I don't want to derail the question from the OP, but in fairness to GSM I wanted to do more than simply nod at her post in my defence
. The full saying is ' From each according to ability: to each according to need', which I interpret to mean that if we all contribute what we are able to, there would be enough for everyone, and nobody will do without decent housing, education and pensions.
Of course not everyone is able to contribute, for all sorts of reasons; but IMO those who can should, as in a society like ours, we all benefit from the things that are bought from the proceeds of tax, NI and so on. Those who need more, whether because of illness, disability or the need to care for others who are ill or disabled (or for other reasons) should get more out, as should those who are otherwise unable to work.
This is the principle on which the NHS, the education and benefits systems, and much of our society is based. The alternative is a 'pay at point of use' system, which would mean that those who were unable to contribute would get nothing, or one where those who work subsidise those who choose not to (which does not mean those who are unable to).
In the context of this thread, I mentioned in passing that this was important to me, which is why I understand the OPs point of view. I went on to say, however, that when it comes to retirement, time together is more important than money, and that in any case the opinions of others (including mine) are not important to her decision, as everyone's views are different.
If anyone wants to read that as judgemental, there's not a lot I can do. We were asked our opinions about the OP's question, and I gave mine. I don't see it as judgemental, but again, we are all different.