Jeroen Dijsselbloem (Photo: Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock.com)
Mr Dijsselbloem wants to speed up the pension robbery. It's been going on for years, but it's not going fast enough for him. It is no different than a shift from the elderly to the employed. The elderly are stripped naked, the workers profit a little bit and the big loot goes to the financiers.
By: dr. C.(Kees) le Pair (member of the Dutch Association in Hua Hin – Cha-Am)
Jeroen Dijsselbloem may be grumpy because they didn't make him boss of the IMF. His recent statement about pensions was sour enough. It must be over with bullshit. Pension benefits should simply be cut.
For a pensioner like me, whose civil servant pension has already fallen in value by 2009% since 10, that is not a pleasant sound. Especially if the government is doing its best to boost inflation. Incomprehensible too, because the total pension reserves have increased since 2009 from € 600 billion to € 1400 billion today. Gerard van Riemen gave these figures when he left the Pension Federation in May of this year.
Dijsselbloem certainly knows more about money than I do, but money is not economics. And pensions are about the economy, the production and distribution of scarce goods among the population. Economists with management responsibility sometimes forget that. I previously wrote three articles about money and the economy1. The third dealt with stimulus measures and their effect on the value of money. A major reason for retirement palaver.
In his conclusion, Dijsselbloem loses sight of the primary function of retirement pensions. Pension is a means of distribution. It is an instrument for the distribution of scarce goods and services among the part of the population that is no longer able to collect them due to age.
To do it properly, all kinds of financial calculation rules have been devised. This includes assumptions. So if the results conflict with the intended distribution, one or more of those assumptions is wrong.
The retirement pension is intended to give elderly people a share of scarce resources and services. And for that purpose it has been agreed, for example, that during full-time employment it may be 70% of what workers ultimately earn. To do so, they reduced part of their own claim to scarce goods during that service. In plain Dutch: pension contribution paid. Inflation that is not compensated and a reduction in pension benefits amounts to a reduction of that 70%. The elderly simply get a smaller share in the distribution of goods. Old people are worth less.
There are two types of pension, apportionment such as the AOW and capital funding. With the AOW, the now working people give up part of their scarce goods claim to the current old people. With funding, capital is formed, from which the pensions are paid later. In both systems it is “bearing one another's burdens”, an insurance aspect, leading.
In the pay-as-you-go system, a pension reduction would immediately raise the question of why pensioners depreciate further than that 70% compared to working people?
With capital funding it is more complicated. How much capital do you need to meet the obligations entered into so far? It depends on the future return on that capital. And the future no one knows. In the Netherlands, the so-called actuarial interest rate is leading. Although it is significantly lower than the return achieved by pension funds. It is the result of central bank decisions. For reasons of its own, it has reduced interest rates to an absurdly low level.
Nothing is certain in the future, neither the effective return nor the actuarial interest rate. So, according to the assumptions used, financial coverage of the pension entitlements is never 100% guaranteed. The only acceptable thing is an agreement about the fractions of young and old in the share of scarce goods and services. With that in mind, there is only one fair conclusion: pensions must be maintained. 70% of what the workers earned. If administrators find that unfeasible, then a discussion should be held about how much the elderly have become less valuable to consume with. But then I would like to know what superior knowledge about the value of young and old underlies such a reduction?
The discount rate is not a law of physics. It is an invention that, at least for the last eight years, has had no relation at all to that of the capital returns achieved.
In a pay-as-you-go system, it is easier to keep the relative distribution of scarce goods and services constant than in the capital funding system. The money available for pensions is then at any given moment a fixed fraction of the share that workers receive in the economy. And if the demographic age structure changes, the choice to get the accounts balanced is a hard but understandable one between young and old. No haggling over actuarial interest rate abstractions, which appear to be insurmountable, but which are in fact based on nothing but misty assumptions.
