"Forget about me—save Social Security." - New Yorker Cartoon
By: Robert Weber Item #: 8479030
養老金改革反思， 孫亞南譯， 北京：中國人民大學，2010
Rethinking Pension Reform - Library of Congress
www.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam051/2003068726.pdf
Rethinking Pension Reform franco modigliani. Massachusetts Institute of Technology arun muralidhar. FX Concepts, Inc. Mcube Investment Technologies, LLC ...Rethinking Pension Reform
- AUTHORS:
- Franco Modigliani, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Arun Muralidhar, Mcube Investment Technologies
- DATE PUBLISHED: August 2005
To clarify the global debate on social security, the authors establish the basic choices in designating any system to help policy makers develop the system that achieves their many objectives. Because the success of reforms depends on financial innovation to mitigate key risks, innovations are discussed which demonstrate how pension reform choices affect the achievement of retirement objectives. Finally, the authors examine proposed hybrid options to show how their beneficial features can be captured through planning within a single fund. Hb ISBN (2004) 0-521-83411-2
CloseReviews & endorsements
"This is a timely book. Never has there been so much global insecurity surrounding retirement income provision. Franco Modigliani and Arun Muralidhar's proposed solution is to launch a "contributory funded defined benefit" (CFBD) plan run by the Social Security Department. The authors argue that the CFBD plan meets three desirable features of a good pension system: 1) providing social insurance and relating contributions to benefits, ii) increasing the incentives to work, and iii) reducing inequities across demographic groups. This plan is clearly worth very serious consideration, but would have to be very carefully designed to avoid the moral hazard problems (associated with offering guaranteed returns in exchange for risky ones) that have blighted the US Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. If this can be achieved, then Franco Modigliani's life-long wish to "save Social Security" might well be fulfilled." David Blake, Pensions Institute, Cass Business School, UK
養老金缺口可能使歐洲出現新危機
歐
洲 現在的麻煩就已經夠讓人操心的了﹐但另一場危機正在悄然逼近。歐盟(European Union)大多數國家向在職和退休人員承諾的養老金數額已經超過本國年國內生產總值(GDP)的兩倍。隨著政府削減福利開支﹐企業和個人的負擔正在加 重。但是﹐向老年人發放足額養老金可能使這些國家的經濟增長遭到毀滅性的打擊。歐洲目前存在三種類型的養老金缺口。第一種來自政府﹐即歐 盟主要的養老金發放者。在瑞典、丹麥和波蘭﹐政府會留出一定資金﹐承擔部分國家養老金債務。但其他大多數歐盟國家的養老金財源來自稅收。養老金缺口通常不 算做公共債務﹐但歐盟國家平均每年要拿出GDP的8.3%來支付養老金﹐而且這還是美國國家政策分析中心(National Center for Policy Analysis) 2009年時給出的估測數據。之後歐洲增長惡化、利率下降可能已經導致這一比例上升。
人口老齡化問題 帶來了進一步的壓力。2010年﹐歐盟領取養老金的退休人員與在職人員數量之比差不多為1:4﹐而到2050年這一比例將變成1:2。目前歐盟的平均退休 年齡為61歲﹐據JLT Pension Capital Strategies估測﹐如果要實現養老金體系的可持續發展﹐未來的平均退休年齡可能必須延長至75歲。英國政府在這方面走在了“前列”﹐該國打算到 2046年把退休年齡延長至68歲。瑞士和希臘則通過下調離退休人員養老金的方式來填補養老金缺口﹐希臘每月向退休人員支付的養老金金額已最高下調 40%。
第二種養老金缺口來自企業﹐這一類型的缺口也在擴大。荷蘭和英國存在大量確定 給付辦法的養老金計劃﹐企業須按一定比例往員工養老金賬戶存入資金。但養老金的投資表現很令人失望﹐2008至2010年間﹐大多數經濟合作與發展組織 (OECD)國家退休基金的年實際回報率為負值。在英國﹐此類養老金計劃的缺口估計為2,170億英鎊。近期的一項受託人調查預計﹐未來幾年企業必須拿出 13%的現金來填補養老金計劃的缺口。
第三種養老金缺口來自個人。在法國、塞浦路斯和盧森堡﹐個人需要繳納的養老金費用很少﹐但是隨著政 府債務增加﹐越來越多的國家開始把養老金負擔轉移到員工頭上﹐鼓勵他們向養老金賬戶繳納更高比例的資金。而英國等一些國家還在推動確定給付辦法的養老金計 劃向確定提撥辦法的養老金計劃轉變。但是﹐當前的低收益率環境著實無法讓人生出儲蓄的動力。歐盟統計局(Eurostat)的數據顯示﹐目前歐盟的家庭儲 蓄率已經從2009年的13.4%下滑到11.4%。
據保險商Aviva估計，在意大利﹐企業員工現在每年要向養老金計劃多繳納 3,100歐元﹐才能確保退休後領取到足額的養老金﹐而在英國﹐企業員工每年要多繳納12,000歐元。假設退休基金的投資回報率為5%﹐員工退休後才能 領到相當於他們退休前工資70%的養老金。一些最需要提高個人儲蓄率的國家是愛爾蘭、西班牙這樣經濟正在衰退的國家﹐但提高儲蓄率無疑將使它們的經濟增長 受到更沉重的打擊。
Hester Plumridge
