Quote:
Originally posted by Wonderland
And tbh I hope they do strip perks from the older generations. It sounds awful but the truth is I've had enough of their unrealistic expectations of lower taxes yet greater/the same handouts. An aging population makes such a desire unsustainable and it was unrealistic to think it could happen in the first place.
It's time to suffer. Baby, this is what you voted for.
|
Wouldn't that absolutely destroy rural counties' economies, though?
1. Automatisation of transport will be worst for rural places, because they used to function as bed-food-gas-supplies stops.
2. These rural places have the lowest amount of migrants and young people are moving to bigger cities. Old people are left here.
These two things will make for an economy that's driven by social security. Slashing that would mean political backlash but also a whole part of the country becoming a lot poorer.
I'd say slashing old age security isn't worth it if you account for all the negative sides (economic decline, political backlash, increased inequality). Meanwhile the only thing 'good' for the economy is a reduction in govt spending/debt (a goal that is very overrated thanks to Conservative indoctrination).
Any administration should put tax loopholes, tax evasion, bureaucracy in healthcare, govt corruption and corporatism in defense/healthcare/education/justice as top priorities. Sadly Trump's win will delay all those necessary reforms by at least 4 but more likely 10+ years. Making old people poorer really isn't the most effective way to reduce debt.
