December 1, 2004

PINOCHET RETURNS THE FAVOR:

Retiring in Chile: The Chilean pension model is an excellent example of how the United States could reform its Social Security system. (JOSÉ PIÑERA, 12/01/04, NY Times)

For 24 years, I have championed the Chilean retirement system, which is based on ownership, choice and personal responsibility. Having discussed our reforms with Mr. Bush as long ago as 1997 when he was governor of Texas, and having spoken at the White House Summit on Social Security in 1998 during the Clinton administration, I believe there is now an opportunity for a bipartisan agreement in the United States in this crucial area of public policy.

The Chilean retirement system was originally based on exactly the same principle that guides the United States' system. It originated in 19th century Prussia, where Bismarck created a pay-as-you-go-system. But such a defined-benefit system is not only hostage to demographic trends, it also has a fatal flaw: it destroys the link between individual contributions and benefits, or, in other words, between personal effort and reward.

Chile's Social Security Reform Act of 1980 allowed current workers to opt out of the government-run pension system financed by a payroll tax and instead contribute to a personal retirement account. What determines those workers' retirement benefit is the amount of money accumulated in their personal account during their working years. Neither the workers nor the employers pay a payroll tax. Nor do these workers collect a government-financed benefit.

Instead, 10 percent of their pretax wage is deposited monthly into a personal account. Workers may voluntarily contribute up to an additional 10 percent a month in pretax wages. The invested amounts grow tax-free, and the workers pay tax on this money only when they withdraw it for retirement.

Upon retiring, workers may choose from three payout options: purchase a family annuity from a life insurance company, indexed to inflation; leave their funds in the personal account and make monthly withdrawals, subject to limits based on life expectancy (if a worker dies, the remaining funds form a part of his estate); or any combination of the previous two. In all cases, if the money exceeds the amount needed to provide a monthly benefit equal to 70 percent of the workers' most recent wages, then the workers can withdraw the surplus as a lump sum.

A worker who has reached retirement age and has contributed for at least 20 years but whose accumulated fund is not enough to provide a "minimum pension," as defined by law, receives that amount from the government once funds in the personal account have been depleted. (Those without 20 years' contributions can apply for a welfare-type payment at a lower level.)


Posted by Orrin Judd at December 1, 2004 9:55 AM
Comments

Note that Chile made the change back in the 80s. I believe other countries have moved in this direction as well. In other words the US is lagging the world in updating and revamping its retirement system.

Posted by: AWW at December 1, 2004 10:53 AM

In the 80's Social Security is seen to be in trouble. Pete Peterson, who was in the Carter Administration, was pushing for reform of Social Security and everything was ripe to make significant changes.

Reagan appointed a commission with Greenspan as chairman that upped the retirement age to 67 and then the air went out of reform. BLAME Reagan for not using his political capital.

Posted by: h-man at December 1, 2004 11:23 AM

While a fairly crude method, there's nothing wrong with simply raising the retirement age until in- and outflows balance.

Let Boomers born in '50 or later retire at 66 with half-benefits until age 70, and GenX retires at 68, with half-benefits until 70.

Those who cannot work until age 68, (and they will be few), can go on welfare if they've not put aside anything.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at December 1, 2004 12:43 PM

I can't think of any major developed country (OECD) that has made any significant change in its social security or pension programs. (But perhaps New Zealand has.) Certainly the countries of the EU have the worse actuarial problems coming. To their credit, a number of EM countries (Chile leading the way) have.

Any time after the 80's would have been ripe for making serious SS reforms in the US. However, in 1980 Reagan inherited a weak economy, a dilapidated military, and fiscal reponsibilities associated with both FDR's SS and KBJ's Great Society. Starting to take on the Great Society was as much as one could have asked. The US circa late-90's presented a much better environment to have spent both politcal and fiscal capital.

Posted by: Moe from NC at December 1, 2004 12:51 PM

Moe--The UK has a better system than we do, involving private accounts. Interestingly enough, they started reforming in the 80's as you proposed.

http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_051804.html

Posted by: Timothy at December 1, 2004 6:55 PM
« BOTCHED ANOTHER ONE: | Main | NEVER DEMONSTRATE YOUR OWN WEAKNESS: »