Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
So you want these employees to work 10-15 more years earning taxpayer dollars, and use their pensions (same amount of money, if not more due to interest accumulation) for a shorter period of time? I guess I just see negatives in that scenario. Less employment for young people, more total cost to the taxpayer, and relying on workers to be physically and mentally able to deliver for a significant amount more time.
I get the retirement age at 65 because things have changed, I just don't see the benefit in drawing it out further just because. If the same person is going to earn the same amount of money (if not more) at 65 rather than 55, there is no obvious financial benefit.
|
Hey, why not make it 45 if there is no benefit to working longer, right?
If you have an employee retiring at 55 you have to replace them. But then you have to pay a pension for that working for 10 extra years, and pay a new employee. Then the new employee retires 10 years later, so you lose 10 years of work but still have to pay pensions. I'm sure you could run the math on various scenarios, but I don't see any where you pay a pension and it still makes financial sense to have them retire earlier.