Collective pensions are the backbone of the Dutch pension system, regarded by most as one of the very best in the world.
Collective pensions are the backbone of the Dutch pension system, regarded by most as one of the very best in the world
Yesterday, in her speech to parliament, the Queen announced legislation that could be the cornerstone to better pensions in Britain.
The measure is a simple one: that Britons will be allowed to invest collectively for their retirement, just as the Dutch and the Danes are able to do. Its effect, over time will be huge, because research shows that, after twenty five years of saving, a collective pension will give a 30 per cent higher income than a pension saved individually.
That is why collective pensions are supported both by the government and the opposition. They are supported by the TUC, and by the CBI. The Association of Member Nominated Pension Trustees and the National Association of Pension Funds are also backing the measure. So are think tanks such as the RSA and the IPPR.
And of course they enjoy broad political support throughout the political parties, employers and employee groups in Holland.
It is not rocket science as to why collective pensions are better. As everyone who has bought an insurance policy knows, the best way to address life’s risks is to share them. So, if you save for a pension on your own, you don’t know how long you will live for so you can’t tell how much you need to set aside; you don’t know what return you will get, or how much your pension pot will be worth on the day you retire.
That is why, until the budget, everyone saving for a pension had to buy an annuity which ensured they had an income for life. But annuities are very expensive. And if you don’t buy an annuity you can’t guarantee you will have an income until you die.
The better way is to save together. And from the pot of money which has been saved, to pay affordable pensions. That avoids the cost of annuities. It avoids the need to cash all your pension pot in on a single day, or to save very conservatively in the last years before retirement, so you know what the size of the pot will be. That is why studies show that, in the UK, collective pensions give 30 per cent better outcomes than individual ones.
But we must also beware that collective savings are not some holy grail. They need to be properly managed if they are to work properly. So, for example, if returns head south, it may be necessary to cut pensions in payment. In Holland, in response to the financial crisis, pensions in payment were cut, on average, by 2 per cent. But given that they would have started 30 per cent higher than the equivalent British pension, that is surely a price worth paying.
And collective pensions must be run by trustee bodies, whose only interest is the beneficiaries. Otherwise the temptation to misuse funds is all too great. It was that which proved the downfall of the ‘with-profits’ funds offered by insurance companies.
But for seventy years, collective pensions have been the backbone of the Dutch pension system, regarded by most as one of the very best in the world. In twenty five years time, when Britons retire, they too can be part of a pension system of which we can be proud.
David Pitt-Watson is director of the RSA’s Tomorrow’s Investor Project and founder of Hermes Equity Ownership Service
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
13 Responses to “Why collective pensions will mean better pensions”
Leon Wolfeson
Why would other people follow your example?
And of course you need to lie about unemployment insurance costs, right, because it shows your argument for the genocidal fraud it is.
It’s far, far more than “10%”. It’s more than employees NI at present, because of course companies are going to pocket their savings.
Moreover, keep ignoring the way you’re calling for massive tax cuts for the rich – doing billions more in damage per year…
Leon Wolfeson
The evidence is mixed. However, I have absolutely no faith in this government in implementing this in such a way that workers will have any chance whatsoever of benefiting, given their record with things like NEST, where they end up with very high effective fees.
sarntcrip
i remember not long before the80S CRASH THATCHER TOLD US GOING OUT OF SERPS WOULD BE GOOD BUNG IT ALL INTO A STOCK MARKET LED PRIVATE PENSION ALONG WITH ENDOWMENTS MILLIONS OF LOST THOUSANDS IGNORE THE GOV. USE A GOOD PROVEN INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL CONSULTANT NEVER TRUST GOVT. WITH YOUR SAVINGS
sarntcrip
LIFE EXPERIENCE
blarg1987
On the flip side, how much money could people have lost investing it in the stock market, all your assumptions on investing National Insurance on the Stock market is based on the figures that stock market has increased by at the moment.
What you have not factored into account is what such a large increase in investment may have on the stock market, it may make more money yes, but it could also loose a lot more money as you have a guaranteed investor constantly putting money in.
Remember endowment mortgages flopped for the same reason as one of the reasons was when everyone did it the returns decreased.