A function of the capital funding system that should not be underestimated is the accumulation of capital. This is a substantial part of the extent to which we invest in new and better means of production. And as a result, the cake to be distributed grows in the long run. Young and old reap the benefits. However, given the capital mass that is now available as a pension reserve, the question is justified whether the decision about such enormous investments can still be left to the capital managers of the pension funds? With a GDP of 900 billion, the influence of this small anonymous group is more than one and a half times greater than that discussed by the Dutch parliament in the national budget. (It is true that this only concerns government money, but through taxation and others, decisions are in fact made about almost the entire economy there. Except for investments one and a half times as large as that economy.) I think that from a democratic point of view the influence of the group mentioned is too great. big. He must be pushed back. I say pushed back, not lifted. The usefulness of substantial investments that are made with a view to the best possible return is beyond dispute.
The solution is obvious. We need to go to a hybrid system. The pension funds receive their premiums each year, which grow or fall in line with the wage level. Those receipts are about the same as the annual pension payments with indexation. Only the difference has to be raised from the capital reserve. When this reserve is exhausted, the pension contributions are too low. Then the workers will have to pay higher premiums and the pensioner community will understand a corresponding reduction in pensions. If the reserve grows, the premiums can be lower, so that workers can claim more of the wealth and pension benefits can be increased.
The depletion benchmark can be constructed every five or ten years. It doesn't have to be annually. And with those terms, a careful study can always show to what extent it comes closest to the 70% standard.
At the moment we have a somewhat hybrid system with state pension and capital funding components. But there is no connection between the two. The result is immense capital formation with no democratic control over much of the investment with what is in fact practically community property. And, moreover, without a link between return and actual obligations. Regulation is based on unfounded agreements, for example about actuarial interest rates. Retirees are the victims of the current system. Also tomorrow's, although the youngsters don't realize that they are getting older.
Nieuwegein, 2019 08 27.
References:
1. Money and its influence on the economy (2013).
Tightening of the law against counterfeiting to combat the crisis (2014).
Interest and credit (2015).
Postscript
As usual I submitted the above piece to a few relations with an interest in the subject. For example, I learned through Alex Mulder/Ad Broere that three organizations of pensioners had a bottom procedure against the State of the Netherlands. With its absurdly low actuarial interest rate, the Netherlands would act contrary to European agreements.
The other comments were partly attempts to follow the paths in the financial labyrinth of pensions and to point out errors. My plea is to start from a fixed standard for the distribution of the national pie between the working population and the elderly. When this has been accepted for the pension organization, calculation rules will have to be drawn up in such a way that the standard is met. Which instruments are used for this is a later concern. The choice is large: actuarial interest, pension premiums, pension benefits, achieved return… My preference in this article was the hybrid provision.
Prof.dr. CA de Lange thinks that individualizing the pension is the solution. My objection to this is that a large part of the population is not equipped for sensible asset management.
He also points out that the fund management of the ABP is politicized. And the participation of pensioners practically does not exist. The provisional low point was the appointment of Mr Nijpels at the time. He himself said that he could very well be the boss of the ABP without knowledge of the pension problems.
With political influence in the pensions, the pension funds of the captive clientele can be used for wisdom of the day. Like the absurd financing of windmills. A little less return should be taken for granted.
prof. dr H. vd Vorst suspects the desire to secure the AAA status of the Netherlands firmly in the driving forces of the Dijssel flowers in the country. By deducting the reserve of a pension fund from the national debt, we are rock-solid reliable to the outside world. That the reputation of the country is thus ensured only at the expense of the old people is
"not fair!"
Dr. Cvd Poel, who endorses my analysis, recommends looking for parties that benefit from the current arrangement. That could provide a handle to tackle the matter.
Alex Mulder did more than draw my attention to the ash bottom procedure. He sent me a detailed support, which I am transcribing here, a little abbreviated.
