Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
I hadn't seen your diary before. I just skimmed through it now, and think it makes sense.

But there's still a big political problem, which I don't think was addressed there, namely that people usually will voluntarily support their children, even at a cost of a lower standard of living for themselves. Supporting the elderly will involve a transfer of resources from working people. These are resources that they would previously have been spending on their own children, but now have got used to spending on themselves. Raising the retirement age may be politically a lot easier than the alternatives.

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Tue Sep 9th, 2008 at 04:36:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
These are resources that they would previously have been spending on their own children, but now have got used to spending on themselves.

Have they? We are talking about continuous transitions here.

Raising the retirement age may be politically a lot easier than the alternatives.

Raising the retirement age only makes sense if there are jobs to be taken (otherwise, we just shift the tax load from retirement contribution to jobless benefits).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 07:01:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Have they? We are talking about continuous transitions here

I think so, as every childless family has more disposable income, and gets used to spending it. I agree that it's a continuous transition, but I think that's how continuous transitions work. Not that I'm not suggesting that childless families are spending lavishly - other expenses such as housing may also adjust to the ability to spend.

As to your second point, shifting the tax load from retirement contribution to jobless benefits doesn't really make sense, as you say, unless the jobs are there. But the accepted wisdom seems to be that increasing the retirement age is necessary, while increasing taxes of any kind is bad. To oppose this means going against two pieces of accepted wisdom, which will be quite difficult, though hopefully not impossible.

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 07:42:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As to your second point, shifting the tax load from retirement contribution to jobless benefits doesn't really make sense, as you say, unless the jobs are there.

That's not exactly what I said. What I said was that if the jobs aren't there, increasing retirement age will, in effect, only shift the tax load from retirement contribution to jobless benefits (because more people are forced to stay in the labor force, thus more people can't find jobs).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 04:42:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry - I was drawing the conclusion from what you said, and I accidentally added the words "as you say". The question will be how to convince politicians to increase taxes, rather than raising the retirement age, and then treating unemployment as a completely unrelated problem.
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 04:53:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Pentecost steam

by DoDo - May 20
16 comments

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

by Nomad - May 10
14 comments

Simple Solar Principles

by gmoke - May 17
2 comments

Rail News Blogging #24

by DoDo - May 12
11 comments

Ferguson hates on Keynes

by Migeru - May 6
100 comments

Occasional Series