Troika 5pts This is a typical example whereby one throws some numbers without properly understanding what these numbers mean. First of all, State spending in pensions doesn't mean that total spending in pensions is higher - as in other countries (e.g. the UK) you may have low public spending and high private spending. This is not a matter of economic efficiency but a policy choice- which is quite different. Secondly, you are showing pensions as % of GDP. If you check the historical evolution however, you'll find out that 4 years ago, pensions were at European average as a % of GDP. The only reason why pensions as a % of GDP have increased in because GDP went down. And because the Troika promoted anticipated pensions policy as a way to iconically reduce the number of public servants (i.e. bureaucrats saying they "hit the target" by displacing the problem somewhere else). Thirdly, let's grant that pensions spending is too high compared to European average. The next question is: why did all the rest collapse except pensions? Very simply because pensioners are the political clientele of the former right-wing government - favored by the Troika. Pensioners have always been (and are still) voting en masse for the right-wing. It's the last thing they would have ever cut (they'd rather have eliminated unemployment benefits for the young unemployed masses than slashing pensions). All this with the benediction of the Troika. Finally, if we claim that pensions need to go down to European average, then why not take social spending, health spending and minimum wage up to European average?