Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Pension - Social Security
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Upload your resume securely at https://www.dwsimpson.com
to be contacted when new jobs meet your skills and objectives.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #481  
Old 12-07-2017, 05:25 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 80,149
Blog Entries: 6
Default

IRELAND

http://www.thejournal.ie/retirement-...34159-Dec2017/

Quote:
Retirement age for public service workers to increase to 70
Spoiler:
THE MANDATORY RETIREMENT for civil servants is to rise from 65 to 70 under new measures to be announced by Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe tomorrow.
Under current rules, those working in the public service must retire from their job at age 65.
However, the new measure will mean people can work up until 70 if they so choose.
It’s understood the new measures will be introduced through a phased basis, according to a government spokesperson.
A number of parties, including Fianna Fail, have called for people to be allowed to work beyond 65 if they so choose, particularly due to an anomaly where employees are forced to retire at age 65 but do not receive their pension until age 66.
During Budget negotiations, members of the Independent Alliance called on Donohoe to give workers the option to work until the age of 66.
They said that up to 5,000 people have been left in limbo, and are being forced to sign onto the dole for a full year after they are forced to retire.
A spokesperson for the Independents Alliance said increasing the compulsory age up to 70 will mean people can work on if they want.
The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform established an interdepartmental working group last year to examine and report on the issues arising from the current retirement ages for workers in both the public and private sectors.
While looking at both sectors, the department is only responsible for retirement ages of those in the public sector.
On foot of one of the recommendations of the report, the department was tasked to review the current statutory and operational considerations to allowing workers extend their participation in the public service workforce up to and including the current age of entitlement to the Contributory State Pension.
http://www.thejournal.ie/retirement-...35831-Dec2017/

Quote:
Explainer: Retirement at age 70 - what do the new rules mean?
Spoiler:
THE MANDATORY RETIREMENT for civil servants is to rise from 65 to 70 under new measures announced by Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe today.
Under current rules, those working in the public service must retire from their job at age 65.
However, the new measure will mean people can work up until 70 if they so choose.
Who do the rule changes affect?
Public servants only. The increase applies to the compulsory retirement age from 65 to 70 for public servants recruited before 1 April 2004.
The minimum pension age (the earliest date at which someone can retire and receive their pension) will not be affected by the new arrangements.
The rule change only impacts on those that work in the public sector. It does not apply to those working in the private sector.
It is also optional – it does not require employees to work until they are 70.
When will the changes come into effect?
Legislation will be necessary to bring this in. Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe indicated that he would ask the Attorney General to prioritise the drafting of this legislation so that the new compulsory retirement age would become effective as soon as possible.
He hoped progress would be made on the matter in the new year, however its understood it will be brought in on a phased basis over 2018 and 2019.
Why are the government bringing this in now?
Changes in the pension age means people cannot draw down their pension until they are 66 – soon to be 68. However, many workers are forced to resign at age 65 meaning they must “sign on” as a jobseeker.
“Many would prefer to continue to work to normal State pension age, rather than engage in this process, which is likely to become more protracted as the age of eligibility for the State Pension increases in 2021 and 2028,” said the minister.
What about people who don’t want to retire in the interim?
In the meantime, the minister announced that he had agreed with sectoral public service employers some limited interim arrangements to apply in the period between today’s government decision and the commencement of the necessary legislation.
Public servants who reach the age of 65 in that period and who wish to remain working can be allowed to do so by ministerial order.
Can people draw down their State pension and continue working?
No. If the worker chooses to carry on working after 65 they cannot draw down their pension until they actually retire.
Workers who have already paid 40 years of pension contributions entitling them to a full pension but opt to stay on for longer will continue to pay contributions, but will not get the benefits of accruing further pension entitlements.
Does the new age apply to workers like the gardaí?
No. Gardaí, permanent Defence Forces, firefighters and prison officers who are currently required to retire early due to the nature of their work, will not be covered by the new arrangements.
If people are working a lot longer, will that not mean a higher public service pay bill?
Yes, the minister admitted this could be the case. He acknowledged to reporters today that older workers who continue working are most likely going to be on higher grades of the pay scale.
However, he insisted this cost would be partially offset by the fact that the pension lump sums would be deferred for longer.
What about younger workers? If people don’t retire does that not take opportunities away from the younger work force?
The minister dismissed the idea that it will have a negative impact on younger workers, stating that there is more scope to hire more workers.
So this only impacts workers in the public service – but what about those that work in the private sector?
As stated before, it does not affect workers in the private sector. The minister said the government cannot dictate to the private sector on retirement.
However, he said his department is working with the Workplace Relations Commission to draft a code of conduct for employers in the private sector.
It will give recommendations to employers on how to deal with retirement issues — but the minister reiterated that the government does not have a role to play in how private sector deal with when their employees should stop working.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 12-13-2017, 05:01 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 80,149
Blog Entries: 6
Default

