That means, those who paid about 30-35% during their work-life now want the young to pay 41%++ to fund pensioners' consumption and services.

In the debate, the burden of proof is on those what want (more) stable contribution rates.

Er hat seine Kolumne im „Datum“ verloren, wie auch in dem von Dir verlinkten Artikel steht. Du wirfst da Leute in einen Topf – unter anderem mich –, unter denen es deutliche Unterschiede in den Ansprüchen an sich selbst gibt.

Ich kenn den Fall, aber ich kenn eben auch sehr viele Leute in unserem Gewerbe, die damit ein Problem hatten. Wer ist da die Blase und welchen Stein der Weisen hätt sie entdeckt?

Worauf beziehst Du Dich?

"Even that, however, will not be enough in a world where China offers everything cheaply for export and has no appetite for imports itself. There will simply be no alternative but to rely on domestic demand. Which leads to the bad solution: protectionism. "

"The difficult solution is to become more competitive and find new sources of value, as the US does with its technology industry. That means more reform, less welfare and less regulation: not because welfare and regulation are bad per se, but because they are unaffordable given the competition."

bsky.app/profile/hple...