Archive for the ‘Pensions’ Category

the politics of happiness

Friday, May 24th, 2013

[Former Harvard University president Derek] Bok devotes many pages to the policy implications of happiness studies. The findings of happiness research, he writes, reveal the wisdom of adopting “sensible policies” ….

Recommended policies do not always follow from the research findings that Bok cites. He notes, for example, that “surveys suggest that Americans over 65 are feeling happier about their lives than the rest of the adult population, a conclusion supported by other studies showing that well-being for Americans in reasonably good health slowly rises after 30–40 years of age and continues to increase into their 70s” (p. 102). Also, “apparently … money is not perceived as a major problem by the vast majority of currently retired Americans” (p. 103). Such findings, Bok concludes, “may help policy-makers decide to give a higher priority to improving the lot of younger Americans through measures such as more affordable child care or higher-quality pre-school education than to raising Social Security benefits” (p. 61).

Although this redistribution may appear to be a sensible policy, what evidence do we have that government subsidies for child care or pre-school education will increase the happiness of young Americans? According to Bok (p. 153), “No investigator has inquired into the effects of successful early childhood programs on the happiness of participants.” How are we to know, then, that the increased happiness of children and young parents will more than offset the decreased happiness of the elderly forced to live with smaller pensions? A majority of retirees may live comfortable lives, but many elderly Americans live in poverty, presumably with low subjective well-being.

Larry Willmore, Review of The Politics of Happiness: What Government Can Learn from the New Research on Well-being, by Derek Bok (Princeton University Press, 2010), Population and Development Review, June 2013, pp. 350-353.

Access without payment requires that you (or your institution) subscribe to Population and Development Review, but you can read a full, early draft of my review here.

HK employers resist universal pensions

Friday, May 10th, 2013

Professor Nelson Chow last month warned that Hong Kong employers are resisting the universal age pension “in the same way they opposed the minimum wage a few years ago”. His observation is disturbingly correct. An op-ed column published in yesterday’s newspaper provides a striking example:

Here we go again. Some legislators have sought to hijack the governance of Hong Kong by demanding a quick fix to retirement protection through the introduction of a universal pension. If only the solution were that easy and made financial sense.

Not so. The challenges of retirement protection are far more complex and today’s decisions have to be paid for by future generations for many decades to come. ….

Other countries may still be preoccupied with trying to maintain universal state pensions. We do not carry that historical baggage and have the opportunity to tailor-make sustainable long-term solutions to the real needs of our own particular ageing society. Our government is right to take time in thinking this through carefully. Populist band-aids are not a solution – they are a threat.

Michael Somerville, “Universal pension won’t meet needs of greying Hong Kong“, South China Morning Post, 9 May 2013.

The author seems unaware of the fact that elderly citizens enjoy universal access to flat pensions in only a few countries. Contributory schemes, in contrast, are mandated almost everywhere; these schemes are earnings-related, so costly, and often receive government guarantees and subsidies.

Michael Somerville is consultant to the Business and Professionals Federation of Hong Kong, a “strategic think tank” founded in 1990.

Might opposition from business interests explain why the “quick fix” of universal pensions is expected to take three years to implement in Hong Kong?

universal pensions for Hong Kong

Thursday, May 9th, 2013

The government of Hong Kong has at last agreed to demands for introduction of a universal age pension that is adequate to keep the elderly out of poverty. The Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, who chairs the Commission on Poverty, has commissioned Nelson Chow Wing-sun, a respected academic, to draft an appropriate plan. Chow (born 1947) is professor of social work and social administration at the University of Hong Kong.

In an exclusive interview with China Daily, Chow unveils his proposal, calling for a HK$4,000 [US$515] monthly pension for people 65 and above. …. He will submit his proposal, together with those from other organizations, to the government at the end of 2013. ….

At present, the government offers the [universal HK$1090] Old Age Allowance (OAA) and [the means-tested HK$2200] Old Age Living Allowance (OALA). …. Elderly people with significant assets or savings may be ineligible for the OALA …. People in that situation must rely solely on the OAA but the payment of $1,100 is hardly enough to provide for basic necessities.