About this blogger
Read the latest articles here
Living in ThailandJanuary 21 2025Thai Butcher Chops It Up (Reader Submission)
Reader SubmissionJanuary 21 2025For sale from a reader: Land in Chiang Mai in the middle of nature
Immigration information letterJanuary 21 2025TB Immigration Information Letter No. 008/25: Immigration Chanthaburi – Year extension Retired
Visa questionJanuary 21 2025Thailand Visa Question No. 008/25: Validity Period of Non-O Visa
Dear Dr. Kees le Pair,
A wonderful office story. Isn't it time to make the amount of the state pension dependent on the supplementary pension? Then the people who really worked can also share in the prosperity created by their input.
Regards Anthony.
Antonius, why should people who have paid pension contributions have to hand in AOW for those who didn't??? You can only participate in a pension fund if you actually work and if you do not pay a premium, you have more net left over which you could have taken out insurance.
Dear Hendrik,
There are many people who fall by the wayside, think of the baker, the hairdresser, the greengrocer, the small farmer. Many other small self-employed people.. Women who worked from the age of 15 to 25 and then had children and stayed at home. People who worked for an employment agency, People with no permanent contract. Period of unemployment and so on. People who have saved and put money aside but have had to use it to survive due to all kinds of circumstances. The seasonal worker. And there is much more to mention.
By the way, you can't hear all these people (they are proud of their achievements)
I'm not complaining either. I just want to make it clear that there is more to the ABP. and the pretensions and claims of this club.
Regards Anthony
Incidentally, I think that the self-employed themselves have the responsibility to put money aside for old age. The majority of self-employed people do not want to know anything about a mandatory supplementary pension. Someone who has paid pension contributions all his life does not have to cut anything for that to be on his state pension. In addition, the Abp'er cannot make use of the tax treaty and must always pay tax in NL and is therefore always financially worse off as an expat in Thailand, for example
The expat in Thailand also pays tax to the Ned. taxman
That seems to me to be an incorrect statement, which certainly does not apply to every Dutch expat.
Is correct! I pay tax on my state pension every month. Every Dutch person living in Thailand must pay tax in the Netherlands on his state pension.
No, Hank. Not every Dutch person living in Thailand receives state pension. 'Expat' is a description that covers 'something' more than a pensioner who has moved to another country.
I think Antonius is trying to say that if you get a lot of pension you should also get more AOW.
This is because if you have paid a lot of pension contributions, you must also have worked a lot.
He apparently wants to make the right to state pension dependent on your employment history.
So if you have lived on a minimum benefit all your life because you are severely disabled, the state pension can also be reduced. (to indicate just 1 of the many problems as an example)
So dear Ruud not,
Who have the best pensions are the civil servants and the people who have generally never taken any risks and have worked for the big companies all their lives. And usually worked for the same company from their school/study time.
Many others have missed the boat. Just think about pension breakage when changing industries. and many other reasons why the final result (the addition is disappointing)
Think of the large group of divorced women who only started working again after the children were raised and therefore only built up a limited number of years.
I do not want to change the pension supplement that people have bought themselves with their savings. No, that's private. I am talking about the group of workers who have accrued pension through an employer/company or government. Let me give an example: someone has a gross state pension + pension of 50.000 euros. (Do not confuse with income) We say a reasonable standard is 40.000 gross. Of those 10.000 euros more you hand in 25%, so 2.500. This amount can be used to increase the state pension and/or to shift it to the current paying generation. I'm talking about annual incomes Do you understand?
Regards Anthony
Oh people .
In addition. You pay about 10.000% tax on the 40 euros, so 4.000 euros. You pay about 7.500
3.000 tax. So the discount of 2.500 euros will ultimately cost you 1,500 euros. I can already tell you that Hoekstra is against my plan.
Regards Anthony
With the AOW it looks like we have to say thank you to the current workers. But that is not correct, with us AOW was withheld that was intended for our predecessors, already started with “van Drees”
Then the civil servants, in the past AOW was deducted from wages and paid out at the bottom. However, the biggest problem is the grab in the pot at ABP by the government.
