3 ms·
You touch on the core issue of the UK, but there's both a cultural and policy aspect. 1. As you say, an aging population has placed the entire country into a g
by short_sells_poo 11mo ago
You touch on the core issue of the UK, but there's both a cultural and policy aspect.
1. As you say, an aging population has placed the entire country into a gridlock - the pensions system as it stands is ridiculous and unsustainable. Unfortunately, it is an almost immediate political suicide to even attempt to reform it. Young people are disillusioned and wield little monetary or political power. The old generation has all the cards, and are actively destroying their children's future for their own short term benefit. They have mortgaged their children's future, which they won't get to see, for the short period of time they still have remaining.
2. There's no investment culture in the UK. Literally everything and everyone is rent seeking. Want a retirement? Buy property and rent it out. Want a pension? Pension funds just buy gilts - government bonds. Very little money goes into productive assets. This creates a vicious cycle where money is simply siphoned away from the little productivity that remains to an ever growing number of rent seekers.
There's no easy way out of this. One generation will effectively have to give up their welfare, but nobody wants to do this (understandable). The UK cannot afford to be the welfare state it wants to be.
- justincormack 11mo agoThis is happening elsewhere too. France is in a very similar situation which keeps causing their government to fall apart.
- sefrost 11mo ago> There's no easy way out of this. One generation will effectively have to give up their welfare, but nobody wants to do this (understandable). The UK cannot afford to be the welfare state it wants to be. It can be done over a period of time. Canada moved from a non-funded pension model like the UK currently has, to a partially funded model which currently has over $731 billion in assets. They began this change in 1999. If they hadn't made that change in direction they'd be in a much worse situation today. It's possible to change from one system to another, if a government is able to look much further ahead than its own term in government. With the Canadian model, your payments out at the end are tied to what you put in. Which is not quite the case in the UK, which allows extremely low payments in for just 10 years to get a very high amount out indefinitely. The British government must take the same path the Canadians took.