Support the Stichting Pensioen Voldoen your claim to do justice to pension indexation! (reader submission)
The Dutch State and the Dutch Bank have for years prevented pension funds from increasing their members' pension benefits, while indexation according to earned assets was possible in those years. Both the State and the Bank have pursued a rigid policy, contrary to European directives. That is why a former civil servant has demanded an advance on the indexation damage suffered by the court in The Hague in preliminary relief proceedings. This indexation damage covers the period from 1 January 2008 to 13 January 2019 and amounts to more than €26.000. A procedure for 2019 to date follows.
The pension funds were not allowed to index, as a result of which the purchasing power of their members' pensions fell by approximately 2019% in the period up to 20. What's up with that?
Well: European legislation was introduced in 2003 to ensure that pension accrual takes place safely in all European member states. Pensions must be indexed in such a way that pensioners do not fall into poverty. If this indexation does not take place, purchasing power will decline and pensioners will run into problems.
The European Directive (IORP I) has been correctly included in the Pension and Savings Funds Act that came into force in the Netherlands on 8 February 2006. In the new Pension Act of 2007, the Dutch government failed to include the European directive. Instead, the Dutch government, together with De Nederlandsche Bank, has devised its own calculation method that is contrary to the European directive. The European directive (IORP I) assumes that pension funds make a return on their assets. This starting point is correct, the assets of, for example, the ABP have grown from € 2009 billion to € 2019 billion over the period from 173 to 465, in other words, the ABP has made a return on its assets over this period of more than 10% per year. So there was always more than enough money in cash to index pensions and counteract a loss of purchasing power.
Instead of the pension funds calculating with the return on their assets, the Dutch State has based its calculation method on a return equal to the risk-free interest rate. Because this risk-free interest rate showed a downward trend in the period from 2008 to 2019, the pension funds could no longer meet the so-called funding ratio. That is why the pension funds had no scope to increase pensions. As a result, despite the fact that ABP's assets grew to astronomical heights in the period from 2008 to 2019, the former civil servant was never compensated for inflation during this period and therefore more than €2019 over the period up to January 26.000. has gone wrong.
Pension funds have often indicated that they do want to index and that they could increase pensions in order to maintain the purchasing power of their members. However, the formula, as included in the Dutch Pensions Act and applied by DNB, unfortunately offers no room for this.
The pension funds must follow the law, but the legislator has made a mistake that has caused approximately ten million Dutch people to suffer indexation damage.
The foundation https://pensioenvoldoen.nl/ is a new foundation that was specially established to hold the Dutch State liable on behalf of all injured parties for compensation of the indexation damage suffered by them. Spokesperson for the PensioenVoldoen.NL foundation is Henk Krol. He is the former leader of the political party 50 Plus and has for years insisted on the need for indexation of pensions.
On the site you can calculate your own damage and you can participate in filing a claim. Doing!
Source: https://pensioenvoldoen.nl/achtergrond-informatie-over-de-claim/
Submitted by RuudJ
About this blogger
-
Known as Khun Peter (62), lives alternately in Apeldoorn and Pattaya. In a relationship with Kanchana for 14 years. Not yet retired, have my own company, something with insurance. Crazy about animals, especially dogs and music.
Enough hobbies, but unfortunately little time: writing for Thailandblog, fitness, health and nutrition, shooting sports, chatting with friends and some other oddities.
Read the latest articles here
Thailand taxJanuary 18 2025From the editors: Erik Kuijpers will immediately stop working on the tax file and answering questions
HealthJanuary 17 2025Thailand struggles with childhood obesity
EconomyJanuary 15 2025Thailand to reach highest investment level in a decade in 2024
ResearchJanuary 15 2025Research shows: Dutch people prefer to save on health than on vacation
Good that this is also being paid attention to on the thailand blog. Pensioners are the legal owner of their pension, but the power of disposal has been completely taken out of their hands by the government and the Dutch Central Bank. The funds are rich and getting richer. The pensioner impoverished. And now they are being asked to choose a new pension system. The government does what it likes and as always with other people's money.
BramSiam, aren't you rambling on about the new system? 'The government does what it pleases…' Who do you mean by 'government'?
There is a positive advice from the Council of State, the House of Representatives has adopted the proposal with 98 votes in favor (and that is more than the coalition has...) and Rutte-4 does not have a majority in the senate, so the opposition must vote along and it looks like it! There is no such thing as someone who just does what he wants.
There is opposition and there are doubts about the sustainability of inflation-proof pensions, but that is also the case today. Many pensions have not been indexed for years and someone is now going to litigate about this. Great business; we will get an answer in ten to fifteen years… Then I might be 90 already, Deo Volente, or moved to a jar on the chimney…
Strong confidence in the investment strategy of pension funds and insurers would not be out of place!
