I consider the subsidization of poor and no-income as the cheapest alternative. Pay them enough to live and the external cost won't be more. Theft, property damage, judicial system and incarceration get lot more expensive than just paying them something. And all the money going to them is anyway spend so on large scale it might not even be net negative.
Re:The End of Retirement (2014)
by ajsnigrutin on Thursday May 20, 2021 @04:56AM
(#27218931)
> Those with good incomes subsidize those with low incomes,
This keeps the average values the same (that's why I used the average example)
> and everyone subsidizes those with no income.
This seems to be an ongoing problem, where we on one side need workers, and on the other side pay unemployment benefits to people who don't want to work. This is then translated to pensions, where people who work only eg. 10 years (instead of 40) get a small pension, but still more than the share they paid into the fund.
The only way to 'earn more' is through a positive return on investment, but pension schemes necessarily must err on the 'safe side'. And currently 'safe' interest rates are negative.