The problem that arises is that common sense hits a blank wall. It is abundantly clear that there is currently an unprecedented robbery of pension funds. However, the owners of the money are sidelined. In the current system, reserves are created that grow to the heavens and at the same time pensioners are stripped naked in front of them.
Since, for example, ABP no longer indexes, their assets have doubled, even though they claim to have no profit motive.
Essentially, it's very simple. All people who are now retired have paid premiums that have consistently made a return twice as high as what was needed to pay out the promised pension. Even if there was always indexation, large amounts of money would be transferred to reserves for future participants. What is currently happening is abuse of power and contempt of the pensioners. After the theft by the government from the pension pots in the early 90s, a second round of theft is now going on of unprecedented proportions.
The government is forcing the pension funds to consider themselves poor and, as a result, to adjust their investment mix by purchasing worthless bonds, which will actually make them poorer.
The central question is what the purpose of the immense reserves is. The purpose is clearly not to use it to deliver what is promised.
The Netherlands calls itself a constitutional state, but this does not mean that it is a state where justice prevails. Hopefully the proceedings against the state on the merits will change this. However, law and politics are strongly intertwined in our low country by the sea. The separation of powers only exists on paper.
This blog often talks about democracy in Thailand and preferably the lack of it, but in the Netherlands it is also questionable whether it is still about anything.
The fundraising has been approved by voters of the parties and in the end it is actually 76 figures who determine what is good for 17 million people.
The Netherlands is just as strange as Thailand and both are so-called constitutional states
Sorry, let them return the money that has been stolen from the pension fund several times by the state. Then the Pension Funds will be in good shape again. And do not let it be shortened, perhaps even an increase is possible. Thank you.
When I talk about AOW and/or Pension, I do so with future generations as reference. Why? Because of my (grand)children. I wish them the same good years as I have had. I myself have taken early retirement since February 2012, and from November 2015, after a delay of 3 months, I will receive my AOW. The fact that I have a good retirement provision is due to the fact that I was born and raised in the Netherlands, I belong to the baby boom generation, there were excellent training facilities, I was able to make extensive use of them, and I have achieved an excellent career. You won't hear me complain. Not even because my once purchased home has flipped over several times. And many a baby boomer has fared the same way with me.
In recent years there has been a lot of consultation between the social partners in the polder about a pension agreement that can finally be concluded. It's here now. The fact that the government is involved in that agreement has everything and only to do with the AOW link. But the fact is and remains that employers and trade unions are primarily responsible. The pension agreement is there, and that's it. That agreement will be leading for the next few decades, and 'baby boom' will not experience any change. That is up to future generations. There is no perfect agreement. There is a good agreement.
https://www.abp.nl/over-abp/actueel/nieuws/het-nieuwe-pensioenakkoord-dit-zijn-de-meest-gestelde-vragen.aspx
In one way or another, a number of pensioners find it necessary to highlight their financial deficit. Why actually? What went wrong with them? Have they then been able to accumulate so little that current existence suffers? Has the non-indexation affected them to such an extent that they have fallen below a minimum level? Do they really believe that others were not victims of political and/or social “corrections”? It is a pity that those who had all the opportunities and possibilities that ever occur in one generation period now appear as the most affected in later life.
https://www.nu.nl/economie/5977392/door-lagere-aow-leeftijd-lopen-zestigers-soms-duizenden-euros-mis.html
Anything and everything is cited to prove one's own right. They turn out to be just opinions, assumptions, and suppositions, and by no means facts. So is the account of Kees le Pair/Alex Mulder. It doesn't matter, because it will prove to be a vain effort. All that whining about Aow deficits, pension cuts, government grabs, double returns, zero increase: the facts mean that the attention will rightly be shifted to the younger generations in the coming government period(s). https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/08/15/coalitie-wil-sleutelen-aan-koopkracht-a3970165
Baby boomers don't have it bad. Have nothing to complain about. They had many options. Our generation had good and, of course, bad years. With good and bad results. Our parents came from a war and were at the beginning of reconstruction. Those were different times. But in the better times that came, I always took advantage of the best message that was given to me: Put your money where your mouth is!
