Hello, again.
Having taken the need for reform the current pension system in what direction these reforms can go?, what countries we can look, how these reforms have been made in other countries?.
I will mention what has been done in three countries with three different models : Chile, Sweden and Germany.
Having taken the need for reform the current pension system in what direction these reforms can go?, what countries we can look, how these reforms have been made in other countries?.
I will mention what has been done in three countries with three different models : Chile, Sweden and Germany.
A) The pension system CHILE was introduced in 1981 and is referred to funded systems. is based on compulsory contributions from employees, not the self who deposited personal accounts 10% of their wages . That money is managed by private companies, called Pension Fund Administrators (AFP).
Each worker freely chooses the AFP and the background in which you want to invest your money , five alternatives, depending on their degree of risk aversion: there are funds that invest primarily in fixed income , others do mostly in equities, others invest in both markets, etc.
does invest the money saved in each account for each worker, he and he alone decides. logically instruments with fixed or variable where it invests, are already authorized and overseen by regulators.
Each worker freely chooses the AFP and the background in which you want to invest your money , five alternatives, depending on their degree of risk aversion: there are funds that invest primarily in fixed income , others do mostly in equities, others invest in both markets, etc.
does invest the money saved in each account for each worker, he and he alone decides. logically instruments with fixed or variable where it invests, are already authorized and overseen by regulators.
The Pension Fund Administrators and funds materialize where inverisones, are separate entities. If the AFP bankrupt the fund transferred to another company.
The State plays a subsidiary role only auditor and simply monitors and oversees the AFP and guarantees the pensions of those who do not accumulate enough savings to ensure a minimum standard of living.
This system has made Chile's savings rate is over 20% of GDP, and have expanded the capital market more than any other Latin American country due to the large provision of funding it receives each year.
B) The pension system was introduced Sweden in 1994 and is a MIXED BETWEEN CAPITAL AND SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (current English model) , but the delivery system even has an important compenente capitalization system. The
Swedish case seems very illustrative. Made the reform of the pension system, among many others, following the tremendous crisis that hit the country in the early 90's, something very similar to what is happening in Spain today.
Sweden started from a delivery system such as ours and replaced it with a mixed, keeping the state budget via the payment of pensions minimum old age pension and so-called guarantee, for all citizens who do not have sufficient financial means. Thus the State guarantees a minimum standard of living for all citizens.
However, any worker Swedish compulsory contribution by 16% of their salary to a Joint (in Spain, the joint contribution of employee and employer social security is around 28.3%). The Common Fund money that goes to pay current pensions, calculating the amount of the pension based on what each employee has contributed to throughout their working lives , not like in Spain, where the calculation is priced based on what the last 15 years.
also pensions are variable, not fixed and Spain, where independent health pension system financially, every pensioner continues to receive the same monthly amount as a pension. In Sweden, Sweden payments are adjusted annually on the financial situation of the system.
If a deficit in the fund which pays pensions automatically corrected by cutting the amount payable to each pensioner , something unthinkable until now in Spain. What is not allowed under any circumstances, a deficit is that the system is covered through the State Budget, that is, increasing government spending or raising tax pressure, or will cover the deficit by increasing the rate of contribution to active workers, because this would entail expensive labor.
The pension system has to be autonomous, it must be self-financing , with current revenues of the system itself, without increasing the collection of the same with higher social contributions and without recourse to other funding sources outside the own system.
If there is a surplus in the Pension Fund, the remaining money is invested by independent funds in the securities markets, national or international , in order to capitalize and obtain profitability. The winnings are re-added to the Common Fund Thus, if there is surplus is devoted to cover pensions. As can be seen, although a distribution system, the surplus of the Fund are invested according to criteria specific to a funded system.
addition of 16% above that every worker goes to the Pension Fund, there are other additional 2.5% can invest in one of several approved private pension funds. This is the part of the capitalization is called pure and simple, where each worker's own contributions intended for one party to their own pension, deciding what type of investment you want for your own money, from among the private pension funds, and where profits or losses are assumed to be him personally.
Finally, as a third way of funding, almost all workers have funds financed by their companies with 4.5% of their salary.
In conclusion, diversify sources of funding future pension is guaranteed a minimum pension guarantees a standard of living for all citizens and, above all, it makes every employee takes responsibility for his pension, as also happens with the PSA system, without relying on future generations to enforce the payment of their pensions something that happens in Spain with the current model and that is the real underlying problem.
Sweden started from a delivery system such as ours and replaced it with a mixed, keeping the state budget via the payment of pensions minimum old age pension and so-called guarantee, for all citizens who do not have sufficient financial means. Thus the State guarantees a minimum standard of living for all citizens.
However, any worker Swedish compulsory contribution by 16% of their salary to a Joint (in Spain, the joint contribution of employee and employer social security is around 28.3%). The Common Fund money that goes to pay current pensions, calculating the amount of the pension based on what each employee has contributed to throughout their working lives , not like in Spain, where the calculation is priced based on what the last 15 years.
also pensions are variable, not fixed and Spain, where independent health pension system financially, every pensioner continues to receive the same monthly amount as a pension. In Sweden, Sweden payments are adjusted annually on the financial situation of the system.
