Quote:
Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 28 2004, 03:45 PM
I agree. Human nature being what it is, that's entirely predictable.
I also am pretty confident that, from a practical point of view, about one-third of the population would not save much at all for retirement and would be largely penniless or working well into their seventies to try and make ends meet.
Also human nature. Also predictable.
Philosophically, this is an enforced way to ensure the average working person has at least some modest way to make ends meet, even if its borderline poverty. That way they're not a much larger burden on society later on.
As a Libertarian, of course, you would say that's their problem and not society's.
Cowperson
|
That is far too simplistic point of view. People do not save much for their retirement because they know (or they think they know) that when they retire, they will get their pensions from governemnt. The incentive to save is not there for them, their time preferences are concerned with present, not with the future. The thinking is - if the state will take care of me, why would I bother to take care of me myself?
However, if they knew their pension will not be guaranteed, they would change their time preferences and will start saving. That is perfectly normal. If you know no one is going to pay for your summer holiday, and you want to have one, you will start saving.
If someone ignores all this and purposely will not save any money for their retirement, then thats too bad but it is not a reason I should be forced to pay their pension.
But then again, it is the role of charities to take care of people who aren`t able (this is debatable, but for the sake of argument) to save enough money themselves. This way, there will be more funds to take care of people who really need it, and these funds wont be wasted on people who were able to take care of themselves, but couldnt be bothered to do so.