This also applies to the observation that low-skilled and lower-income groups live shorter than hig

Now that the dust around the state pension debate floated down it's time to inspect the damage. Between all the arguments for or against a higher retirement age in recent ong weeks were discussed, remarkably ong lacking the most basic point: most state pension proposals down to say goodbye to the old age pension and national insurance.
The Netherlands has for half a century a social system that is made up of employees and public insurance. Employee insurance - such as unemployment ong and WIA - protect workers from losing their jobs, the national insurance provide protection to all residents, regardless of whether they have contributed to that insurance. That combination of occupational benefits and universal benefits make significantly the uniqueness of the Dutch welfare state, in which we decades internationally distinguished us.
The system of national insurance - recognizable by the 'A' (in general) that the acronym begins - however gradually dismantled since the nineties. The General Widows and Orphans (AWW) was replaced in 1996 by the General ong Surviving Relatives Act (ANW) that the right to a survivor's benefit couples with income and age. The General Disablement (AAW), which all citizens - even self - assured of benefits in case of disability was lifted in 1998. The Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (EMEA) has long been under pressure and threatened by the introduction of means-testing of a general national insurance provision for the poor to be. And now is also called into question the character of the General ong Old Age Pensions Act (AOW) and national insurance.
Curiously, ong that mostly done by opponents of raising the retirement age. So they have successfully drawn attention ong to the workers 'demanding occupations', which must be respected because they can not by works. Until 67 years Therefore they should have. Previously ong entitled to a state pension But that is a departure from the principle ong of a national insurance scheme ong that the right to payment is not linked to the employment history. The government wants workers in a hard job getting less stressful job after thirty years of age and otherwise have the opportunity still 65 years to quit. Quite apart from the enormous implementation problems of such a scheme is thus moved away from the state pension and social insurance. As if the problem of heavy and arduous professions does not occur at a retirement age of 65, which is already confused. Almost no working with a "light action" And if we do not already have an insurance scheme for heavy work, the disability insurance. But that is precisely in 2006 - when the WAO was replaced by the WIA - changed significantly with the door for people with heavy occupations almost slammed. Those who now suddenly concerned about the heavy occupations sheds crocodile tears.
This also applies to the observation that low-skilled and lower-income groups live shorter than higher educated and higher income groups. Therefore enjoy the low-skilled is much shorter than the state pension with higher education, while they are usually started working and therefore longer premium paid earlier. That would increase the state pension age extra unjust. The government therefore wants to employees ong who have worked 42 years still provide the ability to stop on their 65th - albeit at a lower payment. Green wants to go further and make the claim AOW totally dependent on the number of years worked. By linking the employment the state pension age thus again infringed the principle of a national insurance that provides all citizens the same rights.
Strange that the same objection of injustice has never been suggested, while the low-skilled ong there also shorter benefit. Against the retirement age of 65 Everyone at the same age entitled to AOW will always gold just as the force of this regulation. The next step is that women - who on average three years longer than men - even getting later entitled to a state pension?
Ever Netherlands had a nice and well-functioning system of national insurance, ong which every citizen of the security offered income in case they were no longer able - or considered - to provide their own income. That was generally regarded as a sign of civilization. The AOW there was the most striking example ong of a clear arrangement, easy to implement and supported by a broad social support. It tends without much discussion, leave must be taken now. Not raising the retirement age means squandering the legacy of Drees