did this report bother to empirically analyze which generations have wealth to share and which don't? because such an empirical analysis would make it clear that we should be taxing retirees to pay for social services: they're the ones with all of the money, whereas the younger generations are mired in debt, for the precise reason that the older generation refused to pay for anything.

i think what the government needs to do with this is recognize that it's in a special case. there was a demographic bulge, and it was able to skew resources towards itself. their parents suffered, and their kids have suffered, too. at some point, that has to reverse, and resources are going to need to be pulled out of this bulge. what the report is really highlighting is that we're not going to be able to allow this to happen naturally. we're not going to be able to just wait until they die. we're going to need to start distributing resources from rich retirees to less rich retirees, and tell them to their face that they reap what they sow.

if you follow the data properly, you're actually left to conclude that we'd be better off *lowering* the retirement age, in order to shuffle wealthy retirees out and give younger people the opportunity to move into higher wage positions, and generate some savings of their own.

but, whatever the state does to adjust to this over the next twenty to thirty years should be seen as a temporary reaction to a special demographic problem, and should not be intended to be structural or binding on the next generation.