Retiring

Scott Adams is asking why the current system of retirement — in which individuals can live for decades without contributing to society — exists:

“Now we have people retiring at 60 and living to 100. Do you still feel good about that? Even if the retiree has saved money for retirement, society is still picking up a big part of the tab. You have the Social Security payments that usually exceed the amount paid into the system, and all the roads, police, firemen, and other services that are being funded by other people’s taxes. The list goes on.”

I agree with him. It’s really crazy that we have this arbitrary age line where, once you cross it, you no longer have to give anything to society — just take. Not all men and women who turn sixty or seventy are infirm or unable to do some productive work. Even if they’re not holding down a day job, they can still be doing something for society in childcare centres and schools and lots of other places. If they’re really not fit to be productive in any way, then they should be in a retirement home or hospital.

We’re giving away huge sums from the collective taxes we pay to men and women who are going to spend decades eating, drinking, smoking, watching television and going to the doctor. All the time without giving anything back to the community who fund their inactivity. There really needs to be a rethink of the situation. Check out Adams’ idea for a carbon-trading-style scheme.