Even senior citizens with over HK$200,000 in savings are afraid to use up their savings, in case they need the money for medical or burial expenses – recognizing that the price of a columbarium niche alone is well over HK$100,000.

“I propose a monthly pension of HK$4,000 for all people reaching 65, regardless of whether they have assets, have had jobs before or how much they earn. This amount is reasonable because if this is ‘universal’, it cannot be too big.”

“Given that there are nearly 1 million elderly aged 65 or above, the annual expenditure will be HK$48 billion, with the government bearing half of it, while employers and employees each contribute [a payroll tax of] about 2 percent. As the government now pays about HK$23 billion on all types of welfare payments, it will not spend much more than now. It is a more financially viable proposal. And with the government making such clear and firm commitment, nobody can say the government is iron-hearted.”

And if this new pension is introduced, he explained, it will supersede other welfare payments and save a great deal of administrative work.

Chow believes the HK$4,000 can support the basic living for the elderly, while retirees who have the additional retirement benefits and personal savings will feel more at ease. Though HK$4,000 may be small for a person who earns HK$50,000 before retirement, it will be good for a worker who earns the minimum wage of about HK$8,000 per month.

Chow is using the age criteria as eligibility of this new pension to eliminate means tests and other administrative procedures. “Even (Hong Kong’ number one tycoon) Li Ka-shing is eligible,” he mused, “but it’s up to him to apply or not.” ….

He stresses that the universal pension is following on the winds of change. Employers are resisting in the same way they opposed the minimum wage a few years ago, but they cannot escape it. ….

Nelson Chow Wing-sun is the chair-professor of the Department of Social Work and Social Administration at the University of Hong Kong. A well-known and highly respected academic in the field of social work, he is hailed the ‘Godfather’ of social welfare in Hong Kong. Over the years, he has held a number of posts in public service …..

Joseph Li, “A proposal for a universal pension“, China Daily, 18 April 2013.

Professor Chow’s proposed pension is larger than the HK$3,000 demanded by the Alliance for Universal Pension, and will be given to every legal resident from the age of 65, regardless of their employment history. Since there is no test of income or assets, a pensioner can continue to work, on a full- or part-time basis, without danger of losing the benefit.

The fact that Chow has the full confidence of the Hong Kong government is encouraging. The professor believes that it will be possible to introduce a universal pension by the year 2015, or 2016 at the latest. This is good news for the elderly of Hong Kong.

Professor Nelson Chow

toward universal pensions in the United States

Monday, April 22nd, 2013

The New America Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank based in Washington, DC and New York City, has issued a call for a universal age pension. The flat pension would be financed from general government revenue, not payroll taxes, so is entirely separate from – an addition to – earnings-related Social Security benefits. It is unfortunate that the scheme is called “Expanded Social Security”, which can lead to confusion.

It is a long report. Here are some highlights. (more…)

“replacement rates” of Social Security benefits

Thursday, April 18th, 2013

AEI scholar Andrew Biggs asserts that final wages for US retirees are lower than their average lifetime wages. From this ‘fact’ he concludes that the Social Security Administration understates the “replacement rates” of Social Security pensions. Why? Because the SSA bases their calculations on average wages (the best 35 years) rather than final wages. (more…)

the Old Age Living Allowance begins in Hong Kong

Sunday, April 14th, 2013

Hong Kong seniors aged 65-69 with low incomes, and all elderly residents aged 70 and older currently receive a monthly Old Age Allowance of HK$1090 (US$140), commonly known as “fruit money”.

This month (April 2013) the government is rolling out a new, means-tested Old Age Living Allowance of HK$2200 per month for those aged 65 and older. For those who pass a means test, this allowance will replace the “fruit money” (HK$1090) or disability allowance (HK$1400) they currently receive.

This is the first time that Hong Kong residents older than 70 have had to face a means test for state benefits.

Here are highlights (with links) from news reports of the South China Morning Post.