http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2017/12/...017&page_all=1

Quote:
Don't Penalize Workers for Retiring Later

Spoiler:
The last decade has seen most countries in the rich world raise the retirement age in order to improve the sustainability of their pension systems at a time when people are living longer, healthier lives. The policy is moving in the right direction, but it has one key flaw — current policies are too rigid.

Retirement should not be a one-size-fits-all system where those who work longer or retire earlier are penalized. Provided they get it right, governments and citizens have much to gain from a more flexible pension system than exists in most countries today.

According to a study published last week from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the average retirement age for men across OECD member states is set to go up to 65.8 years from 64.3 years today.

This follows a gradual increase in the recent past: Over the last decade and a half, the average age at which workers left the labor market has gone up by two years. That said, there is a great deal of variation, from Korean men who leave the labor market, on average, at 72, to French men, who retire at 60.

RELATED


The Declining Retirement Age Is Dead

The average retirement age has declined dramatically over the last 100 years, but that trend may not continue.
(Related: 25 Best Countries for Retirement Security: 2016)

There are two reasons why governments in advanced economies are forcing workers to retire later. The first is the overall increase in life expectancy: On average, a man aged 65 can now expect to live five years longer than he could four decades ago.

The second is to correct the mistake most governments made in the 1970s and 1980s in introducing early retirement schemes in an attempt to bring more youth into employment. As a result, the average labor market exit age today is still lower than it was four decades ago, when people could expect to live much less.

This combination had made pension systems across the rich world unsustainable, forcing governments to shut down early retirement routes and raise the pension age. The trouble with the new approach, however, is that it often fails to give workers adequate flexibility over their retirement choices.

Money world map (Image: iStock)

(Image: iStock)

The OECD finds that the flexibility to retire fully before the statutory pension age is strongly restricted in more than half of the member states. In countries such as France, Spain and Israel, workers even face financial penalties if they want to continue working after retiring. In France, for example, a working pensioner continues to pay contributions but does not earn any additional pension entitlements. In Europe, only about 10% of workers aged between 60 and 64 or 65 to 69 combine work and pensions, according to the study, far below the OECD average where about half of workers over 65 do part-time work.

As the OECD study notes, giving people the freedom to retire when they want would benefit both individuals and the state. The government can clearly benefit from letting people work for as long as they want to, since this means higher taxes and economic output. Many individuals want the satisfaction of being part of a work environment, or the added income well past the usual retirement age. Those who are willing to continue working should be allowed to do so, while those who want to retire earlier should be able to, provided they have set aside enough money.

There are several challenges facing politicians who want to let people retire earlier. Giving people more freedom over when to stop working means risking that they will not earn enough to fund a long retirement, and end up falling back on the state’s safety net. There should be a minimum level of pension contributions before a person is allowed to retire to avoid this. Just as private-sector pension plans penalize early withdrawal, public-sector plans could do the same as a way of nudging workers to think hard before drawing from savings.

