Seems like you’re running in to the same problems the rest of the world has, only slower. You don’t even have to come up with a solution, just steal one.

Besides, the state retirement fund is only structured that way as a cash buffer, borrowing the retirement fund of a whole generation. You could just as well go back to how it was done in the 70ies with the retirement fund actually built from people’s taxes, and not from the next generation’s - boom, no more problems with uneven generation populations.

Why doesn’t the working class, the larger of the two, simply not eat the owning class?

Jokes aside; seems to me the problem is that policy is set on feelings rather than reality, and then the argument of “not sustainable” gets irrelevant (which is why the policy carries on even though demonstrably wrong).That I can understand, cutting off one’s nose to spite the face kinda deal. But if you’re spiteful, it might be a reasonable (although not rational) choice.

If you’re looking for efficient and/or rational policy, you need more mature representatives, simple as.

Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt. What is it that’s unsustainable with social security?

Benefits increase GDP growth, cushions impact on performance of market upheavals, increases political stability, reduces poverty, increases health and productivity and of course increases happiness.

It would seem to me that it’s a sound investment for both economic, societal, moral and selfish reasons. Please tell me where my analysis or the data doesn’t support my conclusion.