In ancient Greece income grew at between 0.07% and 0.14% per year-outstanding by the standards of all but the past three centuries. Why the rise of the West seems to have had little to do with local smarts or work ethic. How colonisers saddled Africa with corrupt governments that hindered growth. The Cambridge History of Capitalism is full of excellent insights. But at £150, most readers will turn elsewhere for their economic history. That's capitalism for you. http://econ.st/10eQ7Cr
The Hidden Risk in the World’s Best Pension System
Photograph by Getty Images
Amsterdam
In the pension-nerd community (of which I am a card-carrying member), the Dutch are renowned for their creativity and prudence. According to the New York Times, Dutch corporate pensions are the gold standard. They’re well funded, cover 90 percent of Dutch workers, and replace 70 percent of income.
Compared with defined-benefit plans in the U.S.—rare, underfunded, and governed by accounting standards derided by almost every economist—the Dutch pension system looks even better. It does have a weakness, though, one that’s often overlooked, even though it may be the only aspect of the Dutch system that’s likely to be adopted here: In the Netherlands, annual cost-of-living increases depend(PDF) on the health of the pension’s balance sheet. If returns fall, benefits don’t increase. If the fund performs badly enough, pensioners may even suffer benefit cuts.
This kind of risk-sharing has been catching on in America. Public pension benefits are often secured by state constitutions, but it’s not clear whether those guarantees extend to inflation-linked adjustments. Eager to contain costs, some states have eliminated cost-of-living increases entirely. The state of Wisconsin adopted a variant of the Dutch model in which retirees in the Wisconsin Retirement System get a cost-of-living adjustment only when pension assets return at least 5 percent. Previous inflation adjustments can be clawed back; monthly checks were 10 percent smaller in 2013 as a result of the financial crisis. Although, unlike in the Dutch plans, retirement income can never fall below its nominal level at retirement.
Such risk-sharing seems to solve one of the U.S. pension system’s biggest problems: Most pensions are horribly underfunded, because guaranteeing income for thousands of people no matter what is more expensive than most state governments can even admit to themselves. Letting benefits fluctuate with the pension funds’ assets puts some boundaries around the guarantee that make it more affordable. Stanford economist Josh Rauh and University of Rochester’s Robert Novy-Marx estimate that if other states followed Wisconsin’s lead, unfunded pension liabilities would fall 25 percent. If they went with the full Dutch-style model, and could cut benefits, unfunded liabilities would fall 50 percent.
But to call it risk-sharing makes it sound more benign than it really is, particularly because retirees can’t tolerate as much risk as working people can. Post-retirement, most people live on a fixed income. In general, it’s too late to save more or get another job. Many state employees don’t have other sources of inflation-linked income like Social Security. If “fairness” means everyone has to bear risk equally, then the Dutch system makes sense. But if it’s more “fair” to treat people differently according to their means, then it would be better to share the risk with current workers instead.