That may mean overcoming trade-union resistance; unions tend to want to reduce the effective pension age, but oppose penalties for workers who choose to retire earlier. A good example is Italy: The Italian government has recently injected some flexibility into the pension system, allowing all workers to retire up to three years and seven months earlier in exchange for a lower pension. However, unions have been critical of this scheme. Instead, they have favored an alternative plan, open to workers in what is considered arduous employment, who are allowed to retire earlier without any financial penalty.

Putting pension systems on sound footing — a necessity for financial stability and preserving intergenerational equity — doesn't have to mean perpetuating rigid structures or old norms about when retirement should begin. Greater flexibility can have enormous social and economic benefits, too. It is hard to argue against the idea of giving people more control over their lives.


__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 12-15-2017, 06:53 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 80,149
Blog Entries: 6
Default

SWEDEN

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...Name=worldNews

Quote:
Sweden to raise minimum pension age as retirees live longer
Spoiler:
STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden will raise the minimum age at which workers can take their state pension over the coming years, a move designed to match an increase in average life spans, the major political parties said on Thursday.

Workers can currently choose to take their state pension from the age of 61. This will be raised successively to 64 by 2026.

The current pension system was designed around 20 years ago and Swedes now live around 2.5 years longer on average.

“That is positive but it means that pensions ... have to last a longer time,” the parties said in a statement.

“In order to maintain a good and sustainable pension level, therefore, people need to work longer.”

The reforms will also make it harder for companies to get rid of people who want to continue to work after the mandatory pension age and tighten requirements for funds providers in the pension system after a number of scandals. [L8N1CU16Y]

The deal, which will not affect state finances either positively or negatively, was agreed between the minority coalition of the Social Democrats and Greens, the Moderates - the biggest opposition party - and the Center, Liberal and Christian Democrat parties.


__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 12-21-2017, 05:53 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 80,149
Blog Entries: 6
Default

SWEDEN

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/sweden-rai...170300936.html

Quote:
Sweden to raise earliest retirement age to 64


Spoiler:
Sweden said Thursday it would raise the earliest retirement age from 61 to 64 in order to secure future pensions, following a broad cross-party agreement.

"We are reforming the Swedish pension system in order to raise pensions and increase security for both today's and future pensioners," Social Affairs Minister Annika Strandhall and Financial Markets Minister Per Bolund said in a statement.

"As we are living longer, we have to work longer if pensions are going to continue to grow. This agreement is an important step toward a longer working life and thereby higher pensions and more resources for the welfare state," representatives of the four centre-right opposition parties said in the same statement.

The increase in the retirement age will be carried out in stages, and completed in 2026.

Under the current system, Swedes can legally retire at the age of 61, though for financial reasons most choose to work longer. The average retirement age is 64.5 years, according to official statistics.

With (Other OTC: WWTH - news) the reformed system, Swedes will be allowed to work until the age of 69, compared to 67 under the current system.

Pensions in Sweden vary widely depending on the age a person retires. Levels are determined by the collective wage agreements negotiated between employers and unions.

The pension system has three components: a pension paid by the state based on an employee's salary, a complementary pension paid by the employer, and, optionally, private pension savings.
https://www.thelocal.se/20171214/wha...-means-for-you

Quote:
What Sweden's new retirement age means for you
Spoiler:
Sweden has decided to raise the retirement age following a broad cross-party agreement. Here's how long you may have to work under the new plan.
Sweden said it would raise the earliest retirement age from 61 to 64 in order to secure future pensions.

"We are reforming the Swedish pension system in order to raise pensions and increase security for both today's and future pensioner," Social Affairs Minister Annika Strandhäll and Financial Markets Minister Per Bolund said in a statement.

"As we are living longer, we have to work longer if pensions are going to continue to grow. This agreement is an important step toward a longer working life and thereby higher pensions and more resources for the welfare state," representatives of the four centre-right opposition parties said in the same statement.

The increase in the retirement age will be carried out in stages, and completed in 2026.

Under the current system, people working in Sweden can legally retire at the age of 61, though for financial reasons most choose to work longer. The average retirement age is 64.5 years, according to official statistics.

