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

Salary Surveys
Property & Casualty, Life, Health & Pension

Health Actuary Jobs
Insurance & Consulting jobs for Students, Associates & Fellows

Actuarial Recruitment
Visit DW Simpson's website for more info.
www.dwsimpson.com/about

Casualty Jobs
Property & Casualty jobs for Students, Associates & Fellows


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #71  
Old 10-28-2015, 03:01 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: 83,775
Blog Entries: 6
Default

ONTARIO

It doesn't matter what Harper likes at this point.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10...n_8396532.html

Quote:
TORONTO — Justin Trudeau was greeted like a rock star as he arrived at the Ontario legislature Tuesday for a meeting with Premier Kathleen Wynne, and rewarded her campaign efforts on his behalf with a promise of federal help for a provincial pension plan.

Wynne, one of Trudeau's most ardent supporters during the federal campaign, gave the prime minister-designate a big hug as he stepped out of his car while virtually the entire Liberal cabinet and hundreds of Liberal staffers applauded and cheered.

Trudeau and Wynne met for only a half hour in her office before both left to attend the funeral for Ken Taylor, the former ambassador to Iran.

After the meeting, they issued a joint statement saying they would be "active partners'' in a national discussion on pension enhancement, including the Canada Pension Plan and the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan.

"Once it takes office, the incoming federal government will direct the Canada Revenue Agency and the Departments of Finance and National Revenue to work with Ontario officials on the registration and administration of the ORPP,'' they said. "The ORPP is being designed to integrate with any future CPP enhancement.''

That's a major reversal of the position taken by outgoing Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who said he "delighted'' in refusing all federal co-operation with the ORPP, something he described as a job-killing payroll tax. It also means Ontario will get the same federal assistance on its pension as Ottawa gives Quebec and Saskatchewan.

Wynne has said Ontario will plan to start payroll deductions for the ORPP on Jan. 1, 2017 unless and until there is agreement to enhance the CPP. She added that the only reason the provincial pension was conceived in the first place was due to Harper's flat refusal to look at increasing deductions and benefits under the CPP.

__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 10-29-2015, 02:58 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: 83,775
Blog Entries: 6
Default

SWITZERLAND
GUARANTEE RATE CUT

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...12S3C720151028

Quote:
Oct 28 Switzerland will cut the minimum interest rate for obligatory occupational pensions to a record low on grounds that global low-interest policies and volatile markets have dented returns, the governing Federal Council announced on Wednesday.

The cut to 1.25 percent from 1.75 percent will take effect Jan. 1, 2016 and cover returns on Swiss retirement accounts managed by companies including Swiss Life, Switzerland's biggest life insurer. Pension fund managers have sought a lower rate.

Switzerland guarantees a floor for returns on obligatory pensions to protect lower-income residents. Still, Swiss law requires the minimum be set at a rate reflecting returns on government bonds as well as stocks, bonds and property markets.

The Swiss National Bank currently charges 0.75 percent on some Swiss franc deposits as part of efforts to weaken the currency against the euro, while the interest rate on Switzerland's seven-year government bond was -0.38 percent at the end of July. Meanwhile, Switzerland's benchmark Swiss Market Index has fallen by more than 1 percent this year.

"Lower interest rates this year have created difficulties for pension fund managers," said Joseph Steiger, a spokesman for the Swiss Federal Office for Social Security. "And stock markets haven't produced extraordinary returns, either."

__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-06-2015, 05:26 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: 83,775
Blog Entries: 6
Default

POLAND

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...pension-revamp

Quote:
Polish Budget Chief Confident Court Won't Undo Pension Revamp

Court to rule on constitutionality of overhaul on Wednesday
Poland stripped funds of $39 billion of government bonds

Poland’s Finance Minister is confident the nation’s top court won’t overturn the cabinet’s 2013 pension overhaul, which reduced government debt by 9 percent of economic output and could throw public finances into disarray if it’s reversed.
The Constitutional Tribunal in Warsaw is set to rule on Wednesday on questions relating to the revamp, including one that could lead to the law’s effective reversal. The government took over and canceled 153.2 billion zloty ($39.3 billion) of its bonds held by privately managed pension funds two years ago, lowering public debt and leaving the funds with stock-heavy portfolios.
A ruling making significant parts of the overhaul illegal could force the government to increase bond issuance and push Poland’s public debt over legal limits, triggering austerity measures. Such a decision, which isn’t the “core scenario” anticipated by Piotr Bujak, an economist at Poland’s biggest lender PKO Bank Polski SA, would have a “drastic negative impact” on economic growth for the next two to three years.
“I’m rather confident about the court’s decision, as the changes in pension funds protect the interests of taxpayers on one hand and those of retirees on the other,” Finance Minister Mateusz Szczurek said in an interview on public radio on Tuesday. “If the whole reform was overturned, a lot of laws will also have to be overturned, not least the debt thresholds.”

