this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2023
72 points (100.0% liked)

worldnews

1764 readers
1 users here now

Welcome! This community is constantly upgrading and is a current work in progress. Please stay tuned.

/c/[email protected] strives for high-quality standards on the latest world events.

The basis of these standards comes from the MBFC, which uses an aggregate of methodologies, including the IFCN and World Freedom Indices, to rate the Bias and Factual Reporting of News.

These are non-profit organisations with full transparency of their funding and structure. Likewise, this community is also transparent – Please feel free to question its staff and the overall content of this community.


Does your post fit the standards? Check this thread!



Rules:


Disallowed submissions

Commenters will receive one public warning with only one strike if violating any of the following rules:

Thank you.

todo list:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

There's an army of institutions and economists who reviewed the issue over and over with 1 conclusion: there were many different solutions, raising the retirement age was ONE of them. So this was not necessary. This was a choice.

The system is a "simple" in/out equation. Twice in the past years this government has reduced the money in. Now they tell everyone they "saved" the system and there was no other solution. That's all BS.

And by the way: looks like they couldn't even do their math properly, because the system will still run a deficit by 2030. They counted some revenue twice. So much for "the experts"...