Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
    • Moody's - Climate Risk Insurers series
    • Webinars
    • Podcasts
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • November 2014
11

Learners, earners and burners

Open-access content Thursday 30th October 2014 — updated 5.13pm, Wednesday 29th April 2020

People in the UK have expectations of a retired standard of living that the nation’s resources cannot provide, says Icki Iqbal

2

Our lives come in three stages: 

• 'Learners' are children or trainee adults. Healthcare and primary and secondary education are free. Tertiary education has to be paid for, if necessary through student loans. Taxation and social security policy redresses the balance.

• 'Earners' are adults who are not burners. They contribute to society by growing the gross domestic product. Most of the time they will be gainfully employed, but not always.

• 'Burners' are people of an age when society thinks that they do not have to continue activities that are economically beneficial. Their needs are shelter, food, companionship and recreation for the body and mind; and medical care in old age. We can't tell in advance how much is required of each and what form they would take. Worse, they now expect to live longer and care costs are an unanticipated sixth item on the list.

The UK as a whole has an expectation of a standard of living that its resources cannot deliver. So we need a review. A holistic approach would be to assume that each cohort should take out no more than it has put in.

In other words, what you can draw on in retirement would be defined by: what you made while working, less what you cost when growing up. This is a longitudinal approach straddling several parliaments. It is the correct approach but unlikely to be implemented. So we look for other solutions.


Getting the balance right

We have in the UK established the principle that healthcare should be free at the point of delivery. Despite challenges imposed by rising costs, this principle has been maintained. 

We have also established a system of incentives to encourage people to make advance provision for retirement so that the elderly don't become a burden on the state. This too has come under scrutiny.

Where should long-term care lie in the spectrum ranging from free at the point of delivery to pay as you consume? It seems to me that in terms of its nature it is closer to the UK National Health Service (NHS) than pension provision and must therefore be free at the point of delivery. The question then is how is the cost paid for? 

I think a practical solution would be to say that national insurance (NI) contributions, which at present cease on retirement, should continue right up to death. They would be deducted from income - such as your pension and earnings - but not investment income.

The Blue Book (published by the Office of National Statistics) states that the average income of pensioners in 2012/13 was £477 a week, of which pensions and earnings accounted for £371. The Blue Book defines pensioners as those over 65, not all of whom would have retired. Assuming that all of the 'earnings' are attributable to those not yet retired, the figure reduces to £338 a week. 

If 7m of the 8.7m listed in The Blue Book as pensioners are genuine, the aggregate income attributable to pensioners is £123bn.

If they were to pay NI contributions at the current employee rate, 12% of the income in excess of the Lower Earnings Limit (LEL), currently £111 a week, this would generate revenue of £9.9bn pa. That is in excess of the figure of £9bn that Kate Barker, chair of the independent Commission on the Future of Health and Social Care, and a distinguished economist, estimates as the annual cost of long-term care for those 'critically in need' but well short of the £14bn she estimates would be needed by 2025 if extended to those with 'substantial needs'. 

Of course, 12% of earnings above LEL would be a painful additional cost to the pensioner. We can try to find ways of reducing it, but the principle that they should pay must be maintained if it is to be free at the point of need.


Preparing for longevity

Suppose we start by saying that those already retired should only pay 6%, but this is increased in half-percentage point steps from 2016 so that those retiring in 2027 would pay 12%. The Treasury could finance the shortfall by tightening up the rules on pensions. 

The government thinks people should be free to decide in what form they take benefits under a pension policy. I would contend that a certain minimum level should be taken as an annuity to protect against longevity. 

Tax relief should be limited to contributions below a specified limit, set to support a target pension of £18,000 a year, say. 

The Centre for Policy Studies estimated that tax relief on pension contributions cost the Treasury £26bn in 2010/11 so there's enough headroom to fund the care shortfall. There are several issues of detail, but these can be addressed once the principles are accepted.


Icki Iqbal is a retired actuary

This article appeared in our November 2014 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in:
11
Topics:
Life insurance

You might also like...

Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Senior Underwriting Risk Manager

London (Central)
£85K-£95K + Benefits
Reference
124386

Reserving Manager (Contract)

London (Central)
£1200 - £1400 per day
Reference
124385

Life Actuary - Contract - IFRS 17 Financial Impact

England, London / England, Bristol / North Yorkshire, England
£900 - £1150 per day
Reference
124384
See all jobs »
 
 

Today's top reads

 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2022 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part is not allowed without written permission.

Redactive Media Group Ltd, 71-75 Shelton Street, London WC2H 9JQ