Ombudsman Probe
The government-sponsored changes to the country’s three-tier pension system have sparked controversy, including concern that canceling bonds would amount to uncompensated expropriation. While former President Bronislaw Komorowski signed the changes into law in 2013, he also asked the court to vet some of its elements including a ban on advertising and investment in government bonds by pension funds. Poland’s ombudsman’s office filed a separate motion to probe whether the overhaul was constitutional.
The government took over and canceled 51.5 percent of assets held by retirement funds, mostly government bonds. The funds, which are privately managed within Poland’s mandatory pension system, were banned from investing in government debt and forced to keep at least 75 percent of their assets in stocks. Poles also had to declare whether they still wanted to save for their retirement in privately managed funds or save for their future pensions in the state-run system.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-28-2015, 04:28 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: 83,775
Blog Entries: 6
Default

UNITED KINGDOM
RETIREMENT AGE(S)

WOMEN
http://www.connexionfrance.com/campa...w-article.html

Quote:
Campaign fights pension age rises

CAMPAIGNERS want to mount a legal challenge to the British government over changes to women’s retirement ages, saying women are having to work for longer than expected without fair warning of the change.

The “Waspi” (Women Against State Pension Inequality) campaign has raised €6,000 via crowdfunding to pay a barrister to assess options for legal action and has already gained almost half of the 100,000 petition signatures it needs to have the issue raised in the UK parliament.

The changes affect women born in the early 1950s and campaign co-founder Anne Keen says she started the protest after the Department for Work and Pensions said her expected retirement age had been increased significantly only a year and a half before her 60th birthday.

The issue has been a long time coming – it relates to acts passed in 1995 and 2011 to gradually equalise women’s state pension age with men’s from 60 to 65; and then further rises taking both men and women’s age to 67 for those born from March 1961 to April 1977.

Waspi campaigners do not oppose equalisation in principle but say those affected (born on or after April 6, 1951) were given “little or no warning” in sufficient time and that many have been left unprepared.

- See more at: http://www.connexionfrance.com/campa....1HgHMG4m.dpuf
BASE PAYMENT
http://moneyfacts.co.uk/news/annuiti...all-good-news/

Quote:
State pension to rise – but is it all good news?

.....
The benefits of the triple lock
Well, it's certainly good news if you rely on your state pension as your main source of retirement income. Thanks to the triple lock system, the basic level of state pension will rise by 3.35 per week from 1 April next year – the largest real-terms increase in 15 years, according to the Government – resulting in a weekly basic pension of 119.30. Those who are yet to retire will also be pleased to know that the new flat rate state pension, which also launches in April, will be set at 155.35, giving a bit more certainty over future standards of living.

Osborne said that, by taking all of the increases in basic state pension since the Conservatives formed a Government in 2010 into account, pensioners are now 1,125 better off per year, but that's where the benefits arguably end – and they may not be all that great anyway. The fact is that many people rely on a private pension as well as the state pension in order to achieve a comfortable level of income in retirement, and this is where people's finances can falter, as our own analysis shows that private pension provision has suffered dramatically in recent years.

.....
In fact, our analysis shows that the average annual retirement income for a male aged 65 has actually fallen by 24% since 2010: if they'd paid 100 per month into a typical pension fund for the last 25 years, they'd have built up a pot of 65,140 if they retired now, but if they'd retired in May 2010, they'd have amassed a pot of 70,089. When the fall in annuity rates is also factored in, this equates to an average annual annuity income of 3,263 today compared with the 4,345 they could have achieved in May 2010, a reduction of 1,082 per year.

So, this means that Osborne's increase of 1,125 is actually reduced to a rise in income of just 43 per year for many retirees, and when the cost of living is factored in, the improvement is all but meaningless. "This raises the question of whether enough is being done to address the challenges and difficulties facing those individuals acting responsibly and trying to make their own pension provision," concluded Richard. "Raising the basic state pension is only half of the battle."

