The aged pension system needs to be set at a percentage and not an age - General

Inspired by the House of Lords thread in Sensationalist Headlines about Pensions So basic at the moment when you reach a certain age (at least in Australia) you can go on the aged pension. Problem with this though is that more and more people are living longer than ever, the age never gets put up because people get pissed ("but that means I'm missing out!"), meaning aged care costs us more and more in taxes. This is completely unsustainable and will eventually fail. My proposal is that instead of a flat cut off age where you can miraculously get an aged pension, we have a floating age that is determined by a percentage. For example, we set it to 20% of the population, meaning the 20% oldest people can get a pension, and everyone under that would work. So, any problems? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("No debate presented, solely stating an idea" - Megafan))[/highlight]

The main problem I'm seeing is that even if people are constantly living longer, that doesn't mean they're going to be more able-bodied. It's obviously hit-or-miss on if a 65-year-old can work. Some are in really good shape, but others can barely walk. If you're expecting someone that old in that bad of shape to work, it's crazy. I think the entire retirement age (at least in the US) was based on when the body starts to break down and become too old to work and support themselves. If you raise that, it can be almost cruel. And if you do it on a case-by-case basis, you're pretty much breaking the system down to the opinion of the caseworkers. [editline]25th October 2012[/editline] Disclaimer: I don't know how the Australian retirement plans and etc. differ from the US, my argument is over what I know in the US.

People still think they are going to get a pension? That's for the last few generations guys hahaha we won't see a penny when we're too old to work.

Instead of messing around with percentages and retiring ages, why not use a private savings system? It's self sustainable, self adjusting, lets people choose among different retirement plans and finally leaves up to them when to retire. Pension systems are pyramid schemes.

Explain how pension systems are pyramid schemes

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;38188730]Explain how pension systems are pyramid schemes[/QUOTE] How is it not? People pay their entire lives to only see a small percentage of what they worked for the first 50 years to live the last 20 to 40 years of their lives. I think Black Milano's idea is the best, I find it highly unfair for some people to just earn like what, not even 10 % of the actual loans they used to get.

[QUOTE=N1trone;38189666]How is it not? People pay their entire lives to only see a small percentage of what they worked for the first 50 years to live the last 20 to 40 years of their lives. I think Black Milano's idea is the best, I find it highly unfair for some people to just earn like what, not even 10 % of the actual loans they used to get.[/QUOTE] For starters your taxes go into more than just pensions so expecting the same amount back minus taxes is retarded. Second the end-goal isn't an economic one, it's about making sure old people aren't in poverty and have to live off their children to survive. People should be able to live on the basics when they're old even if they haven't had a wealthy life. Third private pensions and whatever exist, we have them here in Australia in the form of Superannuation. They work fine, the government forces people to invest a bit of their cash from earnings into it and they live off it when they get old. It is also proof that unless you are a wealthy fuck you will eventually run out and either go into poverty or have to live on government pensions making private pensions a supplement to alleviate the load rather than a full solution. Back on topic and avoiding Libertarians shitting over everything, a percentage puts it in a terrible position because you're waiting for people to die before you can retire. Keeping track of such a system is a lot of work and needs reasonably accurate statistics. As the population gets older though we keep raising the age requirement for the pension and it's pushing fucking seventy now. Raising it as required allows the flexibility in the system to be taken advantage of, reduces the complexity by putting it down to a simple number and avoids the trap of spending too much on pensions. That's also why we have Superannuation, so people can retire early when they want rather than waiting until they're a few years off average life expectancy. From system complexity, the current model functioning similar in practice and a hybrid with private systems reducing the load, it's fine as it is.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;38188730]Explain how pension systems are pyramid schemes[/QUOTE] Country "A" starts with two young inhabitants, they marry and have four children. As they get older, each children pays 1/4 of their wage (let's say it's the same for all four) as a pension, so each parent gets 1/2 of a standard wage. These four children will have kids and grow old too, and for them to receive the same pension as their parents keeping the same tax burden they'll need to have at least eight children. This goes on until population growth simply cannot keep up with the geometric rate required to sustain the system. [editline]26th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Devodiere;38190817]Second the end-goal isn't an economic one, it's about making sure old people aren't in poverty and have to live off their children to survive. People should be able to live on the basics when they're old even if they haven't had a wealthy life.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure that's an economic goal.