[Ahh, Vasyloo, so nice to see you at your best. Enjoy this guest post and put your hands together for a return of one of Poland X's founders.]
There is a lot of debate in Poland over its pension system.
The local incarnation of CNBC asks non-stop financiers and businesspeople why
they hate the public pension system. The most common criticism is that it is
not "trustworthy" or "these are not real savings." The
overreaching agreement is that the public pension system screws over young
people, who will have to suffer higher taxes in order to dish out cash for
those bastard "pensioners."
By the way, I love that term. Pensioners just has such a
vile ring to it. Not mothers, fathers, grandma or grandpa. Pensioners. It just
sounds...evil.
One of the main arguments against the state pension system
is "the state will have to raise future taxes to compensate for
demographics." Alternatively, we should obviously go private. What these
people don't say is the fact that the private systems screws over young people
just the same, only through different mechanisms and different groups.
But...but...Well, it is quite simple. What pro-private
pension proponents forget is the little tiny fact that both wealth and the lack
thereof is transferred between generations. What this means is that if old
people spend their savings, their descendants don't get a dime, just as in the
public pension system where the government collects the taxes and then pays out
the pensions.
Once a pensioner spends all his or her savings, they will
tap other available assets, and then start depleting (or taxing) the wealth of descendants
(it's often called family). The fewer the descendants, the higher the tax since
the same cost of living must be spread out over a smaller number of people.
(Notice any similarities?)
Ok, ok, but what if these people are thrown out by family,
are single and ate away everything they created? Well, social security will
step in. But higher spending for social security is financed by...yup, you
guessed it.
Ok, so let's scrap social security -- make the bastards die
in the streets! Well, if there is no social security, two things would happen.
Those who are able to work would start seeking their old jobs back (they would
actually never leave them). Higher demand for work means lower salaries and
higher unemployment, mostly for the inexperienced, for entry-level positions
held
by...aha, you get the picture now?
The bottom line is that no matter whether it is the public
or private pension system the young generation will be stuck with the bill. The
real difference is who benefits and makes the money on the issue.
Obviously, the private pension system is good for the finance
industry -- fees, fees, fees, feees, feeeeeees forever. Indirectly, it is also good
for businesses who get cash from the finance sector. On the other hand, state
pensions are good for bureaucracy, the government, etc.
Last but not least, the private pension system is better off
for wealthier people because in the case of the private system poverty is
inherited. Poor people are more likely to be a drain on their direct
descendants than people who are better off. In the public system, these are
more averaged out by taxes. If you think this is BS, look at the wealth
disparity in the US.
I guess in the end it's damned if you don't, damned if you
do.