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/05/07/wijt-niet-alles-aan-de-babyboomer-a1602174
Good story by Ruud that I fully agree with as well as others see the thumbs up. Many complainants look at their individual situation and if this is not favorable they feel that they have been wronged. The majority ( ! ) of baby boomers are doing well and belong to the richest age group in society and that is why you don't hear the majority complaining. In addition, the baby boom generation could/can make use of schemes such as early retirement from the age of 57 and AOW at the age of 65, while all early retirement schemes have now been discontinued and the AOW for current workers often starts from the age of 68 to over 70.
I would say take a look at the elderly in other countries and be satisfied with what the Netherlands has to offer. As an entrepreneur, I say that if you think you are not getting enough money, then you just start a business.
Thank you very much for this excellent and easy-to-read explanation of pensions.
I would like to hear the following.
Which are the three organizations of pensioners that will start legal proceedings against the Dutch State in September?
The more people that join, the better.
The fact that there is no answer to your question is a sign that many hear a bell without knowing what the clock is. It is rather reasoned from its own limited perspective (read: wallet). It is the Pension Preservation Foundation, which is starting proceedings on the merits with the Association of Pensioners and a senior club from Brabant. https://www.stichtingpensioenbehoud.nl/
The purpose of this procedure is to accuse the State of not acting lawfully in accordance with EU directives, in particular the IORP-II directive (January 2019) which, among other things, regulates that the NL State avoids risks. The State will successfully argue that maintaining an (extremely) low actuarial interest rate limits precisely those risks.
It is fine that proceedings on the merits are initiated, because after a court ruling it is immediately over and out. Proceedings in summary proceedings are provisional, proceedings on the merits are final. It is becoming time.
That was a bit of a disappointment, I open the first article on Thailand blog today and I peer directly at Jeroen Dijsselbloem's sour face. Reminded me of Ad Melkert when he sat down with Pim Fortuyn after the elections. But dear Kees, your contribution to the pension discussion was not easy reading, at least not for me. Of course I share your conclusion that pensioners are the victims of the current system. In an article in the Financieel Dagblad of 30/8, two professors, Eijffinger and Hoogduin, argue for a different actuarial interest rate to prevent reductions in benefits. They argue that the absurdly low capital market interest rate is no longer in line with the market, but is a consequence of the purchase program of the European Central Bank and that it cannot/should therefore not serve as a basis for the mandatory actuarial interest rate of the pension funds. Next Thursday, 5/9, at the request of Van Rooijen (50+), there will be a debate in the House of Representatives about possible reductions in pension benefits. Given the attitude of the current government parties with regard to pensions, I see a gloomy outcome for current pensioners. Wait and see.
Words like pension robbery don't get me that excited. Other than that I think this is an interesting and good discussion piece. I think it is sometimes a bit one-sided, despite all the "experts" mentioned.
I want to put something against it. Sure, the discount rate is arbitrary, but there is a story behind it.
A pension fund invests partly risk-avoiding (defensive) and partly offensively.
What is the optimal distribution? Difficult question.
The fact is that over the last ten years, equity investments have yielded substantial returns. These have made a major contribution to the good investment results of recent years. But they are not a certainty.
There are risks and as a pension fund some restraint is appropriate.
One certainty is that interest rates on things like bonds and loans will be very low for quite some time. And what stocks do during that period is uncertain.
I'll give you an example of how things can go wrong. Read this and shudder.
