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
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • March 2015
03

Funding pensions and long-term care

Open-access content 25th February 2015
2

Brian Jones is criticising a point that I did not make (The Actuary, February).

Firstly, I am referring to standard of living overall. The reference to retired standard of living was in the caption to my photo, which was not my doing.

I am not advocating funding of public sector pensions. 

I was making a point, which I thought was so self-evident as to be axiomatic, that each generation has to pay its way. If it doesn't, it will bequeath a terrible burden on its successors.

My suggestion is that a proportion of the nation's GDP should be set aside for pensions and long-term care. The percentage should be set by reference to what GDP they had produced while working, less what they've consumed when growing up. By "set aside" I don't mean in a separate fund. It's a percentage of current GDP to support current expenditure. Whether it will work mathematically can be examined by looking at national data. Whether it will work politically, I doubt, because it straddles several parliaments.

Funding it by setting up a separate fund while you're working creates an illusion of security because your claim is secured by dividends and interests of the assets of the pension fund. But if the working population cannot afford it, there will be revolt or inflation.

Icki Iqbal 5 February 

This article appeared in our March 2015 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in:
03
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Senior Pricing Actuary

London (Central)
£95000 - £120000 per annum + benefits
Reference
118966

Senior Longevity Actuary – Reinsurance

London (Central)
£100,000
Reference
118949

Senior Capital Actuary

London (Central)
£90000 - £110000 per annum + + bonus + benefits
Reference
118965
See all jobs »
 
 
 
 

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
​
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

© 2020 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited, Level 5, 78 Chamber Street, London, E1 8BL. Tel: 020 7880 6200