Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Of course the DB is a better deal for the employee, and no one debates that. But there's a harsh reality that people will need to face sooner or later; "we" can't fund people for 75 years of living with them working for say 35-40 years. If we want people to start working at say 20 years of age, retire at 55-60 and live until their 95, something has to change. The answer isn't always "just pay people", because it's not sustainable.
|
There’s a number of solutions available and adjustments that can be made to make it work. There’s a big difference between “we” can’t afford it and you not wanting to pay for it. Sorry Slava I guess I’m just not in favour of making the retirement plans of people who make less than you suffer just because it’s going to save you a little money in the short term.
Quote:
|
Regardless though, the "living wage" doesn't have to mean a DB pension. And for a municipality or many other entities that's just going to cause a lot of problems down the road.
|
Only if we keep letting trickle downers decide on policy. Don’t you find it odd that more often than not the same people who complain about not being able to afford these pensions are the same people who think we can constantly afford to give tax breaks to businesses?