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2009/03/31/pensioenfonds-shell-belegde-riskant-en-met-geleend-11706170-a13636
The Shell pension fund invested quite offensively in the years leading up to 2007. And there was a hosanna mood. The coverage ratio was 190%. Pension payments were no longer necessary, etc.
Then it went wrong. In one year, the funding ratio plummeted to 80%. That hurt, discounts coming up.
Because the pension fund (and Shell can see what they do) were guilty to a certain extent and possibly for other reasons, Shell then paid an additional € 2 billion so that reductions were not necessary.
Shell obviously makes a big profit so they could do that. But it does mean a shift from shareholders' assets (after all, it is at the expense of profits) to pensioners' income.
Most companies can't afford something like that anyway.
In my opinion, the government cannot do it at ABP either. It is a large amount and you are shifting money from taxpayers to pensioners.
In short, you now have the certainty of approximately 0% return on risk-averse investments for the time being and an uncertain return on risk-bearing investments. And you know that as a pension fund you can only run a limited risk. And those risks, as demonstrated, are real. I could give more examples.
This article refers to a pension at 70% of the salary. I have created a spreadsheet. Assuming returns up to 2000, that level of 70% is not a problem. If you leave the premiums (employer and employee) unchanged and you calculate with a return of 0%, you can pay a pension of 30% of the salary. So you have to take risks. How much is accounted for?
With the now well-filled pension pots you can easily pay higher pensions for a number of years. Then you are creating security for the now and soon retirees. And you will most likely do that at the expense of people who will retire in a few years.
I would rather think of the word robbery for that. I think Dijsselbloem is right. The tenor of the long article is too one-sided.
An additional observation. An aging society results in a slower increase in productivity and therefore a slower increase in GDP, and lower returns.
Unlike Shell (paying into a pension pot), the government has withdrawn money from the ABP pension pot. Say a negative deposit. I think that was about 30 billion. Money from pensioners that was transferred to taxpayers. That money can be returned.
That's right, a total of more than 30 billion guilders, in the period around 1990. That has been corrected for inflation and is now 26,9 billion in euros.
But it is not the same taxpayers who “got a discount” 30 years ago and would now pay for the mistakes made then.
If you really can't get it sorted out, just ask Hoekstra, so unfortunately it can't be "good back".
Incidentally, you can argue that stopping contributions by an employer also impoverishes the pension fund.
What I don't hear anyone talking about is the following: There are many rich people among retirees.
Example: There are 9 out of ten retired people who are all around (say) 13000 euros on an annual basis. There is 1 who has an annual income of 100.000 euros. The average annual income then shoots up from 13.000 euros to 18.692 euros. With, for example, 2 people out of 10, it is already 20.250 euros. That smart government always works with averages, so they will say, it is not too bad with the poverty among pensioners. An investigation should be done on this. Obviously this initiative will not come from the government! But a party like 50 plus could very well have that done!
That's the problem with averages.
Those rich elderly people are on average only rich on paper.
1 AOW billionaire on his own is easily good for an average piggy bank of at least 400 Euros per AOW pensioner.
And billionaires may not be that many, but people with 100 million are already a lot more, and they also account for an average of 40 euros per pensioner.
As an average old age pensioner, you are already rich without having a penny in your pocket.
You write that baby boomers have nothing to complain about. Can I completely disagree with this. Worked as a self-employed person, paid the maximum AOW annual premium from the first working day to the last. Then about 6600 per year. Current situation: no pension, only AOW. Now it comes: live in Asia, through my marriage to a foreign woman I receive married AOW divided by 2. Also have to pay NL health insurance premium on this.
Receive gross 590 euros per month, on which you still have to pay tax.
In order to be entitled to additional assistance and other facilities, I am obliged to return to live in the Netherlands. Where it is then impossible to get a social rental home. After all, the thousands of Syrian pharmacists have priority. And I think there are many more like me.
Then as an example to link an article from the VVD-D'66 newspaper….
