Swiss vote: 'yes' to higher pensions, 'no' to retiring later
swissinfo.ch
swissinfo.ch
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.
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.
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.
If it's the latter are you not equally worried that the current system of giving welfare based on age will turn the young against the old? Also, how would you even build a welfare system to help those in need if you don't have some way to assess that?
By definition the current electorate is fine with what they have assumed so far.
But the pension provider sure can, and indeed usually people don't save enough for retirement.
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).
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).
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.)