Europei e americani affermano che i sistemi pensionistici statali sono inaccessibili, ma non supportano le opzioni di riforma | La maggioranza in tutti i paesi afferma inoltre che le pensioni statali nazionali non sono abbastanza generose
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/53791-europeans-and-americans-say-state-pension-systems-are-unaffordable-but-dont-support-reform-options
di insomnimax_99
25 commenti
Well since we’re talking about Americans I work in Texas in a college and we have what’s called the TRS system. If you’re 30 and work for 20 years you can retire with a pension plus social security when you reach 65.
Not sure what pension has to do with generosity, but ok.
The majority voting block in many European countries are the pensioners themselves. They won’t vote against their own interest and any government that would be bold enough for a pension reform would get voted out. wtf do we do?
No pension and no public healthcare after the age of 70: boom, population age problem solved
hence the debt
“All countries”
7 countries…
Why is this suddenly a topic?
I live in Poland, we had pension system reform ~25 years ago. And already back then it was clearly communicated to every one – state pension will be about 20% replacement for your work income. And the whole point of reform was to enable private savings that will help bridge this gap.
Literately every one with two brain cells know that public pension will not be enough. And everyone who is legally employed has additional pension scheme in place.
Why are suddenly US or UK or other countries, that were supposed to be much more economically experienced and conscious, surprised how public pension work?!
This topic smells so much like manufactured drama.
Not enough young people to pay any more since birth rates are cooked and young people aren’t incentives to work I guess they are going to say more immigration to justify now 🤣
You only need middle school math and average IQ to know the current pension system not working unless you are Norway.
“Generous” is an odd word used here imo
“This food is terrible! And such small portions!”
We want LOWER TAXES. And we want MORE PENSION. And we want MORE HEALTHCARE and LONGER PENSIONS as we all live longer. And we want MORE TIME OUT OF THE WORKFORCE for study and for sickness and so on.
Why can’t politicians give us everything we want?
Yup, they(most) were fundamentally flawed from the beginning, but by nature very difficult to get support for fixing them. Most spending in democracies are like that in a way: people like the spending, don’t like paying for it.
This is the irrational middle problem. 40% for bigger government, more taxes, more benefits. 40% for smaller government, lower taxes, lower benefits. 20% for more spending and less taxes.
Vote on taxes, lower taxes wins, 60-40. Vote on spending, higher spending wins, 60-40.
The irrational middle wins.
Tax the rich. Simple as that. But most politicians are rich, so they won’t.
Was any of this useful? The title alone is incredibly uninformative if not misleading. “Americans and Europeans” are not one person. There are a host of age groups behind this statistic. What should make things more clear, is to know what age group thinks what.
Which they sort of did – split out by ‘retired’ and ‘not retired’. And there are a host of differences in opinion from those different perspectives.
For example, retirees tend to be a lot more optimistic about affordability now (surprise!). Looking at the stats per group, there is a lot less magical thinking and cognitive dissonance.
And when it comes to how to fix it, I have to wonder what the value is in polling people on their opinions about possible measures that are *incredibly* hard to oversee for a layperson. Of course I don’t want to work longer if something else can be done! But who knows what actually has the desired effect?
Because everyone wants their cake and eat it too. They don’t want to pay more taxes but they want a higher pension. Either pay more taxes, or get less pension and figure out your retirement income independently. It’s not rocket science.
It’s going to be political suicide to suggest phasing out state pension.
On one hand you have a huge part of the increasingly aging population that may or may not have saved for retirement, but almost always will have saved with the state pension in mind.
On the other hand you have a relatively smaller part of the population that both won’t be given a state pension, but will have to finance a state pension for the ones retiring soon, so no tax breaks for the next 30-40 years.
Some countries, like Denmark, have mandated pension savings as part of the salary. Granted, the minimum is low, around 5%, and with compounded interest over 40-50 years it adds up. They’ve also increased the retirement age from 67 to 69 then to 70, 71 and with talks of 72 now. That’s based on the supposed fact that people live longer, but that indicator is currently lagging, so they’ve effectively reduced the time somebody is expected to receive a state pension by 5 years.
As the amount of people working shrinks compared to the amount of people being retired, something clearly needs to be done. The whole state pension concept is based on (and sustainable with) a growing or sustained age demographic. The only problem is that people stopped having kids.
Things just flat out cost too much. At a certain point, no amount of money is going to be enough if the prices just keep climbing. Maybe it’s inflation, maybe it’s greed (I don’t know, these things are above my pay-grade.) Housing, childcare, elder care etc. The whole system is engineered to extract every last drop of capital
the pension system is way too generous in all of europe… to the point that in some countries pensioners make more than the average salaryman, AND, if that wasn’t enough, their pensions increase with inflation. I should fucking like that for myself!!!
Everything is done for the pleasure of the retired. And yet they’re the #1 generation in complaining and preventing things from getting done… always complaining that people who don’t work get paid by the state… but when it’s them it’s special you see
These public pension schemes were originally designed in a period of fairly demographic robustness. They didn’t plan on fertility rates dropping below 1.5 babies per woman and staying there for several decades. The workers who would be paying into the system in the 2030s-2050s were not born. The calculation was that in 2040 there would be X younger people working and paying in to cover the expenses of the retirees. In reality there is going to be some fraction of X.
*** NEWS FLASH: People want more money.
Pension ages have to increase. It’s the least politically explosive option. It will still be opposed of course, but it’s that or failure.
I only support the following reform: the young stop contributing to state pensions, it’s their responsibility to save up for old age and the state continues to pay pensions for those that are already retired or contributed.
If companies didnt steal so much from our wages pensions wouldn’t be a problem