The HK$2,200 new, means-tested old age living allowance will be made available … starting from April, the government said on Thursday. …. The payments will be retroactive to December 1, last year. ….

A single-person applicant has to have a monthly income of less than HK$6,880 and a total asset of less than HK$193,000. The total monthly income for a married couple cannot exceed HK$10,940 and their total assets have to be less than HK$292,000.

Lai Ying-kit, “New means-tested old age allowance to start in April“, South China Morning Post, 31 January, 2013.

Alliance for Universal Pension members protest at Hong Kong Legislative Council. Photo: Felix Wong

Financial support from relatives will not be counted as part of an elderly person’s income, but will be considered assets when assessing his eligibility for a new government allowance ….

Gold teeth and jade jewellery would not be counted, the department said. It will review the asset and income limits annually. ….

Ng Wai-tung, of the non-profit Society for Community Organisation, said the scheme, meant to alleviate poverty, was taking the right direction generally, but looser asset limits were needed.

The government estimated that 400,000 people would benefit, but Ng doubted if the number would be that high, given such tight asset limits.

The added complication of what counted as assets might deter some needy residents, he said.

“[The elderly and their relatives] may also worry about breaking the law, and relatives may end up giving their elderly less money,” he said.

Jennifer Ngo, “Relatives’ cash for elderly to be treated as assets in allowance plan“, South China Morning Post, 1 February 2013.

 

Residents who are eligible for the new elderly allowance are delighted to get some help to cope with the higher cost of living, but others with just a little too much money in the bank are not happy with the government’s stringent means test.

For Chou Shui, 88, the new HK$2,200 handout is double the original HK$1,090 in “fruit money” he has been receiving. Chou will use it to pay the medical bills of his wife, 77, who has been bedridden since a stroke three years ago, he says. ….

But Leung Wei-chun, 80, who also spends most of her money on medical treatment, has failed the means test. Her savings exceeded the HK$193,000 assets cap by a little, she said.

“You’ve got to understand us old folks; we’re used to being frugal,” Leung said. “I can’t just use up that money quickly just so I can get [the allowance].” ….

[Leung] was widowed 40 years ago, has no children, and could not even find someone to accompany her to hospital.

Most of her HK$1,400 handicap subsidy goes to her doctor’s visits – including paying for someone to visit the hospital with her. Such a trip costs her HK$500 and six hours.

“If I could get an elderly allowance, it’d be poured into my medical needs anyway.

“I guess it doesn’t matter any more,” Leung said.

Jennifer Ngo and Jolie Ho, “Elderly allowance is welcome help for some, but others are not so lucky“, South China Morning Post, 30 March 2013.

the example of Mauritius

Wednesday, April 3rd, 2013

Mauritius’ universal pension scheme dates from the 1950s and has been very successful, but has not received the attention it deserves. I was thus delighted to learn that HelpAge International (a London-based charity) organised a study tour to Mauritius for government officials from Tanzania and Zanzibar. Smart Daniel, HelpAge’s Assistant Country Director in Tanzania, posted highlights from the trip.

[Mauritius'] Basic Retirement Pension (BRP) [is] a universal non-contributory pension which is paid to those who meet the residency requirement and are aged 60 and over. As of February 2013, 172,000 people, 13 per cent of the population, received the BRP. ….

The BRP is embedded within a wider system of pensions (direct cash transfers) which address other forms of vulnerability such as disability, widowhood and orphan-hood, alongside associated allowances which aim to provide additional support to carers. This comprehensive system of transfers costs 3 per cent of GDP. ….

The study tour provided an interesting insight into one of Africa’s longest standing universal pensions, with surprising areas of learning from the Mauritian experience that are applicable for both Tanzania and Zanzibar, despite their different contexts.

Autonomy
The Government of Mauritius continues to receive significant donor support, with 30 to 40 per cent of its budget financed by donors. However, funding for the BRP is exclusively from Government revenue and taxation. This reflects a concerted effort to maintain Mauritius’ autonomy over the BRP and to resist the introduction of donor agendas, such as targeting, to the scheme. It also demonstrates that donor dependence does not mean that expansive social protection systems are unaffordable for national government.

