@davidb

@davidb

There is nothing to be gained in terms of understanding if you slavishly use the buzz phrases fed to you by a neoliberal press when discussing issues like pensions

The pension scheme is NOT a Ponzi scheme (which, incidentally, is called a Pyramid scheme in British english) and has nothing in common with such a scheme.

There are certainly sensible arguments to be had as to whether one is better off in the long run with a funded scheme rather than a pay as you go model. The easy assumption that funded schemes are automatically better or safer does not stand up to much scrutiny, despite the widespread promotion of that idea: private pension schemes are funded and it is perfectly obvious that they do not produce good outcomes for their members and are very unlikely ever to do so. That is because they are run for profit by people who subscribe to the casino capital model of extracting value through investment in intangible assets with no inherent guaranteed worth. Management fees and profit through investment in property and financial instruments render them part of the problem. They involve ordinary people as part of the rentier mentality which divorces income from real productive activity, and which aligns the interests of those with no control over asset price or choice in what to invest in at all, with those who can manipulate such matters. If you believe that asset inflation is sustainable, then it is possible to argue that such schemes are of benefit: but they have risks which are unavoidable and features which leave us all at the mercy of the financial elite. We have seen where that goes

A pay as you go system is preferable in many ways, though not necessarily so: that depends on the political will which determines the design of the system. But as an example: a pay as you go system allows pensioners to share in the benefits of increased economic growth where that arises: because the share of national wealth which is paid out in pensions can be a fixed proportion of the whole or even a rising proportion: that will never happen on a pension pot model as is easily seen in the shift from defined benefits to defined contribution schemes. That shift is quite deliberately aimed at reducing pensions and there is no doubt about that. It is justified by the assertion that we have a "demographic timebomb" and cannot afford to provide for the elderly any more: this is a lie. It suits the neoliberals very well, though. And it seems to be accepted because it is so widely asserted. What it means is that we accept that we allow the elderly to starve in our streets because.... well, TINA.

Is that the kind of society you want to live in? A return to the work house and absolute poverty for those who are inevitably dependent on our society to provide a decent standard of living and dignity no matter their circumstances

This is not abstract. The consequences are clear an inevitable. There is no separate pot of money: there is only one wealth and the question of our priorities as to how it should be distributed