With the reformed system, you will have the right to work until the age of 69, compared to 67 under the current system. If you and your employer both agree, you can however work longer.

Pensions in Sweden vary widely depending on the age a person retires. Levels are often determined by the collective wage agreements negotiated between employers and unions.

The pension system has three components: a pension paid by the state based on an employee's salary, a complementary pension paid by the employer, and, optionally, private pension savings.

The proposal presented on Thursday was put together by a cross-party group of the ruling centre-left coalition government as well as the four parties in the centre-right Alliance opposition.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 12-28-2017, 10:10 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 80,149
Blog Entries: 6
Default

YORK, NEBRASKA
POLICE AND FIRE

http://www.yorknewstimes.com/news/re...063968e97.html

Quote:
Retirement provisions considered for police and fire departments

YORK – Should firefighters and police officers be required to automatically retire at the age of 65?
Spoiler:
That theory was debated this past week, before the city council, as existing city ordinances say that should be the case.

York Police Chief Ed Tjaden asked the council to consider getting rid of that provision for the police department.

As the police department and the fire department are both unionized, it was then also proposed (by city officials, not Chief Tjaden) that the provision be changed also for the fire department so the situations are consistent.

But York Fire Chief Mike Lloyd told the council he was opposed to the change.

“I talked with other fire chiefs in the state and their provisions are all over the place,” Chief Lloyd said. “At what point do we say to someone that they are no longer fit to do the job without a measurement (such as age)? I don’t think a change is necessary and the people in the York Fire Department said they don’t think it is necessary to change that because they don’t plan to be around at the age of 65 to challenge it.”

“Do you, on the fire department, have yearly physicals?” asked Council member Diane Wolfe.

Chief Lloyd said he would like to see firefighters have annual physicals and even proposed it as an expenditure in this year’s budget, “but it was denied.”

He noted that firefighters’ jobs require carrying heavy equipment, being in hot and precarious situations, and breathing difficulties (as well as other medical issues) may (and often) arise.

“I just don’t feel good about extending the age,” Chief Lloyd said. “There are places, fire departments, where they said they wish they had maximum ages. And there are some that are lower than our maximum age – in Omaha, the retirement age is 62. Across the state, everyone is operating at different situations.

“And I need to mention that this did not start from our side,” Chief Lloyd said. “I will support the council’s decision, but I’m not in favor of changing the mandatory retirement age. I don’t think we need to change from 65.”

“I don’t see a need to change it at this time,” said Councilman Ron Mogul.

Councilman Jeff Pieper made a motion for non-passage of changing the ordinance for the firefighters and the rest of the council agreed.

Then it was time to discuss changing the retirement age for police officers.

“I’m the one who stirred up this hornets’ nest,” said Chief Tjaden, noting that this proposal came from conversations with some of his officers who had questions and concerns about a mandatory retirement age.

“I disagree with having a mandatory age cap,” Chief Tjaden said.

He noted that yes, police officers need to physically be able to respond in all types of situations, “but how do you tell someone that overnight (they are no longer fit for their job)? There are already mechanisms and language in the ordinances that address whether someone is fit to serve – those issues are already addressed in the city’s ordinances. It is simple for me – just remove that sentence (that says an officer has to retire at 65) and there are still mechanisms to allow that to happen (if need be). The day-to-day value of an employee cannot be over-estimated” and veteran police officers have experience that better equips them to make quick and sound decisions that perhaps younger officers don’t yet possess.

“I’ve worked in many situations with many different officers and there were officers over 60 I’d pick over the others because their decision-making ability was very much there,” Chief Tjaden said. “That comes with time and ability. I don’t want to force an officer out just because he or she reached a certain age.”

Chief Tjaden also reviewed guidelines from around the state, regarding age limits, “and the only other two that have it is the state patrol and in Blair (where the age limit is 65 but can be extended to 70).”

