the danish pension system properties, outcomes and challenges torben m. andersen aarhus university,...

The Danish Pension SystemProperties, outcomes and challenges

Torben M. AndersenAarhus University, Denmark

Eight International FIAP- ASOFONDOS Congress,

Carteagena April 2015

Pension system: Multiple objectives

• Distribution: Ensuring that all elderly have a decent living standard (minimum standards)

• Consumption smoothing: Ensuring that living standards after retirement stand in a resonable relation to living standards while working

• Insurance: Coverage of various events (spouse, long life……)

Danish pension system

I: Public pensions (PAYG – defined benefits)– Base pension for all (flat rate)– Supplements – means tested– All benefits are wage indexed

II: Labour market pensions (defined contribution)– Bargained, but mandatory for the individual– Covers the majority of the work-force– Provide annuitities + insurance (spouse/children; health)

III: Private pension saving– Tax subsidized and tied until retirement– Free savings (property, financial assets…..)

World Bank

1994

International comparisons

Background -Danish welfare model

• Extended welfare state– Pensions– Health– Old-age care

• Universalism– Equal entitlements for all– Tax financed

• Strong distributional objectives

Current pension system - developments

• 1980s– Savings deficit – systematic current account

deficits

– Political discussion on employee-owned firms (wage-earner funds)

– Social partners: Agreement on development of labour market pensions (centralized labour market; high unionization)

• Collective - voluntary /bargaining• Individual - mandatory

Labour market pensions – stepping up

7

19841987

19901993

19961999

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

20120

50

100

150

200

250Pension wealth, % of GDP

19931994

19951996

19971998

19992000

20012002

20032004

20052006

20072008

20092010

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Contribution rates

LO-DA blue collarLO-DA white collarTeachersNursery teachersPublic sector, white collar

%

Changing importance of public and private pensions

19851988

19911994

19972000

20032006

20092012

20152018

20212024

20272030

20332036

20392042

20452048

20512054

20572060

20632066

20692072

20752078

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Public pensions Private pensions

% of GDP Pensions, % GDP

Current system

-

5 10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

215

220

225

230

235

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

275

280

285

290

295

300

305

310

315

320

325

330

335

340

345

350

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

SeriesForSecondAxis Supplement I

1.000 kr. 1.000 kr.

Private pensions

Phasing out of public pension supplements

Replacement rates (2012)

1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 100

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Capital income Private pensions Public Pensions

Income decile

%%

Projections:- Replacement rates will increase- Private pensions will increase in importance- Public pensions will remain important

Low income among pensioners

65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 >750.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

%. %.

Age

Share with income below 50% of median income for entire population

0.3 % of persons above 64 fallsbelow the official poverty line

Financially robust?

• Labour market pensions: – Funded– Non-firm specific

• Public pensions:– Criteria for fiscal sustainability are met!– Reforms to increase the statutory pension age

• Reducing possibilities for early retirement• Discrete increases in pension age from 65 to 67• Indexation of pension ages based on life expectancy

at the age of 60; expected pension period 14.5 years

Challenges

• Interplay between public and private pensions (means testing)

• Taxation of various types of savings

• Not all are covered by a labour market pension

• Balance expansion – macroeconomic (in)stability

Distribution dilemma

• Binding distributional constraint – ensure some minimum income (working age and pensioners)

• Impossible to reach this target through mandatory pension savings for groups with income close to the limit

• Division of labour between public and private pension via means-testing – targeting public pensions towards low-income groups

Means-testing and incentives

• How to transit from public to private pensions? (means-testing)’

• If higher private pension = lower public pension ;

implicit form of taxation in addition to regular taxes

• Effective tax rates can be high- Slow phasing out: low tax rates, but costly- Quick phasing out: high tax, less costly

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

215

220

225

230

235

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

275

280

285

290

295

300

305

310

315

320

325

330

335

340

345

350

355

360

365

370

375

380

385

390

395

400

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200Public pensions

Supplement ISupplement IIBase amount

1.000 kr. 1.000 kr.

Private pension

Incentives – savings and retirement

• High effectiv tax rates on pension savings and later retirement

• Applies for low income groups!

0 100 200 300 400 500 60035

45

55

65

75

Private pension(1.000 kr.)

% %

Effective tax rates on pension savings

Means-testing and insurance

• Low contribution due to involuntary unemployment, illness etc.

• Low return on investments etc.

= lower private labour market pension= higher public pension

Stabilizes/insures total net pension

Taxation of savings

• ETT-regime for pension savings

• Large variations in taxation of various types of savings

– Asset allocation– Balance expansion

Return taxatio

n - pension

s

Property

Shares Capital income

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

% %.

Pension savings

Other types of savings

Balance expansion

• High level of pension savings (illiquid)

• High level of borrowing (large share with variable interest rate)

• High risk exposure?

• Effects on macroeconomic stability

Financial assetsFinancial liabilitiesFinancial net assets

Pension wealth, after taxDeferred taxes

% of GDP

Pensions for all!

• Bargained solution= support from social partners

• But not all covered! (recipients of social transfers, some employed, self-employed)

• ”Myopia” – insufficient savings (The argument for mandatory pensions saving)

• Free-rider aspects + effect on public budgets

• Solution: Mandatory pension savings for all??

Conclusions

• Long transition phase – still on-going• Robust system

– Meets distributional objectives– Ensures high replacement rates– Financially viable

• Unsolvable dilemma – how to reconcile (re)distribution with incentives?– Current system has clear incentive problems

(savings, retirement)– Uneven taxation of various types of pensions saving

• Ensuring coverage for all – mandatory scheme or?