the argument seems to have become somewhat confused. In terms of economics it makes no difference whether a service is provided by the public or private sector. Production takes place and and a cost allocated. One might argue that the generation of price differs, but this is only a technical debate. The "taxpayer" pays for public sector and "workers" pay for the private sector. In both sectors there are workers who pay taxes. In other words we have a system where everyone who works pays for everyone else whether in the private or public sector. The analytic distinction made in the discussion here is political rather than economic.

The questions to be properly addressed might be:
1. Do all people deserve reasonable pensions?
2. Should we all be in it together in addressing the economic crisis?

The current weasel words by some commentators is that the crisis is in some way the fault of older people who should have their pensions cut (which they have paid for) and should give up their houses (which they have paid for) because, in some other way, they have "robbed the young".(e.g. Guardian 20/10/11 'Should older people be expected to downsize?') This is clearly aimed at a division to make the removal of pensions and housing from older people politically acceptable.

This suggests that the answer to the two questions in both cases is 'no'.

Instead the 'blame' for the crisis is laid at the doors of the old, the public sector and the poor. In whose interest might this be?