Inflation risk may not seem like a big deal now. But the future is uncertain, which is why the guarantees are so valuable. Until the financial crisis, Dutch pensioners took it for granted they’d get their cost-of-living adjustment each year. Gambling on future inflation may be preferable to an underfunded pension—or no pension at all—but it’s no free lunch.
ANDRE LABOURDETTE《退休制度》Les regimes de retraite, PUF, 1989. 北京：商務，1997
媒體看中國
中國老齡化迅速讓養老保障愈加關鍵
《新蘇黎世報》長文介紹了中國的養老保險制度從起步到經過多次改革至今，並比較了國際普遍的養老資金保障方式。《商報》報導了德國大眾與長春一汽集團成功續約，但並沒有所有計劃得以如願。
（德國之聲中文網）瑞士《新蘇黎世報》15日介紹中國養老保險制度的文章開頭寫道：
"中國是個發展快、變化多的國家。人民的生活水平迅速上升，不過收入不均的狀況也愈加明顯，特別是在不同年齡段中體現更為突出。一個2000年參加工作的人，一生通過勞動所得的總收入相當於1970年代的人的6倍。隨著中國年輕一代人收入情況愈加改善，老年群體面臨貧窮生活的可能性越來越大。隨著中國傳統家庭結構的逐漸瓦解，比如以前還是兒子要負責父母的養老，現在因為 計劃生育政策以及大批農民工離鄉，以至於留守在家的老人沒有養老依靠。外加中國社會老齡化迅速，讓養老制度改革成為中國一個極其重要的話題。 "
文章作者講到中國在1986年以前的養老制度還幾乎完全是由國家負責，也就是單位給員工支付退休金。之後，中國在1986年和1997年分別進行了養老改革：
"1997年和2005年又對養老保險制度進行過修改，目前中國的養老保險制度，在資金的管理上逐步形成了'社會統籌與個人賬戶相結合'的籌資模式，也就是國家出一部分，個人也交一部分基金。基本與西方國家類似。...如今經濟騰飛的中國面臨的問題是，怎麼在經濟上扶持那些在文革時期就參加工作、如今退休的一代人。"
"不過，西方國家政府也愈發為養老金的保障問題犯難。隨著西方國家生產力和人口增長的放緩，要保持養老保險基金'不干涸'的壓力越來越大，也成了阻礙經濟增長的因素。不少西方國家政府被迫出台一些不受歡迎的養老金改革措施，以避免未來幾代人完全失去養老保障。而在中國，由於 人口老齡化迅速，養老金保障問題更加棘手。依照現在的計算方式，承諾支出的退休金已經超出養老公積金的支付能力。持批判觀點人士認為中國的養老金保險制度可是一枚定時炸彈。...不過中國和其他新興國家的情況又有獨特之處。首先，這些國家的工資水平今後還會迅速增長，而這是決定公積金支付總額增量的關鍵因素。其次，這些國家的經濟增速雖然會放緩，但幅度不會很大。"
德國《商報》13日文章報導德國大眾集團與中國一汽續簽了合資合同25年，不過這只是"半份成功"：
"在重要一點上，雙方沒有達成一致。大眾希望將現有的40%股權調至50%，沒有如願，不過相關談判還會繼續進行。"
"中國是大眾集團在全球最重要的市場。去年，大眾在中國銷售330萬輛汽車，是大眾全球總銷量的三分之一。大眾在中國分別以有限合資公司的形式入股一汽大眾和上海大眾。...而一汽大眾對於德國大眾來說更具重要意義，因為在中國極受歡迎的奧迪車型就在此出廠。"
"大眾在中國也有不少拓展經營的冒險嘗試。比如恰恰在多發騷亂的 新疆地區建廠。新近，大眾與合資企業夥伴上汽集團投資在新疆建設一座新的試車場，用於測試上海大眾生產的車型。新疆維漢民族矛盾時有升級，過去幾個月內有不少人被捕。然而大眾也受迫於北京政府的壓力，要在新疆地區創造工作崗位，保障經濟發展。大眾從上世紀80年代就開始在中國建廠合資合作，所以中方也期待大眾高度合作。"
本文摘自其它媒體，不代表德國之聲觀點。