QUOTE (FionaK @ 17/5/2011, 21:50)
Why will the retirement age rise "of course"?
It's because people are more productive now at a later age than they used to be.
Something I am not certain is addressed in all your links is the simple fact that pension deductions are yet another payroll tax on the poor and this ought to concern anyone of a presumed socialistic bent. Poor people in industrialised nations don't live as long as wealthy people and wealthy people have a better opportunity for concealing wealth as invested capital or in their scions' names without worry of being "outed".
If you wanted pension reform then the best alternative is a VAT surcharge with all the monies kept in current accounts instead of vaguely defined and potentially irresponsibly run "pension funds". There really is no such thing as a pension fund. It's merely an insurance scheme without sufficient oversight.
Right now, pension funds are seeking to securitise their obligations because customers are living "too long". There have been several recent stories about this trend at BusinessWeek and Bloomberg.
All of this was really understood when the first schemes to insure old age came into being in the last century. Roosevelt is quoted in several books as arguing with his detractors (including his own Treasury Secretary, IIRC) that people would never live sufficiently long to collect any of it.
Are you a proponent of payroll taxes (really head taxes or poll taxes) over VATs? I'm not. I think VATs are generally fairer as the wealthy consume an awful lot more than the poor do. Many wealthy individuals don't even pay payroll taxes because they earn their income through other means.
VATs also have the advantage of diminishing the urge to choke trade through import/export taxes and otherwise strangle the basics of a healthy economy.
