Many receive low pensions. The foundation to that we lowered the pensions I suspect that we wanted to stimulate private fund saving.
Many receive low pensions. When neoliberalism was introduced, the privatizations were to replace Capital for its diminishing profit tendency just as Marx predicted that the profit tendency would do. The austerity policy or save-in-the-barns is probably therefore starving the public to benefit banks and financial institutions. At the same time, private savings do not end up directly in production, which lowers it in turn. production is our true source of wealth if it is used sustainably and circularly. The logic is a bit funny with private pension savings. Why can we afford pensions through individual savings by everyone but not through collective savings? Savings is actually an economic anomaly. The value of money is that you can exchange it for what you produced. But we can't exchange our saved pension in fifty years for the bread we baked today? The basis for the pension is that everyone will eventually become old and unable to work. Each working generation needs and must pay for those who are pensioners at the time through taxes in order to receive a pension in the future.
Increased pensions can be the question that decides the elections in Sweden in 2022.
#pension #sparailadorna #productivity #wealth #the collective #individualism
👍👍👍
Unfortunately, it is so😨
Christer
It remains to rob the banks as before the Russian Revolution when Stalin with the help of "his patrols" did to finance the party
Nah, but maybe to implement a progressive MMT tax system http://www.redjustice.net/skatt
The citizens' new pension system in the early 90s was a way of deceiving the majority of wage earners. Taking about 2,5% of the regular pension and letting us choose funds in PPM was a way of making us believe that if the companies did well, we would get it later. So if we kept down salary requirements and other things, it would benefit us in the long run. Now there were many of us who did unexpectedly well with our choices by switching often and what happened then? Well, then they reduced the number of employees so that the changes took several days longer to complete. Now it is not nearly as beneficial with PPM. Why don't they want us to succeed too well with PPM? Well, if we succeed too well there, more and more people will retire earlier than expected and their weapon against that is to increase the retirement age greatly - which is also happening nowadays! So the pension system in the 90s was really bad for most wage earners.
In addition, pensioners turn over their money much more often than the rich. Pensions are an important stabilizer in an economy.
The motive for the pension reform was fundamentally false. The demographics would lead to the money "running out". The old system burdened future taxpayers. In other words, macroeconomic illiteracy. Per Molanders and Assar Lindbeck's "Financial Policy Framework" set the tone and there was no one (absolutely no one) who understood how the macro economy worked.
The pension reform therefore became a 100% neoliberal scheme. "The individual could blame himself" Future taxpayers could breathe a sigh of relief. The guaranteed pension would be cut out as those whose livelihood depended on the guaranteed amounts belonged to society's least vocal.
The pension reform was largely already nailed down between 1999 and 2002. It is only the 2008 crisis that lifted MMT (and Keen) into public debate. Those who were interested could learn how money and taxes work. In model Sweden, however, interest was very lukewarm.
We need a new pension reform, but first we have to bring about a renewal in the subject of economics.
It doesn't look hopeful. Right now all sense is drowning in an expected orgy of "military Keynesianism". Pensioners have to cook their soup on grenade launchers or die in a radioactive apocalypse... No danger then, because the pension brake hits.
You are so masterfully knowledgeable!