I don't think BramSiam is trotting through this.
Just a few opinions from people who specialized in it at the time:
Financial expert Ab Flipse responds: “While 'they' keep their 'guaranteed' pensions, 'we' are forced to switch to an extremely risky casino pension. An unprecedented 'criminal' act!”
Agnes Joseph, actuary at Achmea Pensioenservices, spoke as an expert to the Senate on 21 February about the new pension law.
She shook up the entire Senate. According to her, the new law will be a drama.
Agnes Joseph: I find it so bizarre that politicians' pensions do not change with the new law, and that everyone else has to switch to the new schemes without a say.
The influence of Brussels and the WEF is running out of steam, you can even start to wonder whether voting still matters.
The 2nd chamber has already rushed through this Casino pension and the 30st Chamber will follow on May 1: friends among themselves… Don't think of yourself, but also think of the young Dutch people who still have to work for a while and also want a decent pension at the age of 67.
You hit the right spot Bram, but we lower educated people will not understand that according to some highly educated people. The pensionadas have just been dropped off for years, it's all about and not those Rutte excuses and own rules that you read here
This is indeed a point that the funds are getting richer and richer. But thanks to the new system, I understand that the entire fund's assets are distributed among the participants, so the non-indexed amounts are allocated to all participants. The fund then no longer has (secret) reserves because the entire capital is divided and everyone can see their own share. Hope I see it right and then there will no longer be a need to point out to the fund that they do not index or whatever, just tell them what the value of the investments of the personal pension assets is. In that respect, clarity about what your pension is really worth.
That's how it is BramSiam, keep an eye on 'MY Government' and hopefully there will be a better parliament.
Seems like a bad machine translation. “Doing” will probably come from “Doen”, but amounts and years also seem to be a strange mix. Maybe correct with the original next to it?
If you still have to receive a pension, this will probably also apply to the pension accrued so far in the sense that you have not yet fallen short of anything, but because the indexation is not yet complete, there is still damage. However?
But I don't see that in the link to sign up.
Sympathetic initiative, which I wholeheartedly support. But whether I and many other pensioners will ever experience any compensation, I highly doubt. The reality is that the Dutch government will never admit that the calculation method used has been in conflict with the European directive. The consequence of this is years of legal proceedings. I compare it to the Woekerpolis affairs. Since 2006 I have registered with a claims body for my now long terminated loan insurance policy with Aegon, but to date, 17 years later, the battle is still going on.
Yes Wut, it's boxing against the beer quay. But if you do nothing, nothing will happen. And we also have to think of the youth, who also want a fair pension when they are exhausted.
A new pension law has been made and has already been voted for by the 2nd chamber. Now the 1st room. It is the so-called casino law. Your pension goes up and down with the stock market. So if the stock market drops or collapses, you can forget about your retirement. And that you worked and paid for it for years. There is great resistance, but the government wants to pass that law quickly.
With all due respect, this is nonsense. The current pension system cannot deliver the promised fixed benefit if the investment results and interest rates are disappointing. Politicians and the DNB have set (too) strict financial requirements for indexation.
In the new system, increases can be made earlier and yes, reductions can also be made earlier, but damping mechanisms have been agreed for this, so that the chance that pensions will be reduced is very small.
Do not believe the populist slogan such as “casino-retirement”. That is utter nonsense.
The unions and the employers are really not retarded and have made a good system together.
Any change is not an improvement. They don't say Casino pension for nothing. And there is a lot of resistance from the pensioners. Many people have said goodbye to the trade union, the FNV, and employers usually think of themselves first than of the employees is the practice. Yes, it was a good system, why change?
I'm afraid it's already too late, on May 30 the new pension law will be rushed through in the first chamber before a different composition comes into the chamber.
It was also to be expected, the pot of 1500 billion was too attractive for various parties, lobbyists have made good use of the ignorance of Dutch politicians, there are only a few politicians who really understand pensions.
Look and shiver
https://youtu.be/rgUqph81ENQ
GeertP, do I have to shiver from a TV channel of the conspiracy theorist Pasquino? Sorry, but I'm not falling for that. I read everything about that pension plan, including from the opponents, and I see no reason to use a word like 'casino pension'.
Incidentally, what I read about that procedure, there are also other thoughts about it. I wonder what will happen in ten years time.
Dear Erik, more than 40 specialists including Arnoud Boot, Pieter Omtzigt, Hans van Meernen, all professors, specialists in the financial field, it seems to me that something must be wrong when so many people with knowledge about the matter sound the alarm .
GeertP, no system offers guarantees. There is a premium that has to be invested and the stock market offers no guarantees. It remains dependent on the investments in any system; see also Jack's comment above.