Of course I have to come to the conclusion that you have apparently earned a lot in your working life, if you have paid the maximum AOW premium throughout your life, but that you have not reserved any money for old age.
Then you really have to look in the mirror to find the culprit of your bad financial situation.
This is about the right to AOW. This has nothing to do with how and how much income has been made elsewhere. You are also entitled to AOW if you are a millionaire. Whether or not I have reserved money for old age, that is not the point here.
My own example also applies to other people who may not have paid the maximum premium as a self-employed person, but are nevertheless being scandalously cut in this way.
You are entitled to AOW and you are entitled to pay tax on this.
Apparently your wife is not (yet?) entitled to AOW.
You will receive your share of the AOW pension and your wife the share to which she is entitled.
If she has never lived in the Netherlands, it will always be nothing.
Those are the rules of the game and I don't see why it would be unfair not to give someone who has never lived in the Netherlands a state pension.
If you are going to emigrate, but have never saved and do not have enough income, you are doing something wrong.
You can make that choice from me, but that is your own responsibility.
If you are indeed as tight as you say, I would at least start worrying about the future.
Without enough money, or income, you have no right to live in Thailand (I assume, because you write on Thailandblog), and today or tomorrow immigration could be at your doorstep, to deport you from the country .
That is, if you have the money for a flight to the Netherlands, otherwise you will probably not get further than an immigration cell.
The fact that you have not accrued a 2nd pillar in addition to the state pension is your own fault. If no savings have been set aside or, for example, an annuity, unfortunately only state pension remains. If you have married a Dutch woman instead of a Dutch woman under 65, there is also a state pension hole.
I am also married to a Thai (at the age of 60) and therefore also married a state pension and that is 632 euros per month. I deregistered in NL on 28-02-2019 and now receive 760 euros per month. My conclusion is that you have done something wrong or that you are not writing the truth. The fact that you do not have a pension was a clear wrong choice that you made in the past. You now rightly have the bitter fruits of that.
Outrageous that the government and the financiers steal so much money from the pension pot! There is only one good solution:
Eliminate all pension funds. Return the money already saved to the participants. (Those amounts can vary from a few euros to several hundreds of thousands of euros for people who are close to retirement).
No more pension premium payments. The employers return the premium they pay in the salary. Wages can rise by as much as 10-20 percent net! Delicious right?
Subsequently, everyone is fully responsible for the accrual of the pension. Do you spend too much and save too little: your own fault, big bump. Collapse your investments, bad luck. Just check your investments and savings every day…
Then we will be rid of all the whining.
The government will embrace you.
Think of all the income tax money pouring in, much of it in the highest tax bracket.
And not to forget the VAT on everything people buy, who immediately start throwing their money over the bar for old age.
Anyone who has seen the Black Swans program knows how things work in the pension world. I am not talking about the hard-working employee who earns a meager salary himself, but about the people at the top who play nice weather with politics in the Netherlands.
The Netherlands, which is supposedly doing so well with its pension system. The best in the world and if you say it often you will believe it too. No Jan modal comes off badly, I read this on the internet and it is about average pensions that are paid out in the Netherlands. To cry.
“The average pension is 800/900 euros per month. That is a nice amount, but not the fat pot that some media and politicians like to talk about.
The mutual differences can be large. A civil servant who saves at ABP receives an average of 900 to 1000 euros gross per month. Pensions in healthcare average 724 euros, in metalworking 664 euros gross per month. The average salary at Shell is 145.000 euros. So a pensioner takes a lot more home with him.”
I think that all has been said with this. If you compare these meager amounts to all the wealth in the world, you will go completely crazy.
And then this:
Pensioners.
Undoubtedly a beautiful word that hides a lot of suffering for many.
