3 ms·
> It’s not really a Ponzi scheme, it is completely possible for the system to be balanced, it’s just very very hard to get people to vote for you if you say the
by tossandthrow 1y ago
> It’s not really a Ponzi scheme, it is completely possible for the system to be balanced, it’s just very very hard to get people to vote for you if you say they’ll have less tomorrow
This is exactly what happens in Denmark - a balancing of the pension system.
Also,rgis has been planned since 2006 - so it is nothing new.
- namdnay 1y agoA real balancing would entail cutting pensions for existing pensioners. Which is electoral suicide. So what you always end up doing is shafting future pensioners, either by pushing back the retirement age, or by doing nothing and waiting for it to explode
- tossandthrow 1y agoI reckon the presumption is that current pensioners don't live as long as future pensioners. Hence only doing this for future pensioners will give equal time as reitred. (at least, this is the core reasoning)
- lazyasciiart 1y agoAlso, that people who have twenty years to plan for their retirement to happen under these conditions will not be as screwed as someone told that their plans for next week are off.
- FirmwareBurner 1y agoBut those people retiring from 2040 are still getting screwed by a policy. How is more time to prepare gonna help? Are you gonna magic some more money out of thin air by then?
- lazyasciiart 1y agoYou don’t need more money to continue working.
- StackRanker3000 1y agoWhy is that way of balancing this more real than the others?