Every society faces the difficult task of providing support for older people who are no longer working. In an earlier era, retirees lived with their adult children, providing childcare and helping around the house.
However, those days are largely gone. Retirees and their adult children alike prefer living independently.
In a rational, economic world, individuals would save during their working years, accumulating enough to purchase an annuity that finances a comfortable standard of living when they retire, but that is not what most people do, either because of their shortsightedness or because of the incentives created by government social security programs.
European governments since the time of former German chancellor Otto von Bismarck and US governments since former US president Franklin Roosevelt have therefore maintained pay-as-you-go (PAYG) retirement pension systems. More recently, Japan has adopted such a system.
However, providing benefits to support a comfortable standard of living for retirees with just a modest rate of tax on the working population depends on there being a small number of pensioners relative to the number of taxpayers.
That was true in the early years of such programs, but maintaining benefit levels became more difficult as more workers lived long enough to retire and longer after retirement, which increased the ratio of retirees to the taxpaying population.
LONGEVITY
Life expectancy in the US has increased from 63 years in 1940, when the US Social Security program began, to 78 last year. In 1960, there were five workers per retiree; today there are only three.
Looking ahead, the US Social Security Administration’s actuaries forecast that the number of workers per retiree will decline to two by 2030.
That implies that the tax rate needed to achieve the current benefit structure would have to rise from 12 percent to 18 percent in 2030.
Other major countries face a similar problem.
If it is not politically possible to raise the tax rate to support future retirees with the current structure of benefits, there are only two options to avoid a collapse of the entire system:
One option is to slow the future growth of benefits so that they can be financed without a substantial tax increase.
The other is to shift from a pure PAYG system to a mixed system that supplements fixed benefits with returns from financial investments.
A US example shows how slowing the growth of benefits might work in a politically acceptable way.
In 1983, the age at which one became eligible to receive full social security benefits was raised from 65 to 67. This effective benefit reduction was politically possible because the change began only after a substantial delay and has since been phased in over several decades.
Moreover, individuals are still eligible to receive benefits as early as age 62 with an actuarial adjustment.
Since that change was enacted, the life expectancy of someone in their mid-60s has increased by about three years, continuing a pattern of one-year-per-decade increases in longevity for someone of that age.
Some economists, including me, now advocate raising the age for full benefits by another three years, to 70, and then indexing the future age for full benefits to keep the life expectancy of beneficiaries unchanged.
MIXED SYSTEM
Consider the second option: combining the PAYG system with financial investments.
Pension systems operated by private companies achieve benefits at a lower cost by investing in portfolios of stocks and bonds.
A typical US private pension has 60 percent of its assets in equities and the remaining 40 percent in high-quality bonds, providing a real — inflation-adjusted — rate of return of about 5.5 percent over long periods of time.
In contrast, taxes collected for a PAYG system produce a real rate of return of about 2 percent without investing in financial assets, because real wages and the number of taxpayers rise.
It would be possible to replace the existing PAYG systems gradually with a pure investment-based system that produces the same expected level of benefits with a much lower tax rate.
Unfortunately, the benefits produced by that contribution rate would entail significant risk that the benefits would be substantially below the expected level.
Research that I and others have conducted shows that a mixed system that combines the existing PAYG system with a small investment-based component can achieve a higher expected level of benefits with little risk of lower benefit levels.
The current structure of pension systems in most developed countries cannot be sustained without cutting benefit levels substantially or introducing much higher taxes.
A shift to a mixed system that combines the stability of the PAYG benefits with the higher return of market-based investments would permit countries to avoid that choice altogether.
Martin Feldstein, a professor of economics at Harvard University and president emeritus of the US National Bureau of Economic Research, is a former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. He is on the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Group of 30, a non-profit international body that seeks greater understanding of global economic issues.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with