Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxaris
I might, but I don't think nor expect so. For many years already I am assuming that there will be nothing left when I am finally allowed to retire. That, or the retirement age will be at 75.
|
That, and because of the over-flexible job market of today, I've always said that retirement should not be arranged by the employer. At the end of my working days, it's completely conceivable that I've had 15-20 employers, all with a different retirement fund. You just don't know what you're getting. People should be allowed to just arrange their own retirement. (I mean: the portion the employer now pays should be added to the salary so you can arrange your own retirement.)
There is even talk that if people arrange their own retirement, on top of the already existing facilities (in which you are obliged to take part), the government should be allowed to deduct the self-arranged extra from the retirement. That's just idiotic.
Together with the fact that you're not allowed to have any savings (almost) or anything else of worth, if you ever need to fall back on welfare, it's almost impossible to build a stash for yourself, except if you live together with someone on which you can fall back, and thus avoiding welfare.
I understand that giving welfare to someone who has a net worth of 3 million is a bit ridiculous, but for 'normal' people, who have normal amounts of savings, welfare should be a last ditch fail safe until they find a new job; they shouldn't need to be spending all of their savings first. Because of that, it's 'better' to just not have any savings; it's not worth it, under the existing ruleset.
Therefore, I fully expect to be completely grounded, financially, when I'm 67; either because I didn't save anything, or I lost all of it (including the inheritance) when ending up in welfare. I just don't expect to be able to keep working uninterrupted without any layoffs for another 35 years.
I'll quit now, or this will turn into a serious political rant.