> First, because people survive whether you want them to or not, and driving old people into poverty will end up burdening you in some other way, probably worse

> First, because people survive whether you want them to or not, and driving old people into poverty will end up burdening you in some other way, probably worse. We pay a lot for not having a decent safety net. You're falsely trying to paint the choice as only between driving retirees into poverty and paying the full pension. I certainly won't be receiving 60-100% of my maximum salary forever after I retire, and I won't need nearly that much in order to not be in poverty. And IMO it borders on unjust to underfund a pension with tax dollars while those workers are working, then force younger workers that weren't even old enough to vote when those benefits were created to now shoulder the burden. Why can't we cut pensions, without eliminating them? Why can't the state switch from defined benefit to defined contribution plans, like practically ever other non-government employee gets? > If you drive a political wedge between the young and old, I can't say what will happen, but it won't involve the young ending up on top. This is true only up to a point. The old aren't exactly going to be the ones who will win if the economy collapses or the country descends into chaos, are they?