3 ms·

Right, so I guess in your eyes the only people who should be allowed to retire are the ones who can afford it? I guess this is along the same lines of the only

Right, so I guess in your eyes the only people who should be allowed to retire are the ones who can afford it? I guess this is along the same lines of the only wealthy people are entitled to education and healthcare. Anyway, you’re wrong with regards to removing pension schemes. Look at Australia with compulsory superannuation. The government forces people to save up enough money to put them over a threshold where they won’t be entitled to a pension. Thankfully, this is fully paid for by employers. The UK is going the same way but sadly more of a user-pays type scenario. Not difficult at all and only takes about 50 years before the majority of the population is ineligible for whatever pension still exists, but it is still there for people who fall through the cracks. No need to remove the pension at all - just price out the wealthy.

qsort 3y ago
> Right, so I guess in your eyes the only people who should be allowed to retire are the ones who can afford it? Yes, it's already like this under any system. In what other way can it possibly work? > I guess this is along the same lines of the only wealthy people are entitled to education and healthcare. You are making shit up. Education and healthcare have nothing to do with being forced to pay for the pensions of people who retired at 50 because they were friends with politicians. Public education is good. Public healthcare is good. Public pensions are not, as a matter of theory and practice. > Not difficult at all and only takes about 50 years Something that takes 50 years to remove sounds like the very definition of something that's difficult to remove.