2 ms·
On the one hand, I see how this might be necessary to continue a welfare state. On the other hand, really? A person is institutionalized from a very early age
by littletimmy 11y ago
On the one hand, I see how this might be necessary to continue a welfare state.
On the other hand, really? A person is institutionalized from a very early age (school), proceeds to follow orders from a boss (work-life for most), and now policy makers want to limit even the small part of life that a person has to himself (retirement). Might it not be a better option to impose a wealth tax on the very rich and use that to fund retirement?
- rconti 11y agoThe purpose is to maintain the same amount of retirement as life expectancy goes up. Perhaps it would be more fair to split the difference. But the point is that the 'old' retirement age shouldn't be static as life expectancy rises, because of the costs of state-sponsored benefits.