|
Moving
Pension Thinking into 21st Century
by
Dr. Ros Altmann
(All
material on this page is subject to copyright and must not be reproduced
without the author's permission.)
Almost every day the newspaper headlines focus on our ‘pensions
crisis’. We are told people are not saving enough money to secure
themselves a decent income in later life, companies are closing
their pension schemes, unions are threatening to strike to protect
pensions and tens of thousands of people, who have saved all their
working lives are suddenly being told they will get no pension. The
Government has introduced several new initiatives, supposedly
designed to encourage people to put more money into pensions. They
have not worked. What is likely to happen next?
I think we need a radical new approach. The problem we face is not
so much a ‘pensions crisis’, but more a ‘retirement crisis’. It is a
problem with the way we organise our lives and, until we address
this, we will not get pensions right.
Pensions were designed to support people for the last few years of
their life, once they were too old to work. They were introduced
many decades ago, to help Government address the problem of poverty
among the elderly and for employers to help look after loyal
employees who had given lifelong service to a company. They were
designed to last for perhaps 5 or 10 years. However, as people are
now living much longer and retiring earlier, we are trying to make
pensions last for 20, 30 or even 40 years. This is too long and is
financially unsustainable.
Since the 19080’s, successive UK Governments have been trying to
offload responsibility for pensions away from the State and onto the
private sector – first to companies via occupational pensions and
then also to individuals themselves, via personal and stakeholder
pensions. However, this does not solve the underlying problem which
has been building up. Essentially, pensions policy and our
retirement culture have lagged way behind the changes in longevity,
health status and labour market practices. Pensions need to be
thought of as more flexible types of saving, which can be used
partly to top up income and partly for support when near the end of
life.
We need to re-think the way we live our lives. There is now a whole
new phase of life, which previous generations could not have
envisaged, waiting to be grasped. This is a period of years after
one’s full time career, when one is gradually cutting down working
hours and gradually increasing leisure time. It is a phase of
part-time working, job sharing, mentoring, retraining for a new type
of work and so on. This is a positive message. What we currently do
is not healthy. One day working full time and the next day suddenly
not working at all. This is also a huge waste of resources. Why
should we pay people, who have a wealth of experience, not to work.
Most of them would benefit from continuing to work in less stressful
roles, to contribute to their own and to general national economic
welfare. People will then not be so totally reliant on pension
income for so many years in later life.
The present concept of fixed retirement ages needs to be rethought.
Given that labour market practices are so much less physically
strenuous nowadays, there is little reason for people to expect to
stop working at any particular age. It could be left to the
individual – depending on how healthy they are, whether they can
afford not to work and whether they enjoy working.
If pensions are no longer expected to provide the only means of
income support for older people, they become affordable again.
Pensions need to be re-designed, to support this new view of
retirement. What we need is lifetime planning, not just pension
planning, with people saving as much as they can during their
working life, but not expecting this to support them fully for more
than a few years at older ages. We need a greater range of flexible
pensions products and flexible annuity products, taking into account
the effect of variable retirement ages and flexible, gradual
reductions of earnings in later life. Products need to accommodate
the concept of taking part pension, perhaps being allowed to borrow
against pension savings in order to fund retraining for this new
phase of life after full time work.
An essential pre-requisite for such changes, however, will be for
the Government to reform the system of State pension provision. At
the moment, the State pension system is disjointed and confusing and
policy in this area is blighted by a lack of joined-up thinking. The
State pension comes in at least three parts. The Basic State
pension, the earnings-related second State pension and then the
means tested Pension Credit. Unfortunately, the means tested pension
credit undermines our private pension system, because it effectively
‘taxes’ private savings by at least 40%. It is essential to get rid
of this means testing disincentive, to ensure that private savings
are not penalised by the Government. If the State pays a higher
basic amount to older people, which is just enough to bring them
above the poverty line, then there will be clear incentives for
individuals to do their own saving, or to consider staying at work
longer, in order to have higher incomes later in life.
Giving people the option of working longer and supplementing their
income in older age would dramatically reduce the burden of support
put on pensions. They could once again become affordable and people
could save during their lifetime in a variety of different forms, to
ensure a higher standard of living for all. Flexible pension
savings, clearer incentives to save and removal of the disincentives
of state pensions are where pensions should be heading next. What we
are currently trying to do is unsustainable – pensions simply cannot
be made to last for so long. People are living longer, the labour
market has changed and pension thinking needs to move forward into
the 21st Century. The sooner this happens, the better, for all of
us.
|