Make social security contributions more visible

Any tax on labor income reduces the labor supply depresses the labor supply, this is no secret. Theory also tells us that whether the employer or the employee pays any withheld tax does not matter. Contributions to pension plans, which are typically paid by both employers and employees, look like a tax on the pay stub and should thus obey the same principle. Well not quite.



Iñigo Iturbe-Ormaetxe argues that the size of the pension fund contribution says something about the future benefits. If the employer contribution remains hidden, the employee is not aware what great benefit he is getting. Were he to pay the whole contribution, after a corresponding pay rise that is revenue neutral to the employer, the employer would be happier about his pay and would increase his labor supply. It would work similarly if the employer would simply indicate on the pay stub her contribution. This assertion is backed with a crude cross-country regression of employment rates in the OECD which shows that at least male employment rates a negatively affected by employer contributions, but not by employee contributions.

Sustainable retirement pension reform?

With increasing longevity, it is obvious that something needs to be done to keep pension systems around the world sustainable. The main options are postponing the normal retirement age, lowering retirement benefits or increasing contributions. The typical studies that compare these options and are thrown around in the public arena are done by accountants and actuaries, who do not take into account the changing incentives of market participants. Economists can do better.



Peter Haan and Victoria Prowse take up the challenge and estimate a very complex life-cycle model for Germany. It includes idiosyncratic risk, consumption and labor supply decisions and a complex tax structure. They find that the 6.4 year increase in life expectancy over the next 40 years needs to be met either by an increase in the full-pension age by 4.3 years or a reduction of benefits by 38%. The first approach markedly increases the unemployment rate. This is ironic in Europe where a reduction of that age is typically viewed as a way to reduce chronic unemployment among the young. The other option would markedly increase savings, as people have to fend for themselves more. Consumption of retirees is higher in the first option though.



Am I satisfied with this study? It is much better than what you typically see, yet I want more. The easy bit is that one could actually determine whose welfare increases under which option. That could help in understanding the (political) feasibility of such reforms. And maybe a combination of them turns out best. More critically, the model does not attempt to consider the consequences in the changes in aggregate supply. Lengthening the work age this much increases the work force dramatically and must have consequences for aggregate, and thus individual, wages. Also, while the matching probabilities and wages of retirement age workers are estimated from current data, I do not think these estimates apply once more previous retirees are forced into this pool. The new ones have different qualities compared to those who would have continued working anyway. Therefore, I see more work to be done.

Public pensions are not sustainable, even in Norway

By now, everyone must be aware that populations are getting older and that this puts some serious strain on pension systems. Unless one plans far ahead or is blessed with substantial sustained growth, some problems in financing retirement will appear. But there must be some place that is going to do fine, say a country with a forward-thinking government, a recently reformed pension system, a well managed endowment of natural resources and a small and smart population, like Norway. Right?

Wrong, say Christian Hagist, Bernd Raffelhüschen, Alf Ering Risa and Erling Vårdal. To come to this conclusion, they use generational accounting, which measures the fiscal sustainability of the public sector and in particular the publicly funded retirement pensions. The latter went this year through a significant reform, which includes pension indexation below wage growth, benefits adjusted to be actuarially fair if life expectancy increases further, and work incentives for elderly. It turns out the pension reform has helped substantially for the sustainability, about as much as the presence of the endowment of oil and natural gas. But that is not going to be enough, even with higher oil prices and an exceptionally well managed petroleum wealth. And for those hoping that future growth of the economy or higher fertility would help, well at least in the case of Norway this would barely help. To close the gap, a 17% increase in taxes would be needed, and they are already very high in this country. So, if Norway cannot make it, how could countries with inactive governments and little or poorly managed endowments make it?