Means-testing
While means-testing has been suggested by some international financial institutions this has been rejected by the Government of Mauritius on the basis of affordability and social impacts. Research by the Government suggested that introducing a means-test could exclude up to 20 per cent of older people. However, significantly increased administration costs would outstrip any savings made in reducing the number of beneficiaries, making means-testing more expensive than universality. Beyond concerns around cost and the capacity of the Government to implement a means-test, targeting was viewed as politically and publically unpopular. In particular, there were concerns that targeting would undermine social solidarity, stigmatise recipients and lead to accusations of discrimination from excluded older people.

Smart Daniel, “Mauritius, Tanzania and Zanzibar: sharing learning on social protection for older people“, Pension Watch blogs, 3 April 2013.

Daniel reports that administration costs of the BRP amount to only 2 per cent of benefits. There is much more at the link.


 

coming changes in the US retirement system

Tuesday, March 12th, 2013

American economist Landis MacKellar ends with a prediction his review of a 480-page book on the past history and current unraveling of the US retirement system.

Neither the fondest of our wishes nor the worst of our fears is likely to come to pass. ….

— The Social Security system will require a mix of benefit cuts and payroll tax increases. …. One should expect a rising payroll tax, some of the proceeds diverted to individual accounts and invested in the stock market (to engage the Right), an increase in the payroll tax cap (to engage the Left), and reduction in spousal benefits (to engage all but the religious conservatives).

— Expect benefit cuts to take the form of more aggressive increases in the normal retirement age, probably the least of all evils. All will vociferously oppose; all will grudgingly accept. …. The labor market changes that will be needed to accommodate longer working lives are many.

In extremis, expect the indexing of Social Security initial benefits to prices, not wages (i.e., a fixed anti-poverty “basic benefit” package on retirement). ….

— The probability of Social Security benefits being so drastically cut that the elderly are forced back into Dickensian poverty is zero in political terms. ….

— Expect continuing tax preferences for participating in employer-sponsored pension plans. Expect, as well, … further development of the reverse mortgage market.

— The defined-benefit component of the American retirement system is in the process of disappearing. Defined-contribution 401(k)s are here to stay. 401(k) income will rival Social Security for all but the poorest income deciles and, of course, will greatly exceed it for the rich. …. Placing Social Security contributions, at the margin, into individually managed accounts will help to promote awareness.

— On the health front, employer-sponsored retiree health plans are likely going the way of employer-sponsored defined-benefit pension plans. No one seriously believes that “Obamacare” has tamed medical cost inflation. Readers of this journal will know that these costs are driven not by population aging, but by the costs of new treatments and tests for the living and by the high costs of terminal decline and end-game for the dying. Most will probably agree that the first are worth every penny and the second practically nothing. Expect vigorous debate on end-of-life care and costs.

Landis MacKellar, “Review of Sylvester J. Schieber, The Predictable Surprise: The Unraveling of the U.S. Retirement System (Oxford University Press, 2012)“, Population and Development Review 38:4 (December 2012), pp. 735–743. [free access]

Landis has long been associated with the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), an international research centre located in Laxenburg, Austria. He is now – beginning with volume 39 – co-editor of Population and Development Review, a prestigious journal that is published quarterly by Wiley on behalf of the Population Council.

The full review is excellent, and highly recommended. My only complaint, a minor one, is that Landis fails to mention Supplemental Security Income. SSI is a non-contributory, means-tested pension that has a famously low take-up, and leaves many elderly claimants in poverty even after they access the benefit. Social Security benefits depend on the recipient’s earnings record, so can never guarantee a “fixed anti-poverty basic benefit”. I have not seen Schieber’s book, so do not know if he discusses SSI or not. My expectation is that he does not, because US researchers almost always ignore the first tier of their nation’s retirement system.

the Social Security ‘crisis’

Friday, March 8th, 2013

Americans unofficially refer to their tier 2, contributory government pension scheme as ‘Social Security’. The programme is funded pay-as-you-go from contributions (payroll taxes). For many years, Social Security revenues have exceeded expenditures, but eventually benefits will have to be cut, or payroll taxes increased, to balance the account without government subsidies.

