5 ms·
I know nothing about Slovenia, but my hypothesis is that this is (kind of) by design. Those with good incomes subsidize those with low incomes, and everyone su
by furyg3 5y ago
I know nothing about Slovenia, but my hypothesis is that this is (kind of) by design. Those with good incomes subsidize those with low incomes, and everyone subsidizes those with no income.
The only way to 'earn more' is through a positive return on investment, but pension schemes necessarily must err on the 'safe side'. And currently 'safe' interest rates are negative.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago> Those with good incomes subsidize those with low incomes, This keeps the average values the same (that's why I used the average example) > and everyone subsidizes those with no income. This seems to be an ongoing problem, where we on one side need workers, and on the other side pay unemployment benefits to people who don't want to work. This is then translated to pensions, where people who work only eg. 10 years (instead of 40) get a small pension, but still more than the share they paid into the fund.
- Ekaros 5y agoI consider the subsidization of poor and no-income as the cheapest alternative. Pay them enough to live and the external cost won't be more. Theft, property damage, judicial system and incarceration get lot more expensive than just paying them something. And all the money going to them is anyway spend so on large scale it might not even be net negative.