We have seen large stock market movements before and yes, if such a sheikh or politician blows the wind, the stock market rattles and we run a risk, and not only with our pension. You can only prevent that by putting your money in an old sock, but then it also loses value….
I do not consider members of parliament to be retarded and I hold the investment experts of the funds and insurers in high esteem. I consider it normal that there is doubt in a major operation such as this. But I don't participate in scaremongering.
All around it is about the fact that we have been cheated for years and that the government has also grabbed from the pot.
Whether or not MPs are retarded was not the question. Whether they want the best for the citizens is another story. After all the scandals, you can no longer keep that up with dry eyes.
The existing system did have a hard amount as a benefit and that will disappear. The unsustainability is based on the actuarial interest rate held too low by the government. In recent years, our pension system has been ranked as the best or one of the best in the world in comparisons. And now it has to be kicked off. With what now appears to be conscious action to portray the existing system as not future-proof. And now that the money presses are still smoking from printing uncovered “money” and inflation is rising, interest rates are rising and pensions can be indexed again, the system needs to be overhauled.
There is only one word for it and that is “shame”.
Jaap, do you think a pension without an index is a hard amount? Then we do differ in opinion about what a hard amount is. You could call the AOW 'hard' because it has an index.
Furthermore, we will not agree, but I look forward to the new system with confidence. And I think it will also be passed by the Senate this month, despite the full-page article today in the AD and possibly in more newspapers.
You cannot blame the government that people are getting older, the average age is now much higher than when the pension law was made. In addition, the ECB has wrongly kept interest rates artificially low for years, which also affects the possibility of indexation; You can't blame the government for this aspect either, perhaps DNB can.
Because it is a bit about the new pension system: I have not yet read anywhere that the survival benefit is being addressed. This should also be given full attention, because if you build up your own pension for decades and you die, for example, 1 day before your pension commences, you and the heirs will lose all accrued pension rights in one fell swoop and the neighbor will receive speak to your carefully accumulated capital. Abuse to the top and if there is an individual pension pot, I hope that this will also be addressed, partly because of this I am actually against any collective pension scheme as well as against not indexing in this article, which is often money for but was not allowed.
Again with all due respect, but this is not an abuse at all, but this is called solidarity. Everyone builds up their own virtual pot during the build-up phase, but it is collective in the payment phase. With this we guarantee that someone who reaches the age of 110 will continue to receive a pension.
Including the many Thai widows who were in many cases a lot younger than their husbands. This is indeed called solidarity and is inherent to the pension system.
Ger, there is a survivor's pension for surviving relatives, such as for widow/widower/partner and for orphans. This comes from the life insurance policy that runs alongside the pension provision. Furthermore, there are also people who are well into their 90s and are getting older; no spares have been spared for this and the mortality profit of people who die too early is used. I have no problem with that.
It's great that there is so much confidence that the government has our best interests at heart. After the grip on the cash at ABP at the end of the last century and the unwillingness to listen to the advice of experts and, for example, the warnings of Pieter Omtzigt, among others, people just keep going. Nothing is learned from, for example, the benefits affair. This is a new drama that is started with blinders on. The parliamentary inquiry into how all this could have happened will follow in 10 to 15 years. In the new system, the indexation arrears of €137 billion, which is currently still an overdue entitlement, are invisibly brushed away. Furthermore, everyone gets a personal pot. The tax authorities are already studying a way to levy wealth tax on this. According to the minister, everyone is improving. That's fantastic right. No bullshit everyone rich. They should have done it much sooner.
Yes, this cabinet is blindfolded. Not indexed for 14 years. Surcharge affair, Gas extraction Groningen, Bonnetjesaffaire, Pieter Omzigt 'for which there was no longer room'.,…. It's time for a new regime. They should have done that much earlier.
If you consider that the Dutch cabinet screwed you over with the transition to the Euro, drove 10 thousands of people to despair for years with the surcharge affair, no longer gave your savings interest and then taxed them with a fictitious return, the retirement age was going to increase, Groningen and other provinces did not help, then you can say the hell out that this law, which is now being pushed through for a shift change, is not favorable for pensioners and the system.
These are just a few things, there are many more. The cabinet also no longer talks about the citizens, but about the country. It's good for the country, not so much for the citizens. What country then contains is a mystery to me.
If you also lose a Unilever and a SHELL, what are you doing?
Bennietpeter, in our country laws are made by government plus parliament. So what you complain about the euro is not true; that is a decision of the legislator: government and parliament together.