Social Security is ‘universal’ in the sense that participation is mandated, and the same rules apply to all workers. Benefits depend on the record of contributions and are nil if this record is shorter than forty quarters (ten full years). Many Social Security pensions are very small, indeed. Nonetheless, for a majority of seniors the monthly government benefits are very important. Two-thirds of Americans older than age 65 depend on Social Security for at least half of their income.

NY Times contributor Thomas B. Edsall wonders why politicians focus on introduction of means tests, or raising the age of eligibility, and ignore completely the possibility of broadening the base for payroll taxes.

Currently, earned income in excess of $113,700 is entirely exempt from the 6.2 percent payroll tax that funds Social Security benefits (employers pay a matching 6.2 percent). 5.2 percent of working Americans make more than $113,700 a year. Simply by eliminating the payroll tax earnings cap — and thus ending this regressive exemption for the top 5.2 percent of earners — would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, solve the financial crisis facing the Social Security system.

So why don’t we talk about raising or eliminating the cap – a measure that has strong popular, though not elite, support? ….

The Washington cognoscenti are more inclined to discuss two main approaches that are far less costly for the affluent: means-testing of benefits and raising the age of eligibility …. ['Saving Social Security' by] cutting spending appeal[s] to ideological conservatives for a number of reasons.

First, insofar as benefits for the affluent are reduced or eliminated under means-testing, social insurance programs are no longer universal and are seen, instead, as a form of welfare. Public support would almost certainly decline, encouraging further cuts in the future.

Second, the focus on means-testing and raising the age of eligibility diverts attention from a much simpler and more equitable approach: raising the payroll tax to apply to the earnings of the well-to-do, a step strongly opposed by the ideological right.

Third, and most important in terms of the policy debate, while both means-testing and eliminating the $113,700 cap on earnings subject to the payroll tax hurt the affluent, the latter would inflict twice as much pain. ….

Theda Skocpol, a professor of government and sociology at Harvard and an authority on the history of the American welfare state, contended in a phone interview that policy elites avoid addressing the sharply regressive nature of social welfare taxes because, “at one level, it’s very, very privileged people wanting to make sure they cut spending on everybody else” while “holding down their own taxes.”

Thomas B. Edsall, “The War On Entitlements“, Opinionator, New York Times, 6 March 2013.

There is much more at the blog post. Thanks to Mark Thoma for the pointer.

Journalist Thomas Edsall (born 1941) is a full-time professor at Columbia University. His latest book is The Age Of Austerity: How Scarcity Will Remake American Politics (Doubleday, 2012).


 

universal pensions are not possible

Monday, February 25th, 2013

… or so say business leaders in Kenya.

Proposals by alliances contesting the March 4 General Election to expand a stipend to senior citizens have been dismissed as unworkable by experts.

The Jubilee and Cord Alliances have in their manifestoes promised to increase the coverage of the scheme doled out to those aged more than 65 years, if they take power.

“Any plan to expand the cash transfer programme is not likely to be viable given the current tax revenues. We have been running a budget deficit and our tax revenues cannot finance even our recurrent expenditure. To roll out universal cash transfer programme is clearly not possible,” said Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) chief executive officer Kwame Owino. ….

“You should only get the right to draw cash transfers in old age if you have contributed. Having a right implies there must be an obligation. People should contribute to a pension scheme in order to qualify for old age payments,” said Zimele Asset Management investment manager Sammy Muvelah.

Geoffrey Irungu, “Cash transfers to all unworkable, say experts“, Business Daily, 6 February 2013.

Kenyans seem unaware of the universal flat pensions that elderly residents of Mauritius, Namibia and Botswana receive from their respective governments. A reader (Rodney Allan Agesa) left the following comment:

These are the same voices that said free primary & secondary education was not possible. Just by ensuring we reduce wastage & corruption in government anything is possible.

Thanks to Pension Watch (HelpAge International) for the pointer.