4 ms·

Swiss vote: 'yes' to higher pensions, 'no' to retiring later

14 points by GeoAtreides 3y ago

seydor 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ChadNauseam 3y ago
Is it widely agreed that (barring massive productivity improvements or changes to the birth rate) the current retirement age and quality of life is not sustainable without a massive burden on young people?
- andyferris 3y ago
  I suspect it is sustainable if birth rates and age demographics were level (in steady state). That said, societies with aging populations might have trouble keeping up economically. (There's also a lot of factors around immigration/emigration here). In the west, the biggest policy burden on young people seems (to me) to be whatever is causing ever-spiralling housing costs (which also effects retirees who aren't home owners, too).
- drewcoo 3y ago
  1. That is not a question. 2. Yes, there is a burden. But why should it be borne by young people instead of the wealthy? (That's a question.) Their wealth increased greatly on the backs of the workers who'd like to retire. (A statement.)
Waterluvian 3y ago
Do any government pensions around the world have a requirement to demonstrate that their financial plan is indefinitely sound? That is, not selling out the viability of the pension plan for future generations.
- throwaway98797 3y ago
  there’s no way to guarantee this
  - Waterluvian 3y ago
    Well no. But you can set certain assumptions and require that any financial plan adheres to them.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      Set by who? By definition the current electorate is fine with what they have assumed so far.
- rich_sasha 3y ago
  Some governments rely primarily on private, defined contribution schemes. So they are "safe" in that the government isn't promising anything, and so can't underdeliver. But the pension provider sure can, and indeed usually people don't save enough for retirement.
- andyferris 3y ago
  Demonstrate to who? There is no "world government". Where I live (in Australia) the vast majority of "pensions" are funded by individual's regulated superanuation savings (like a 401K?), with the government pension as just a safety net. In our case "selling out" would actually be "stealing people's money", which could theoretically be achieved by tax, but would be ridiculously unpopular and rather nonsensical. It's not perfect but it means the current young people aren't funding (all) the current old people, so it smooths out the changes in demographics somewhat. And since the superannuation fund might invest internationally, its value isn't necessarily as tied to the national fortunes as would be a bank account with Australian dollars or a governement pension, again buffering against the risks that come with an aging population (and declining economy).
kypro 3y ago
In the UK pensioners make up about 18% of the population, this equates to approximately 12,000,000 individuals. Around a third of pensions have a net worth in excess of £1,000,000 – roughly 4,000,000 pensioners. Because state pensions in the UK are not means tested millions of millionaire pensioners receive welfare payments from the state. Pensions in the UK are "triple locked" this means that each year they either go up by 2.5%, the rate of CPI, or average earnings – depending on what's highest. This basically guarantees pension growth will always outpace earnings growth over the long-term. Because of this last year in the UK ~4,000,000 millionaire pensioners received a 10% increase in their welfare payments from state pension. Next month these ~4,000,000 millionaire pensioners will receive another 8.5% increase in their welfare payments from state pension. Mean while in the UK to afford all of this spending taxes on workers have been increased to multi-generational highs at a time when our cost of living is increasing rapidly. Additionally most young families have mortgages and interest rates on these mortgagers are the highest they've been in years (mortgages in the UK are not long-term fixes like in the US). The result of this is we now have many young people in the UK either unable to afford children or struggling to feed them. I'll also note that the UK tax payer just a few years back spent over £300 billion locking down the economy to save pensioners during the pandemic. To be honest, I'm not even sure I understand the moral argument behind why the state owes anyone a nice retirement... Like can't the state just look after those in need regardless of age? It's just seems weird to me that we have a system that prioritises the desire of millions of millionaires having nice retirements over young families struggling to feed their kids.
- silverquiet 3y ago
  > can't the state just look after those in need regardless of age To each according to their need? What are you going to suggest next? Taking from those millionaires since they have the ability to pay? Snark is sort of my way of amusing myself because otherwise I'd be pretty upset; I'm pretty sure the doom loops are locked in at this point.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  > Because state pensions in the UK are not means tested millions of millionaire pensioners receive welfare payments from the state. As they should. Means testing is a sneaky way to sabotage anything good. It turns the haves against the have nots and then nobody's happy.