__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-29-2015, 07:47 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: 83,775
Blog Entries: 6
Default

CHINA

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d4ce8...#axzz3ssrnqAKi

Quote:

However, the new two-child policy is not likely to have a big impact on the worker-retiree ratio, so China’s retirement system will remain under stress. To sustain social security, China needs to implement other reforms — moving from a local to a national system and expanding the permissible investments for Chinese pensions.
.....


Indeed, if China’s two-child policy were to lead to many larger families, the result could well be a lower ratio of workers to retirees for the next two decades. That is because women with two children are less likely to take jobs outside the house until their children have left the nest.

Given the declining worker-retiree ratio, the key to stabilising social security is ensuring that current pension contributions are used to fund the future retirement benefits of current workers.

Since the pension reforms of 1997, urban employers have been required to contribute 20 per cent of each worker’s wages to social security, while workers have to contribute 8 per cent of their wages to an individual retirement account. These high contributions could form the foundation of a viable pension system.

However, such contributions are made to local governments, which often “borrow” a large portion to pay the legacy pensions of pre-1977 workers at state-owned enterprises. These workers were promised retirement benefits during the era of the “iron rice bowl”, when the Communist party took care of worker welfare. At that time, no one tried to fund the future retirement benefits of SOE workers.

The flow of pension contributions and benefits through local governments not only undermines funding of the current pension system, but also erects barriers to labour mobility.

When workers move from one city to another to get a better job, they remain tied to the pension plan in their original city unless they can obtain a residency permit (hukou) for the destination city. And the retirement benefits from an inland town will be much lower than those under the Beijing pension plan.

To address both the funding and mobility problems, I suggest that China’s national government should assume responsibility for legacy pensions and, in return, local governments should stop handling pension contributions and benefits.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 12-15-2015, 09:29 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: 83,775
Blog Entries: 6
Default

UNITED KINGDOM
WOMEN'S RETIREMENT AGE

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...en-pension-age

Quote:
'Bad decision' Ex-minister reveals regret of Government raising women's pension age

CAMPAIGNERS for thousands of older women suddenly forced to wait longer than they expected for their state pensions seized on an ex-minister’s admission that the Government got it wrong.

Former Pensions Minister Steve Webb, an ex-Lib Dem MP, said the 2010-2015 coalition government he was part of “made a bad decision” when it decided to speed up existing moves to raise women’s state retirement age to match men’s.

Under a policy set in 1995, the age at which women can start drawing the state pension was to rise from 60 to 65 in line with men by 2020.

But the Tory-Lib Dem coalition decided in 2011 to speed up the process so the age for women would reach 65 by 2018, and then rise to 66 for both sexes by 2020.

The most affected women were born between April 1953 and 1955 and they effectively learned when they were aged between 57 and 59 that they would not get their pension at 60 as they had expected, giving them little or no time to plan.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/new...000-signatures

Quote:
Why will some women lose out under the state pension changes?

There are two separate increases of the state pension age currently underway.

Under the 1995 Pensions Act, the Government decided the pension ages of both men and women would be equalised by 2020. Previously, women retired at 60 and men at 65.
In 2011 the state pension age for both men and women was raised to 66.
These changes mean that women born after 5 April 1950 will receive their state pension later than expected - in some cases six years later.

Many women who had been expecting to start drawing their state pensions between 2016 and 2020 only found out in 2011 – with the additional change in state pension ages – that they would face a delay.

Some women have argued that they weren't informed of the rise in their state pension age at all. The petition argues this hasn't left these women with much time to make alternative plans – and that existing retirement plans have been "shattered with devastating consequences". However, the Department for Work and Pensions claims it did take appropriate steps to notify women of the changes.

Which age brackets are most affected?

The date on which you'll receive your state pension depends on exactly when you were born - the Government has published full state pension age timetables here. But in brief:

Women born after 5 April 1950 are affected by the equalisation of the state pension to 65.
Women born between 6 April 1953 and 5 October 1954 are affected by both the equalisation of the state pension age to 65 and the rise of the state pension age to 66.
Women born between 6 October 1954 and 5 April 1960 will see their state pension age rise to 66.
The next rise in the state pension age, to 67, will apply to men and women born after 6 March 1961 (and be phased in for those born between 6 April 1960 and 5 March 1961).
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 12-15-2015, 03:33 PM
PaulGH PaulGH is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Sittin' on a dock of the bay
College: Carnegie Mellon University
Favorite beer: Diet Pepsi
Posts: 405
Default

If I'm reading that right, women got to retire earlier and enjoy a greater life expectancy? What was the reasoning there?
__________________
"I sometimes don't feel pedantic enough to be an actuary."
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 12-15-2015, 03:48 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: 83,775
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Women tend to retire earlier than men due to family reasons (taking care of ailing/dying parents, older husband retiring, etc.)