“I do agree with you that there is no magic age,” said Council member Diane Wolfe, “and I’m coming at this from different sides. I have a husband who is a police officer and I’m in the insurance field. If we take away this mandatory retirement age, I won’t feel comfortable unless all officers get health checks each year, to say they are physically fit. And there might be situations where 35-year-olds aren’t. There just isn’t a magic age.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Chief Tjaden said he agreed with her.

“Let’s say a 65-year-old chases a 25-year-old, who is going to win?” Wolfe added. “That’s a point to consider.”

“That point is well taken, but also to be considered is what happens when he catches him?” Chief Tjaden offered. “An older office would likely have better decision-making ability at that point. I will support whatever the council decides. I respect the process and everyone here.”

“I would feel comfortable if the police chief could assess these situations and determine that as needs be,” said Councilman Mat Wagner.

Councilman Mogul said he agreed that experience is extremely valuable.

“From the state’s standpoint, it is open ended,” mentioned York City Administrator Joe Frei. “As of right now, York sets the retirement age for police officers at 65.”

York City Attorney Charles Campbell said that ideally, consistency in policies for the fire and police departments would be preferred. “But as Chief Lloyd pointed out, the demands for the different fields may be different.”

“I support what Chief Tjaden is saying,” Chief Lloyd said. “And yes, we are different, our fields are different.”

“We have just now heard about this and we haven’t yet heard from the public,” said Councilman Barry Redfern. “This could be the first reading on this ordinance and we could bring it back in January for a second reading.”

Councilman Pieper made a motion to take the matter to a second reading and the council agreed to readdress the issue at their first meeting in January.


__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 01-04-2018, 10:32 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 80,149
Blog Entries: 6
Default

INDIANA
POLICE AND FIRE

http://www.tribstar.com/news/local_n...219b185c4.html

Quote:
Bill would lower retirement age for police, firefighters

Spoiler:
City police officers and firefighters could retire earlier under legislation introduced in the Indiana Senate.

The measure would lower the minimum retirement age for full benefits from 52 to 50 for those covered by the 1977 Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Retirement and Disability Fund. That fund covers all but a handful of active municipal officers and firefighters.

Senate Bill 75, authored by state Sen. Jon Ford, R-Terre Haute, would reduce the number of years for maximum benefits from 32 to 28 and boost the amount retirees receive for service beyond 30 years.

“Our police officers and firefighters protect Hoosier lives and property, and we are truly thankful for them,” Ford said. “I look forward to working with my fellow lawmakers … to ensure officers, firefighters and their families are supported.”

An analysis of the bill by the Legislative Services Agency found cities, towns and townships could be responsible for an $21 million toward future benefits. That estimate is based on 8 percent of newly eligible personnel retiring. It notes the actual impact would depend on how many retire at the earlier age, and that a more thorough analysis would be needed for a precise estimate.

The agency notes the state-administered retirement plan is fully funded at 103.7 percent. In 2017, municipalities around the state contributed 17.5 percent of police officer and firefighter salaries toward the plan.


__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 01-04-2018, 11:22 AM
twig93's Avatar
twig93 twig93 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 26,718
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
Lower?
__________________
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The thing that is clearest is twig's advice
Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 01-04-2018, 11:31 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 80,149
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Yes, by two years. One argument is that the pension fund is over-funded as it is, but I don't know what they're using for valuation assumptions.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 01-18-2018, 05:23 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 80,149
Blog Entries: 6
Default

TAHITI

https://www.radionz.co.nz/internatio...t-age-increase

Quote:
Tahiti rally set to protest retirement age increase

Spoiler:
A rally has been called in French Polynesia against the proposed hike of the retirement age.

The move comes after the government unveiled its plan to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62 next year while levying an additional two percent salary deduction.

Several unions opposed to the change have asked its delegates to meet outside the Economic and Social Council in Papeete tomorrow.

They said this was a first step, with the public to be asked for action at a later date.

The reform also requires those seeking to have a full pension to contribute to social security for 38 years and not 35 as now.

