Wednesday, November 30, 2005
There are many buzz words buzzing around these days. They predict death and destruction of society from Bird Flu, to Big Brother. From the removal of Common Agricultural Policy (one of my contributions to the buzzing) to Coca Cola. But one of the buzzing tails of destruction has always sounded peculiar to me. That time bomb is the pensions time bomb. The basics of the pension time bomb is this. We are not having enough kids. To keep a population growing a country needs roughly 2.4 births per female. Currently we have about 2. So this will cause a drop in the population. As less people will be working they will no be able to cover the pension costs of the older generation. This will mean a greater proportion of tax will be going to pay these retirees pensions possible more then the country can afford. This is the time bomb. The British revealed a policy to combat this bomb and to defuse it. The policy is basically as people are living longer they can work longer. But I believe there is another option that makes more economic sense. A 3 part plan. (Read the whole article before critising what I’m say) 1. Less contraception 2. Less Abortions 3. More Euthanasia We all here in the media how all the kids are having sex all the time. Well instead of complaining aboutp how about utilising it. I mean we need kids to be born. So why don’t we utilises these kids as a source of kids. By making contracetion hard to get they will have unprotected sex get pregnant and produce more kids. If we can get the each female to produce the required 2.4 kids before reaching the working world even better no need for maternity leave. Also if you ban abortion in all cases then they will be more kids born. These kids then grow up work and can help pay the pensions of the older generations. It makes great economic sense. The other policy is to increase euthanasia. We need more kids to pay for the pensions of the older generation. But why not tap it at the source of the problem the old people. If we brought in a law to kill (by the nicest means of course) people when they retire or become a burden on the economy. Then we would have no need to spend 100s of millions on pensions. That saving can be passed on to the taxpayer. Also if we burn the bodies in power stations we can maximise their economic potential by providing free fuel. Now it might be said that many would not work hard if they knew that was their fate but if we stipulate that the 15% most economical productive survive this would give people the motivation to work harder. Also if they wish to leave the country before they retire good then we can have a large tax on moving your money out of the country. So you maybe be thinking that what I am saying is a bit cruel but it does make some economic sense you have to admit. In this world today a lot of people look at society and government policy solely from the aspect of the economy and economics (the left do it as well they presume the war in Iraq is about oil). On Questions and Answers the guy from Bank of Ireland kept talking about the Irish Ferries dispute from the aspect of economics. While what he said was economical true. (That it made more sense for the company to have cheap labour and what they did therefore was correct.) The Labour parties Brendan Howlin disagreed and I have to agree with Brendan there is more to everything then economics. The economics of my solution to the pension time bomb might make economic sense but it doesn’t make it right. Likwise all other debates in the world today have to encompass more then just money. People need to remember the economy serves the people not people serving the economy.