11 ms·
You're talking about a different issue (or indeed a non-issue). It's not that high income Slovenians get a lot less out of Slovenian state pensions than they pa
by saithound 5y ago
You're talking about a different issue (or indeed a non-issue). It's not that high income Slovenians get a lot less out of Slovenian state pensions than they pay in. It's that _everybody_, including low income Slovenians gets a lot less out of it than they contributed. In fact, if Slovenia is anything like Romania, the percentages often work out a lot better for high income contributors.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago^yes, this. I chose the average on purpuse, to do just that. Poor people pay less, and are "subsidized" by the rich, who pay more, but an average person should get as much as they paid in. Considering that some people die young (before they retire), an average person should get even more than they paid into the system, because the heirs of the dead usually don't get the dead persons pension (with some exceptions, eg. underage kids)
- ephbit 5y agoI guess there's another issue with this equation: avgOUT = avgIN + L The L(osses) ... the pension/social/levy system - no matter which country we're looking at - appears to have been hijacked by an ever growing parasitic group of financial institutions that milk whatever they can into their private pockets (and their shareholders'). Every penny in fees they receive for "working out" specialized retirement plans is in a way a L(oss) for society. Why? Because no matter what ingenious system a state devises, it all comes back to the fact that the current working/healthy part of the population has to provide for tho elderly and the sick and whoever can't provide for themselves. Every kind of juggling around with the money adding unnecessary steps in between is just milking the system for private gains.