How long until the working class is bled dry by the boomers?
balithebreaker on
At least they had lots of children so maybe everyone profits in the long run?
Every_Tap8117 on
Sorry but as it should be. im 20+ years from retirement but causing people to lose their pension or % of it on a fixed income was never the right idea. Sure when just the man worked 50 years ago there was only 1 pension but by now 90%+ of married couples either both work or at least the 2nd partner is desperately trying to.
LesserValkyrie on
What about young married couple?
I would not want to marry just because it would be too expensive tax-wises, maybe if we want to help married couples we should work towards that… what do you mean only for the boomers?
SerodD on
Don’t get me wrong, I hate boomers as much as the next one, but this mostly doesn’t apply to boomers since it’s only for new retirees. The younger boomers will be 62 in 2025 and the oldest are 79, most boomers are already retired.
It’s not just the boomers, married couples of the next generations will also benefit from it. And don’t read this wrong, it does not mean married couples will get more AHV than unmarried couples, it just means they will get **the same** AHV as unmarried couples.
This fixes a stupid and dated injustice where our cotisations as married working people are the same, but our retirement money is less than people in a similar situation who haven’t married.
cr0m4c on
They should get help proportional to the number of descendants 😅
8 commenti
How long until the working class is bled dry by the boomers?
At least they had lots of children so maybe everyone profits in the long run?
Sorry but as it should be. im 20+ years from retirement but causing people to lose their pension or % of it on a fixed income was never the right idea. Sure when just the man worked 50 years ago there was only 1 pension but by now 90%+ of married couples either both work or at least the 2nd partner is desperately trying to.
What about young married couple?
I would not want to marry just because it would be too expensive tax-wises, maybe if we want to help married couples we should work towards that… what do you mean only for the boomers?
Don’t get me wrong, I hate boomers as much as the next one, but this mostly doesn’t apply to boomers since it’s only for new retirees. The younger boomers will be 62 in 2025 and the oldest are 79, most boomers are already retired.
This is a gift for Gen X.
I like how y’all yelling boomers that and boomers this yet do nothing to oppose them (the 13th rent AHV is our fault) . I can’t read all your article but if it’s [about that](https://www.bsv.admin.ch/bsv/fr/home/assurances-sociales/ahv/reformes-et-revisions/ahv-renten-ehepaare.html) then it’s fair (for once).
It’s not just the boomers, married couples of the next generations will also benefit from it. And don’t read this wrong, it does not mean married couples will get more AHV than unmarried couples, it just means they will get **the same** AHV as unmarried couples.
This fixes a stupid and dated injustice where our cotisations as married working people are the same, but our retirement money is less than people in a similar situation who haven’t married.
They should get help proportional to the number of descendants 😅