Demographic Time Bomb ?

I understand that is probably rhetoric, but I'm up for it, anyway...

"It is unjustifiable¹ to ask² the taxpayer³ to work longer⁴ and pay more⁵ so that public sector workers⁶ can retire earlier⁷ and receive more⁸ themselves⁹,"

1: Unjustifiable by what standard, and who decides this?
2: What follows is not directly asked, but whoever wrote this sentence pretends that they ask this, as if the consequence of their demands equal the measures implicated in the question.
3: It needn't be the working-man taxpayer. Although the public workers of whom he speaks would perhaps not mind getting taxed a bit more if they got more for it in return. The taxpayer can also be the rich bankers and corporations. But we aren't supposed to think about that: we're supposed to consider the poor guy who already has little to spend, while a big bad tax collector comes to his door.
4: No reason why they should work more to pay more taxes, unless it is important that their net income stays the same. That would be quite essential for aforementioned poor guy, but not for rich banker and corporation. Many of them can arguably do with a bit less without starving. But they hide behind the poor guy.
5: I think it follows that if you think something is important, someone has to pay for it. The real issue is then that the writer doesn't find their concerns worthy of being honoured.
6: It is the public sector workers now, it's some other group later. But let's make sure we all understand that each of these groups are bad and claim everything for themselves. Especially the public workers, cos they are financed publically.
7: Retirement ages go up, in most countries? So that would rather be "retire at a previously held age" or even "at the same age as they are now", if they are early enough.
8: Yeah, they are very greedy, bad people. I remembered that. Can I get a cookie now, corporation guy?
9: Lots of people find themselves in the same situation, because everybody is under attack. It would be justifiable to have a public system of security against the relentless attacks of corporations and rich fellows, and that would indeed cost money. I don't think people object to that, if they know what is at stake. They don't. And so we are breaking down the institutions for one group at a time, each trying to protect "themselves", while we all have already lost the collective.