The indexation scandal was caused by a couple of senior officials, the interest rate depends on international developments, the notional return is stated in the Income Tax Act and is a decision partly by both Houses, the retirement age has also been raised elsewhere to keep it affordable, 'Groningen' and the mining damage is culpable omission, I agree with that, but the rest of your comments miss the mark. And you also benefited from Limburg coal and Groningen gas, right?
That's it, it's time for this cabinet to go Oprutte......
Who pays the man-hours for transfer costs? I suspect that more man-hours are involved than with the Delta Works!
That will run into the millions, just like the costs of the investment experts and who pays? These are the premium payers, so mainly the working people.
This will cost millions Jo and the pension funds will pay for this from the premiums paid by the pension participants!
Taxing savings fictitiously is indeed pure theft, raising the retirement age is no fun, but it is unavoidable if everyone lives longer. We as the Dutch have not been cheated with the euro, only Germany has gained an extra advantage over all other countries.
And I don't really understand why people are concerned about an allowance affair, I've just always had to work for my money, and never received a penny allowance. Most other countries don't have those free gifts that our government calls surcharges. It is the working people who pay for all those benefits, so as far as I'm concerned, this should be looked at quite closely before the money is distributed.Ethnic profiling is not allowed, but it is still special that so much of that free money ends up with fortune seekers with a migration background.
Ethnic profit is not allowed, but it is striking that women earn a lot less, even if they are white. Or that there is (un)conscious discrimination on the basis of skin colour, origin, education or language skills, to name but a few. All in all, one earns more than the other and the allowances have been created so that tax reductions in the form of allowances end up with the right people, for example, you really don't get rent allowance if you earn a ton and live in a social rental house, but someone with only an AOW will receive that supplement.
Luit van der Linde, allowances have been there since 1970! I mean the rent subsidy that was abolished when the rent subsidy came into effect. At that time there was a tax scheme for childcare; there was no scheme for healthcare costs except for a tax deduction in the event of high exceptional medical expenses.
A scheme for health care allowance was created with effect from 2006 when the Health Insurance Act lapsed and the Health Insurance Act replaced the old systems. Arrangements have also been created for rental costs and childcare.
I have not found any data on the internet that 'so much of the free money', as you call it, ends up with 'fortune seekers with a migration background'. Maybe you want to explain that? But since allowances partly depend on income and assets, it seems to me that migrants with a lower level of education and a lower income than Dutch people are more likely to be eligible for such benefits. And with that, that money ends up where the legislator intended.
Eric Kuypers,
with that last sentence you indicate exactly what I mean, so we give that money away to fortune seekers without them having to do anything for it.
The legislator therefore intended to give those groups money and to cut pensions, but the fact that it is intended that way does not mean that it is good.
The health care allowance is also such a system to make health insurance free for part of the population and expensive for another part.
In the Netherlands, hard work is not rewarded, but rather punished.
It would be much fairer to abolish all allowances, and also to abolish all kinds of tax deductions, then the abuse of those schemes will also end immediately.
In the Netherlands, women usually earn less because they consider other matters such as family more important than a career. These are choices that everyone makes with their partner.
Surcharges are a means of left-wing politics to level out. In the Netherlands we believe that if someone earns more than average through hard work, they should give it up so that someone who is below average can get something extra without working for it.
It is not for nothing that the Netherlands attracts a higher percentage of asylum seekers than the average EU country. All of this must be paid for, and is much more important than providing our own citizens with a good pension.
Luit van der Linden, unfortunately the salaries for men and women are still far from equal in the Netherlands. But with the same work and education and experience comes the same salary. This inequality has nothing to do with 'choices that everyone makes with their partner' as you think. Fortunately, things are changing and that's about time!
This does not alter the fact that everyone can decide to work less because of study or family, and then the wages will drop because you work fewer hours. But the basics should be the same. I assume you agree.
Your pension is in your own hands, you choose your employer who has a good or less good pension accrual depending on the premiums paid by employees and employers. The government even helps you by not levying taxes on the income you invest in your pension fund. It is not the government that should provide you with a good pension, but you do that yourself, for example by choosing a job in a company where pensions grow above average due to good investments and above average deposits of funds, so 2 things.
I myself have worked for a large pension fund for over 40 years. There was enough money to index earlier, but that was stopped by The Hague. In the past, the retirees got
a little extra at the end of the year we were called flatly and emailed and the mail brought I don't know how many thank yous. I'm afraid it's in the past, I think the new pension law is bad.
Only in the interest of the pocket fillers not of the people who retire.
In the 80s or 90s of the last century, I don't remember the exact year. What I do know for sure is that the then government took an amount of 40 billion (40.000.000.000) guilders from the ABP reserves.
That was part of the accrued pension that was saved together through monthly premium payments from the members. Why don't I ever hear about this again? That was pure theft.