That's what I was told when I asked the same thing...I'll have to dig it up from a different thread.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 12-15-2015, 04:00 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: 83,775
Blog Entries: 6
Default

I'm just going to re-post some of the old stories I have.

Spoiler:

From 2013:

An argument to keep women's retirement ages lower than men's in Kazakhstan:
http://en.tengrinews.kz/opinion/380/
Quote:
Speaking about gender equality in terms of raising retirement age for women to make it equal with that of men chairwoman of Kazakhstan Halyk Bank Umut SHayakhmetova said it would be reasonable only if men start giving birth, KazTAG reports.

“As for the gender equality, I think that we will have it only when men start giving birth like women. Let them carry a baby for 9 months, then feed it, stay home for a maternity leave and then let them speak about equality,” Shayakhmetova said at the press-conference.

She also referred to international practices: "Virtually all the countries have difference retirement age for men and women. It is different everywhere: 75, 67 and 70 is some countries. Normally women retire earlier than men. While In our country it will be made equal for men and women,” the head of Halyk Bank said.
....
Last week Kazakhstan Senate approved the draft law reforming the pension system in the first reading. According to the law, the retirement age for women will be gradually raised during 10 years from 58 to 63 in steps of 6 months every year starting from January 1, 2014.
2014:
CHINA

http://english.eastday.com/e/140307/u1a7966980.html

Quote:
Should women retire at the same age as men to ensure gender equality?

More than 60 percent of Shanghai residents disapproved of the idea, a survey found yesterday.

The survey, with 770 respondents, was designed to find out what people thought about women’s retirement age before the Women’s Day tomorrow.

About half of the respondents considered 55 the best age for women to retire, according to the Shanghai Statistics Bureau. Most of the respondents believed it would be too physically strenuous for women to work after 55.

The retirement age in China is 60 for men and 55 or 50 for women, depending on the nature of jobs. For heavy laborers or those doing dangerous work, men can even retire at 55 and women at 45.

With subtle changes in the Chinese labor market and an increase of better educated women, some officials and experts suggested that women’s retirement age should be postponed to sustain the country’s shrinking working population.
ISRAEL
http://www.haaretz.com/business/.premium-1.577668

Quote:
Plan to raise the retirement age is nothing less than grand larceny
Israel’s Finance Ministry is in effect transferring capital from one group of people in the private sector to another in the public sector.

The Yedioth Aharonoth daily reported last week about the next austerity measure that the public would face from the Finance Ministry. Under the optimistic sounding headline “Work is our life,” Gad Lior reported that the ministry intends to raise the retirement age for women from 62 to 64 and for men from 67 to 70. A senior ministry official explained that the proposal was a response to increased life expectancy.

As is the habit among regulatory officials in Jerusalem—Bank of Israel Governor Karnit Flug is another prominent example of them—this senior ministry official is telling the truth, but isn’t going to great lengths to tell the whole truth. He’s not telling all when it comes to the causes of the actuarial deficit or alternative ways of dealing with it, or about the social and economic consequences of raising the retirement age for hundreds of thousands of Israelis, or particularly the political implications of such a move.

.....
The Finance Ministry actually doesn’t want to deal with one of the major reasons for the actuarial deficit in the old-age pension sector and that is that an increasing proportion of the population reaches old age without having been part of the workforce. This group of people hadn’t made a substantial contribution in any event to the National Insurance Institute’s coffers, even though they are to draw old-age benefits from them like everyone else. This year the NII will make 27 billion shekels ($7.7 billion) in old age and survivors’ benefit payments and in the process create a 1.4 billion shekel deficit.

The low workplace participation rates in the ultra-Orthodox community, particularly among men, and the low average wage--due to their unsuitable educational backgrounds--of the members of the community who do work creates a deeper and deeper actuarial hole as a result of the community’s high birthrate. And the Finance Ministry, including the budget division where now director general Yael Andorn worked for many years in senior positions, collaborated in the charade involved in perks provided to members of the ultra-Orthodox community by government ministries and the NII rather than dealing with this tough political issue.

.....
And when it comes to the defined-benefit pensions, until 2005 neither the employee nor the employer set aside a penny in connection with these plans. Since 2005, employees only pay in 2% of their salaries, which is 63% less than what is deducted for newly-established private pensions and 71% less than older so-called veteran pensions that were nationalized as part of a pension reform.

