

What an idiot!

So what, you're basically advocating for seizing the second pillar? At this rate, why don't we just go ahead and confiscate everyone's private savings accounts to wipe out the national debt once and for all? 😁

Larry Collins19 said:So what, you're basically advocating for seizing the second pillar? At this rate, why don't we just go ahead and confiscate everyone's private savings accounts to wipe out the national debt once and for all? 😁

That is some top-tier mental gymnastics right there. Look, the money in that second pillar is *your* savings. It's your cash. When I want to spend my own money, I spend it on whatever I feel like. Just try withdrawing your own funds from that retirement fund and see how easy it is.
I mean, honestly, you'd be better off putting your money into a high-yield CD at Chase than leaving it sitting in a pension fund. At least then you have some control. Right now, you can't even influence the massive commissions those funds pocket for themselves.

At the end of the day, any money collected through taxes belongs to us. That’s why people are getting so fed up.
They just want the government to actually do a decent job managing the money they take from us.
Bottom line: if you didn't realize it before, both the primary and secondary pension funds are essentially just your own money.

What an idiot!