Early retirement is possible at 55 now but this is to be changed to 57.

The adjustments are being proposed because of the poor financial state of the pension fund.

One union has distanced itself from any action, preferring to await a meeting with the President Edouard Fritch next week.


__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 01-18-2018, 06:17 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 80,149
Blog Entries: 6
Default

JAPAN

http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0004188284

Quote:
Analysis / Plan aims to keep willing elderly workers on the job
Spoiler:
The government’s plan to allow people to put off receiving pensions until after the age of 70 aims to encourage willing elderly citizens to keep working and stave off a labor shortage.

At a time when the nation cannot afford to put off dealing with its super-aging society, the government aims to create an environment in which healthy elderly people can continue working and contribute to the realization of sustainable economic growth.

A draft outline of measures for an elderly society was presented Wednesday at a joint meeting of the Liberal Democratic Party’s First Cabinet Division and the party’s Health, Labor and Welfare Division.

“This is the ‘era of the 100-year life,’ and this draft is designed to enable elderly people to live energetic lives, including at work and in social activities,” Gaku Hashimoto, director of the health division, said at the meeting, emphasizing the significance of providing support to elderly people.

SLIDE 1 OF 2PREVNEXT


The Yomiuri Shimbun

In principle, the current public pension system starts providing benefits to people from the age of 65. However, people can opt to start receiving their pension at any age from 60 to 70. The later a person starts receiving their pension, the higher the amount of the monthly benefit. For each month the start is pushed back from the age of 65, the monthly payment increases by 0.7 percent. A person who starts getting a pension from age 66 will receive a monthly payment 8.4 percent higher than the pension received by someone who starts at age 65.

Delaying the start of one’s pension for five years until the age of 70 will result in the monthly payments being 42 percent higher. The government is considering an even more generous top-up rate for people who decide to start receiving their pension from over the age of 70.

Strong desire to work

The government’s consideration of allowing people to start receiving their pension after they turn 70 stems from a desire to make elderly people a key pillar of the labor market, as the number of young workers is shrinking due to the chronically low birthrate. Japan’s working-age population — people aged from 15 to 64 — was 87 million in 1995, but this number dropped by 10 million in 20 years. Keeping elderly people in the workforce has become a pressing task. The work style reforms that are a signature policy of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s Cabinet also have positioned efforts to encourage elderly people to work as a key issue, along with getting more women into the workforce.

The average life expectancy now exceeds 80 for men and women in Japan, and a growing number of elderly people still want to work. According to an Internal Affairs and Communications Ministry survey on labor force in Japan, about 7.7 million elderly people had jobs in 2016, about 1.5 times the level a decade earlier.

A Cabinet Office survey found that 40 percent of people 60 or older wanted to keep working even after they turn 70. The Japan Gerontological Society and other bodies have started putting forward proposals such as lifting the definition of “elderly people” from the current 65 years of age to 75. If the appropriate workplace environment and employment conditions can be put in place, the number of elderly people with jobs could increase further.

Many issues remain

However, there are many issues that must be resolved to make the envisaged system as effective as expected by the government.

The Law on Stabilization of Employment of Elderly Persons, which came into effect in 2013, only requires that companies secure employment for those aged up to 65.

Those who choose to start receiving pension benefits at any age over 70 — under the new system — may find themselves without a stable source of income for five years.

The government’s outline of measures to deal with the aging society focuses on a plan to improve the environment to help more elderly people work at ease. But it will remain nothing more than a nice idea unless industry takes action. At the LDP’s meeting on Wednesday, there were calls for efforts to be made to raise the mandatory retirement age for employees beyond 65.

One of the remaining issues is how to achieve fiscal soundness to fund the pension programs.

Concerns have been voiced over the new plan that expands options of ages to start receiving pension benefits, saying the change could be a sign that the minimum age at which people become eligible for pension benefits will be further pushed up, even to 70, in the future.

Speech


__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
pension, retirement, retirement age

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.19393 seconds with 12 queries