The defined-budget pensions are made available to government employees including Finance Ministry staff as well as entities funded directly or indirectly by the state. This includes municipal employees, the workers at government companies such as the Israel Electric Corporation, as well as employees at the prison service, Hebrew University and Tel Aviv University--and the Bank of Israel, which is currently headed by a bank governor who’s another ardent supporter of raising the retirement age.

The defined-budget pension arrangement was ended in 2005, but anyone hired by one of these entities by the end of 2003 is still entitled to the benefit until they retire and the state is expected to bear the expense of these pensions until 2070. The government’s actuarial obligations for defined-budget pensions is thought to be a whopping 675 billion shekels and the annual amount that the state will have to pay for this is expected to peak at 29 billion shekels in 2036. But Andorn, who has worked at the Finance Ministry for years doesn’t even mention addressing this problem instead of, or in addition to, raising the retirement age.

and a bunch of stories from 2009, on the UK retirement age changes

More on UK pension politics:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8291835.stm

Quote:
The Conservatives have announced plans to make millions of men now in their fifties work for an extra year before they receive their state pension.

Shadow chancellor George Osborne will raise the state pension age from 65 to 66 from 2016 if the Tories win the next election, to help tackle UK debts.

He has also not ruled out a rise in pension age for women towards 66.

The government has already announced plans to raise the state pension age to 66 but between 2024 and 2026.

Bringing the move forward would mean many more people than previously expected, particularly those aged between 49 and 59, having to work a year longer before qualifying for a state pension.
....
Mr Osborne is expected to say the rise in the retirement age will be "how we can afford increasing the basic state pension for all".

He will go on to describe it as "one of those trade-offs any honest government has to confront".

The government is currently intending to equalise the state pension age for women, so that it rises from 60 to 65 from 2010 to 2020.

The Tories said how this would link into their new policy was "up for review" - but they did not rule out that women could see their pension age rise towards 66 from around 2016.
....
They acknowledged that the decision could prove unpopular with some but they said they were being deliberately upfront about a tough decision that would make credible savings in the long term.

Shadow secretary for work and pensions, Theresa May, told BBC Two's Newsnight that the UK's "ageing population" made it necessary to look "at what point it is appropriate for people to be receiving their state pension".

She added: "I'm afraid there are some tough choices to be made."
More on UK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...e-old-dilemmas

Quote:
Pensions once supported people for two or three years, but now it is more like two to three decades. Mr Osborne sometimes talks about "the fruits of economic growth", and – once recovery arrives – these might have been banked on to cover the costs, were it not for the new cross-party consensus for restoring the link between pensions and earnings. That will give pensioners their fair share of rising prosperity, but will also consume all the available fruits. Extending longevity will therefore entail either new taxes or working for longer. State pension costs are the biggest chunk of the welfare bill, at 63bn a year. Raising the qualifying age by a year might shave 3%-6% from that total, far more than would be got by a full-frontal assault on smaller benefits paid to the poor. In theory, at least, it should also carry a less devastating social cost.

In practice, however, everything depends on the steps taken to protect the vulnerable – detail we heard little about yesterday. Life expectancy has, after all, risen faster in rich communities than in poor ones, as David Cameron pointed out in the days before financial conservatism overshadowed the compassionate strain. Asking dispossessed older people, sometimes with failing health, to scrape by on the weekly 64.30 of jobseeker's allowance is not a tolerable option. It is more objectionable still if coupled with plans to hector claimants into jobs.

The first thing needed is a clear pledge to ensure that pension credit, which is paid to the poorest, will remain available to 65-year-olds. At the same time there is an urgent need to end the continuing scandal of employers shunting staff out simply on grounds of age. Last but not least, there are the implications for women. Their pension age is already rising to match that of men, as is required by European equality laws.

The Tories belatedly recognised yesterday that women would not take kindly to being asked to swallow two age rises at once. But they could not explain how they would target the early increases on men without falling foul of Brussels – instead they responded in Brownian style, by promising a review. Asking us all to work longer is a tough sell. To make it persuasively, the Conservatives must first show they have done their homework.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ervatives.html

Quote:
Bringing forward the increase in the retirement age will mean about 2.5 million people - aged between 48 and 57 - will have to work at least a year longer than they were expecting.

Under the Tory plans, the retirement age for men will rise from 65 to 66. However, the move will hit women in their late 50s particularly hard as the age at which they can claim their state pension will rise by three years - from 60 currently, to 63.