Some can't get enough of it and others definitely can't get enough of it. The world and its riches. The people in the money (to name a few) you know them from the banking industry, the investors, the notaries and (top) lawyers, the top executives, (so-called CEOs of the multinational companies), politicians, etc., but also the top management of the pension fund. They are all well prepared for their future retirement. They have opportunities to deal with this flexibly and generously, something that a wage slave or small self-employed person (to name a few) lacks.
Retirement is like getting a lottery ticket, some get lucky and others get it. The moment of choosing whether or not to take a pension determines the amount that is paid out. So it could be wrong, because if the cabinet gets it into its head to adjust taxes again, you may be able to enjoy your old age with several hundred euros less for the rest of your life. This has happened to me and I can share with you that it has affected many others as well. They also do not receive an overview of how the pension benefit is accrued, so no substantiation of the amount. Just assume that it has been calculated correctly and don't whine about it. Complaints are not appreciated and often ignored. People are busy and complainers will always be there is what is apparently thought.
Looking at the past when (former) colleagues could still leave with the final pay criterion and those who today have to deal with the average pay criterion, it saves hundreds of euros per month if the ABP pays less to people who have the same job. and rank, but somewhat younger in age and thus missed out by constantly changing the rules and reducing pensions. I hereby thank the politicians and former fellow civil servants at the Ministry of Finance, who are always working with full commitment to write programs that make it possible to cut pensions. Yes, that is also the Netherlands, according to some, the pension country par excellence, where everything is wonderfully arranged for everyone in your old age. So those who still believe in fairy tales, sleep well and wake up healthy tomorrow, but don't be surprised when it's your turn later and you get a dog tip in pension as a thank you for services rendered. The average pension amount for Jan at the state pension age is around 800 euros per month. A real fat pot. Tribute, tribute. I can't make it more beautiful, so they can do less.
You overlook the fact that everyone who accrued pension from year 1 receives a pension statement on which he/she could see how much pension has already been accrued. So one can easily see what has been built up gross. So to write repeatedly that people do not know where they stand is not correct. Terms like "dog tip" what you write is wrong. People have more than 40 years to save extra or, as someone else writes, to put the consumption to the business.
I would like to mention one point and that is the fact that life does not always go the way you want it to go. Many of us have to deal with a divorce, many fall ill and cannot work and are dependent on benefits. There can be setbacks in all sorts of ways, which affect in various ways, among other things, the maximum accrual for a pension. Making choices that may turn out to be disappointing afterwards are also to blame for this. Who can be trusted when it comes to money. The jokes and jokes of the various cabinets with their less policy have also proved to be not conducive to a stable pension. Also, not all people are equal and not everyone is able to take care of themselves, such as education and salary income. These factors also determine the amount of the pension and AOW benefit. Solidarity and understanding and humanity should be the decisive factors, but many people, the higher educated, clearly lack this.
Think of the discount rate as similar to the capital gains tax trick. A percentage that is devised by the government to strip people as much as possible.
It was then struck down by the court. Now for the actuarial interest rate and then things might go in the right direction.
Rutte: “Things are going well in the Netherlands, everyone is improving in purchasing power!”
Liesbeth Sinke of pension provider MN, severance pay will increase from 360.000 euros in 2017 to 721.000 euros in 2018.
Peter Borgdorff of the PFZW care fund last year 272.000 euros, 2,6 percent more than the year before.
According to the annual report, Inge van den Doel of PMT raised 268.009 euros.
The relatively largest increase in salary was for PME director Eric Uijen, who increased by 2018 percent in 4,8 and ended up at 252.263 euros, excluding the costs of a lease car.
Number two on the list is Gerard van Olphen of APG, who manages the pensions of civil servants and teachers from ABP. Last year he went from 586.107 to 595.961 euros, an increase of 1,7 percent. (Income 3x Balkenende standard!)
PGGM CEO Edwin Velzel, who joined at the end of 2017, concluded his first year at the pension provider with a remuneration of 522.000 euros.
And of course not to forget the billions of euros in fees to the investment experts, mainly from US institutions.