We are living longer. There's no doubt about this - plenty of centenarians about. Well, then, we have to get our pensions at a later age, otherwise we'll be pensioners longer than we actually pay in and where will the money come from? This is hard on the people already in the process, but there are plenty of hard facts to be faced since the country as a whole has been living beyond its income for a long time and it can't go on for ever.
Striking will only make the country poorer, and can't change the facts.
This blog is a plea for common sense in public policy. Our leaders don't seem to have any. They just make daft rules for us to follow. We need to assert our right to use our own good sense instead of ticking boxes which can only say 'yes' or 'no'.
People are living longer, it's true. But it's just one problem. People are having less children, and maybe even choose not to have children. So, if we want pay pensions for, let's say, 20% people, then will be many people who will be died before they get any pension. If we want to pay pension for every old people over 65, then we need to much money for all pensions together.
ReplyDeleteI see, this is because we don't need childrens for our pensions. Some centuries ago only richest people could afford to be children less, for others this meant elderly in poor house. It's changed now.
So, I see two choices: many young age chinese people in Europe or pensions dependent from count of childrens. I prefer second one.