This is contained in a Friday report published by the Social and Economic Council (SER) on the possible retirement variant Private pension assets with collective risk-sharing “.
The Social and Economic Council, the advisory body of the government in which employers and employees are represented, start came last year with an analysis of four different variants for a new pension system.
A personal pension assets with collective risk-sharing was then described as interesting, as well as unknown. Therefore, the SER has in recent months further explored the option.
Scenarios
The scenario is now under investigation in good financial times, part of the proceeds placed in a buffer. Try these proceeds go to the pension participants.
In bad economic times can be supplemented any shortfall in pensions from the buffer. Sharing risks through a buffer may lead according to the SER to more stable and higher pension income.
However, not all variants. Funds that have no buffer yet, they must first build. Any profits from investment flow may not return to pensions.
In the studied variant retains the strengths of the current system, such as collectivity and sharing of risks, says the ESC. “But that happens within one pension contract based on private pension assets.”
Contract
With such a contract, the participants should be able to see how much pension they have built up. Discussions with stakeholders and was the main note of the Cabinet forward dar the new system should be particularly simpler and more transparent.
The pension should be more focused on the current job market. That has changed, including the increased number of self-employed. Also, it is not obvious that employees stay with one employer.
Double
The SER states in its opinion that the new system has been a double transition. First, the old system should be converted to the new system. In addition, the so-called typical system will be abolished.
With this system ages pay the same pension at the same pension fund. This seems fair, but in fact amounts to a power redistribution from young to old. The inflow of young people is in fact worth more than the elderly because the money can pay more. It therefore undermines support for the system.
The abolition of the system costs money, 100 billion euros, according to the CPB. The SER hopes, however, that these adverse effects can be mitigated by the double transition.
Offset
For a fair distribution of the burden disadvantaged age should still receive compensation, the Council finds. “That can be done by a temporary additional pension.”
If it is decided to introduce this system, the precise content and the funding depends on the needs of employers, workers and government.
No comments:
Post a Comment