The Conservative policy, which is also designed to bring the state retirement age for both men and women more closely into line, represents a dramatic acceleration of the Government’s own plans to force people to work longer.

Gordon Brown is planning to increase the state retirement age for men from 65 to 66 but not until 2026. It will then rise to 67 in 2036 and 68 in 2046. The state retirement age for women will rise from 60 to 65 between 2010 and 2020 under the Government’s proposals.
....
The announcement represents a political gamble by the Conservatives as Mr Osborne will risk alienating important older voters. However, he is thought to believe that the policy is important to demonstrate that the Tories have a serious plan to cut public debts.

Mr Osborne will say today: “This is another one of those trade-offs any honest government has to confront. All parties accept that to afford that with an ageing population, the state pension will have to rise.
....
“No one who is a pensioner today, or approaching retirement soon, will be affected. But this is how we can afford increasing the basic state pension for all.”
....
The peer, who is now the head of the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the City regulator, said in July: “If I was redoing my report I would be more radical, arguing for an even faster increase in the state pension age.”

In his review he considered whether the retirement age should rise to 70 by 2030. The Conservatives are now considering whether this could become a reality. Several other European countries are also considering similar increases in the state pension age to tackle their deficits although Labour is not thought to be currently reviewing its plans.
....
.

According to the DWP, 95 per cent of all pensioners, equating to 7.8 million people, receive the state pension. However, because so many women have not worked full-time throughout their adult life, very few receive the basic state pension of 95.25 a week, and 81 per cent of all pensioners rely on some income on top of state benefits to fund their retirement, DWP calculates.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 12-23-2015, 05:11 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: 83,775
Blog Entries: 6
Default

CANADA

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...rm-walkom.html

Quote:
Trudeau government wimps out on Canada Pension Plan reform: Walkom
Finance Minister Bill Morneau isn’t even bothering to make empty promises about this central Liberal campaign issue.

......

But when it comes to their campaign promise to beef up the Canada Pension Plan, the Trudeau Liberals have wimped out.

They are not doing anything. They are not even bothering to make empty promises about doing anything.

After hosting a federal-provincial meeting this week that dealt with the CPP, all Finance Minister Bill Morneau could provide was a promise to study the issue further and meet again.

It was hardly an example of the federal leadership that Trudeau had promised during the election campaign.

Introduced in 1965, the Canada Pension Plan is a forced savings scheme that serves as the backbone of the country’s retirement system.

Technically, employers and employees split the costs of the CPP. But in the long run, workers bear most of the burden — in the form of wages that are lower than they otherwise would have been.

What these workers get in return is a guaranteed annual retirement pension tied to the rate of inflation.

It’s not a big pension. In 2015, the maximum annual payout was only $12,780. But the idea behind the CPP was that this — combined with workplace pensions and private savings — would provide for a comfortable retirement.
Since then, workplace pension plans have become a rarity as employers strive to cut costs. Moreover, individuals aren’t saving enough on their own.
All of this has put more pressure on Canada’s federal and provincial governments to boost the CPP.

At any given time, most governments think the CPP should be enriched. Even Stephen Harper’s Conservatives were, at one point, committed to increasing CPP premiums and benefits.

Governments reckon, correctly, that if people aren’t required to save enough during their working years, they are more likely to become a burden on public finances when retired.

But small-business employers hate having to pay any kind of payroll tax. Back in 2010, that was enough to turn the Conservative federal government away from reform.
As well, provincial governments get nervous about raising payroll taxes — particularly during the run-up to elections.

At one point, both Quebec and Alberta were opposed to CPP reform — which was enough to kill the idea (amendments require the agreement of Ottawa and seven provinces representing two-thirds of Canada’s population).
......
Currently, only Saskatchewan and British Columbia seem adamantly opposed to boosting CPP premiums and benefits. If Ottawa wanted to do something, enough other provinces are on side to satisfy the requirements of law.
As well, Morneau could easily mollify those worried about increasing payroll taxes during hard times.
As it is, the law requires a minimum three-year waiting period before implementing any legislated reforms to the CPP. This waiting period could be longer
In a book called The Real Retirement that Morneau co-authored in 2013, the millionaire finance minister writes that there is no retirement crisis in Canada, that the elderly may work past 65 if their pensions are skimpy and that most seniors can live perfectly well on 50 per cent of their pre-retirement income.
This may explain his laissez faire approach to the CPP. But it isn’t exactly what his party and leader campaigned on.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 11:43 AM.


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 0.38711 seconds with 9 queries