14 points by GeoAtreides 3y ago

seydor 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ChadNauseam 3y ago

Is it widely agreed that (barring massive productivity improvements or changes to the birth rate) the current retirement age and quality of life is not sustainable without a massive burden on young people?

andyferris 3y ago
I suspect it is sustainable if birth rates and age demographics were level (in steady state). That said, societies with aging populations might have trouble keeping up economically. (There's also a lot of factors around immigration/emigration here). In the west, the biggest policy burden on young people seems (to me) to be whatever is causing ever-spiralling housing costs (which also effects retirees who aren't home owners, too).
drewcoo 3y ago
1. That is not a question. 2. Yes, there is a burden. But why should it be borne by young people instead of the wealthy? (That's a question.) Their wealth increased greatly on the backs of the workers who'd like to retire. (A statement.)

Waterluvian 3y ago

Do any government pensions around the world have a requirement to demonstrate that their financial plan is indefinitely sound? That is, not selling out the viability of the pension plan for future generations.

throwaway98797 3y ago
there’s no way to guarantee this
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  Well no. But you can set certain assumptions and require that any financial plan adheres to them.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Set by who? By definition the current electorate is fine with what they have assumed so far.
rich_sasha 3y ago
Some governments rely primarily on private, defined contribution schemes. So they are "safe" in that the government isn't promising anything, and so can't underdeliver. But the pension provider sure can, and indeed usually people don't save enough for retirement.
andyferris 3y ago
Demonstrate to who? There is no "world government". Where I live (in Australia) the vast majority of "pensions" are funded by individual's regulated superanuation savings (like a 401K?), with the government pension as just a safety net. In our case "selling out" would actually be "stealing people's money", which could theoretically be achieved by tax, but would be ridiculously unpopular and rather nonsensical. It's not perfect but it means the current young people aren't funding (all) the current old people, so it smooths out the changes in demographics somewhat. And since the superannuation fund might invest internationally, its value isn't necessarily as tied to the national fortunes as would be a bank account with Australian dollars or a governement pension, again buffering against the risks that come with an aging population (and declining economy).

kypro 3y ago

In the UK pensioners make up about 18% of the population, this equates to approximately 12,000,000 individuals. Around a third of pensions have a net worth in excess of £1,000,000 – roughly 4,000,000 pensioners. Because state pensions in the UK are not means tested millions of millionaire pensioners receive welfare payments from the state. Pensions in the UK are "triple locked" this means that each year they either go up by 2.5%, the rate of CPI, or average earnings – depending on what's highest. This basically guarantees pension growth will always outpace earnings growth over the long-term. Because of this last year in the UK ~4,000,000 millionaire pensioners received a 10% increase in their welfare payments from state pension. Next month these ~4,000,000 millionaire pensioners will receive another 8.5% increase in their welfare payments from state pension. Mean while in the UK to afford all of this spending taxes on workers have been increased to multi-generational highs at a time when our cost of living is increasing rapidly. Additionally most young families have mortgages and interest rates on these mortgagers are the highest they've been in years (mortgages in the UK are not long-term fixes like in the US). The result of this is we now have many young people in the UK either unable to afford children or struggling to feed them. I'll also note that the UK tax payer just a few years back spent over £300 billion locking down the economy to save pensioners during the pandemic. To be honest, I'm not even sure I understand the moral argument behind why the state owes anyone a nice retirement... Like can't the state just look after those in need regardless of age? It's just seems weird to me that we have a system that prioritises the desire of millions of millionaires having nice retirements over young families struggling to feed their kids.

silverquiet 3y ago
> can't the state just look after those in need regardless of age To each according to their need? What are you going to suggest next? Taking from those millionaires since they have the ability to pay? Snark is sort of my way of amusing myself because otherwise I'd be pretty upset; I'm pretty sure the doom loops are locked in at this point.
drewcoo 3y ago
> Because state pensions in the UK are not means tested millions of millionaire pensioners receive welfare payments from the state. As they should. Means testing is a sneaky way to sabotage anything good. It turns the haves against the have nots and then nobody's happy.