If a deficit in the fund which pays pensions automatically corrected by cutting the amount payable to each pensioner , something unthinkable until now in Spain. What is not allowed under any circumstances, a deficit is that the system is covered through the State Budget, that is, increasing government spending or raising tax pressure, or will cover the deficit by increasing the rate of contribution to active workers, because this would entail expensive labor.
The pension system has to be autonomous, it must be self-financing , with current revenues of the system itself, without increasing the collection of the same with higher social contributions and without recourse to other funding sources outside the own system.
If there is a surplus in the Pension Fund, the remaining money is invested by independent funds in the securities markets, national or international , in order to capitalize and obtain profitability. The winnings are re-added to the Common Fund Thus, if there is surplus is devoted to cover pensions. As can be seen, although a distribution system, the surplus of the Fund are invested according to criteria specific to a funded system.
addition of 16% above that every worker goes to the Pension Fund, there are other additional 2.5% can invest in one of several approved private pension funds. This is the part of the capitalization is called pure and simple, where each worker's own contributions intended for one party to their own pension, deciding what type of investment you want for your own money, from among the private pension funds, and where profits or losses are assumed to be him personally.
Finally, as a third way of funding, almost all workers have funds financed by their companies with 4.5% of their salary.
In conclusion, diversify sources of funding future pension is guaranteed a minimum pension guarantees a standard of living for all citizens and, above all, it makes every employee takes responsibility for his pension, as also happens with the PSA system, without relying on future generations to enforce the payment of their pensions something that happens in Spain with the current model and that is the real underlying problem.
C) And finally, the model Germany, which is the closest to English. Is a distribution system, where current workers finance the benefits paid their dues paid to current retirees.
In Germany, keeping the model present, the most important aspect of reform has been to expand retirement age to 67 years, so gradually.
seems that the reforms implemented in Spain and which was adopted at the plenary session of Jan. 28, with or without consensus among social partners, primarily consist gradually increase the retirement age to the 67, instead of the 65 current and raise the base for calculating the pension, from contributions in the last 15 years quoted in the last 20 or 25 years.
In my opinion, are mere patches, I do not go to the bottom of the problem, which is none other than the dangerous dependence between active workers and persons receiving a pension . Or put another way, that any retiree's pension depends on contributions from active workers.
Any reform has to be done as a priority root out this "suicide" unit and make the board which is charged in the future, depends basically on the contributions that each worker has made throughout his working life . Each worker has to take responsibility for their future pension.
For this reason and because I think to go directly to a funded system, but for me is the best system is not viable in today, by a substantial amount of committed payments to current retirees, who agrees to continue entering the bulk system through the contributions of active workers to finance current pensions, clearly looking the Swedish model, with a clear funding component, both collectively and individually, but at the same time with a PAYG basis, to adjust its payments to income, without creating gaps that other generations have to bear.
I imagine that a pact state in this issue, as in many others, will be a tall order, but it would not only desirable but necessary that those who have the duty to make decisions, forget about complex mongering, prejudice ideolócios and personal and party interests and think like statesmen, in the general interest and with an eye to future generations, not in the short term, on the other hand, is all on what they think those dependent on votes of the citizens.
seems that the reforms implemented in Spain and which was adopted at the plenary session of Jan. 28, with or without consensus among social partners, primarily consist gradually increase the retirement age to the 67, instead of the 65 current and raise the base for calculating the pension, from contributions in the last 15 years quoted in the last 20 or 25 years.
In my opinion, are mere patches, I do not go to the bottom of the problem, which is none other than the dangerous dependence between active workers and persons receiving a pension . Or put another way, that any retiree's pension depends on contributions from active workers.
Any reform has to be done as a priority root out this "suicide" unit and make the board which is charged in the future, depends basically on the contributions that each worker has made throughout his working life . Each worker has to take responsibility for their future pension.
For this reason and because I think to go directly to a funded system, but for me is the best system is not viable in today, by a substantial amount of committed payments to current retirees, who agrees to continue entering the bulk system through the contributions of active workers to finance current pensions, clearly looking the Swedish model, with a clear funding component, both collectively and individually, but at the same time with a PAYG basis, to adjust its payments to income, without creating gaps that other generations have to bear.
I imagine that a pact state in this issue, as in many others, will be a tall order, but it would not only desirable but necessary that those who have the duty to make decisions, forget about complex mongering, prejudice ideolócios and personal and party interests and think like statesmen, in the general interest and with an eye to future generations, not in the short term, on the other hand, is all on what they think those dependent on votes of the citizens.
If you also repeal the disgraceful Pension Rules and other economic benefits in favor of the former parliamentarians , which gives them some unjustified and incomprehensible and undeserved benefits when a pension, and is an invidious clear as any other worker , we might think that in addition to defending a necessary reforms, our politicians preach by example, and their cost is borne by all and not always the same.
And if you finally did not have to witness the shameful privilege that allows ex-presidents previous governments of different parties, can reconcile the payment of public pension annuity with the payment of salaries millionaires in multinational companies, and also in exchange for being made of "lobbyists", by providing companies they work for entire network of contacts made in his last years in politics, we might have more arguments to understand the need for reform and would have raised the feeling of being the "law of the funnel." You know, "wide to narrow for me and others."
Greetings to all, and with this third installment ended my analysis on the present and future of pensions. José Antonio
joseamoraleslopez@hotmail.com
joseamoraleslopez@gmail.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment