Letter: Lilley's funded pensions still lay a burden on the future
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Letter: Lilley's funded pensions still lay a burden on the future
ir: It is claimed on behalf of Peter Lilley's proposals for pension reform, (report, 6 March) that they offer the next generation "genuine security through a real fund for its pensions".
There is plenty of historical evidence that the advance funding of pensions does not invariably provide greater security than "pay-as-you-go" financing (this year's contributions being used to pay this year's benefits). One of the arguments advanced in favour of the French system of repartition, a collective system of occupational pension provision financed on pay- as-you-go principles, is the greater security it affords by spreading the risk over the whole of society and over the generations.
In France in the 1930s there was a system of funded private pensions. It was destroyed in the 1940s by the military occupation and the severe inflation which followed it. The government had to introduce a system of levies on the working population to rescue the elderly whose retirement savings had vanished.
I presume that it is just because there is a lack of total faith in the long-term security of funded pensions that Peter Lilley's proposals provide for a guarantee by the state.
It is also often claimed that the "personalised" funding of pensions increases real investment, enabling pensions to be paid without cost to future generations of workers. These claims overlook the point that over- reliance on saving for retirement could result in investments that exceed prudent investment market opportunities. A reasonable balance should always be maintained between "capitalisation" and "pay-as-you-go" in order to obtain a broad spread of risk.
In any event, it is hard to see how "personalisation" of retirement savings can secure the provision of pensions without cost to other workers or taxpayers. All pensions are a transfer of resources from one part of the population to another. Any saving for retirement, (public or private, unfunded or funded) entails a claim on the goods and services produced by future generations of workers whether the claim is met through taxation, dividends or disinvestment.
Few would disagree with the notion that all economically active people should be encouraged to spread their own wealth from employment more evenly over their life by investing part of it, as long-term savings, in either employer-sponsored pension plans or personal retirement accounts. Few also, I suspect, would disagree with the principle that the state, as agent of the entire community, is the appropriate source of all social protection, including basic retirement income.
TONY SALTER
Richmond, Surrey
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments