3 ms·
The fundamental problem is that we don't want to tell baby boomers that they will have to work until 70 in order to keep the system afloat, or that if they are
by ArkanExplorer 5y ago
The fundamental problem is that we don't want to tell baby boomers that they will have to work until 70 in order to keep the system afloat, or that if they are rich (including the value of their house) that they should pay for their own retirement and healthcare in old age and not receive any handouts.
Instead we will allow them to retire at 60/65, pay pensions independent of their personal wealth, and run the system into the ground.
(Government spending on the healthcare and welfare - which is overwhelmingly baby boomers with expensive chronic health conditions, and their pensions - is about 50% of Government spending).
- mschuster91 5y ago> The fundamental problem is that we don't want to tell baby boomers that they will have to work until 70 in order to keep the system afloat, or that if they are rich (including the value of their house) that they should pay for their own retirement and healthcare in old age and not receive any handouts. We could also tax the rich to fund the pensions and healthcare of the masses. The amount of wealth the mega-rich have gained over the last year alone is absurd.
- ArkanExplorer 5y agoThat doesn't really solve the end purpose, which is that Baby Boomers need to lessen their consumption of national resources (real estate) and global resources (food, energy), so that these limited resources can be utilized by the next generations. It should be mandatory (either formally or through the pension/taxation system) for example to downsize your home and portfolio before you receive any subsidies or welfare.
- refurb 5y agoAren’t most baby boomers already retired?