You are currently viewing our desktop site, do you want to download our app instead?
Moneyweb Android App Moneyweb iOS App Moneyweb Mobile Web App

NEW SENS search and JSE share prices

More about the app

National pension reform: could it be done?

The Department of Social Development’s proposals have been described as ludicrous, but are they really?
Image: Shutterstock

Furious pushback”; “disastrous for SA economy”; “threat of tax revolt”; “scepticism”; “state capture 2.0”; “outrage”; “would wreak havoc”; “ludicrous plan”; “set up to fail” : when the Department of Social Development released its Green Paper on Comprehensive Social Security Reform, there was a strong response from economists and some politicians.

But how well-founded are these arguments? In this article we try to unpack some of the main criticisms of the paper, which proposed a National Social Security Fund to which all workers earning over R1,667 a month would contribute. Employers and employees would initially contribute between 8 and 12% of earnings up to a ceiling of R23,000 a month.

Read: National pension reform: Why we must do it

This is a ‘left socialist idea’

In a TimesLive article, chief economist of Efficient Group Dawie Roodt says, “Clearly what this [green paper] has in mind is the increase in taxes and for the state to force us to save more and for politicians to get more power over our savings. This is just a left, socialist kind of idea which in practice is not going to work.”

But the National Social Security Fund proposed in the Green Paper is a direct descendant of Germany’s 132-year-old Public Retirement Insurance System, or Gesetzliche Rentenversicherung. This is the oldest public pensions scheme, and was itself based on reforms put forward by Napoleon III. This Gesetzliche Rentenversicherung was introduced in 1889 by German nation-maker Chancellor Otto von Bismarck – a man who suppressed all independent labour organisations, all socialist organisations, and all their publications, and jailed thousands of people that his government had identified as socialists.

Bismarck’s motivation for introducing the Gesetzliche Rentenversicherung was to quell any “perceived threat of social unrest” in the recently unified German state. His reasoning was not that the elderly should not suffer on retirement, but that it was essential to introduce the system so that the state did not collapse.

Read: National pension reform: Protecting the funds from state capture

The state will mess it up or steal our money

Reuben Maleka, of the Public Servants Association (PSA), said that the PSA “regards this proposal as another attempt by the government to get its hands on overtaxed workers’ hard-earned money”.

In an article for the Cape Argus, Roodt says: “The Green Paper is all well and good, but we can’t afford it … The downside is that it proposes a substantial increase in taxes and this is not going to happen as the South African taxpayer is already overburdened. As these things go, it will probably be under the control of some politician and most likely be mismanaged.”

Economist Daniel Silke said: “The big problem is that the expectations of delivery from the state are so poor and its credibility and management capacity are so poor that asking South Africans to contribute in this way is fraught with great risk from the point of view of those South African salary earners who will be expected to contribute.

Read: SA women ‘earn’ less than men even in retirement

“It really is a case where the state cannot mandate this kind of contribution into this kind of setup unless it really has proven itself to be an effective and efficient manager of large scale state assets and not a waster of resources through inefficiencies and graft and corruption.”

But as we have outlined, the Green Paper puts forward a public, rather than state-run scheme, which keeps political control at ‘arms-length’, in line with international norms and standards. The Green Paper proposes a system that would minimise political interference in the governance of the fund.

And most inflows would be immediately sent out to pensioners, because contributions from those currently working would be used to pay those who have retired.

This is just another tax

Economist Mike Schussler said, “We want to be like Europe when we don’t have the income or tax base. It’s not possible.”

Schussler’s comment implies that mandatory pension schemes are only operational in Europe, or developed countries. But Colombia, which is a country very similar to South Africa, has a mandatory pensions scheme. Colombia has 51 million people compared to South Africa’s 60 million), a Gross Domestic Product of $295 billion compared to South Africa’s $329 billion), and roughly the same geographical area.

Columbia has a national pensions scheme augmented by private supplementary offerings – almost exactly the set-up described in the Green Paper. And average retirement income as a proportion of income earned before retirement (the replacement rate) in Columbia is 74%. In South Africa it lies between 17%-20%, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The DA’s Geordin Hill-Lewis, shadow finance minister and mayoral candidate for Cape Town, argues: “The proposal is essentially to tax low-income workers and the struggling middle class much more.”

Mandatory contributions are not the same thing as taxes, and would replace contributions that a person would otherwise be making to a privately managed fund. Further, workers’ contributions would have a direct impact on their retirement income. This is not a tax by any usual definition.

The proposal would mean that people who currently have no, or insufficient, retirement benefits — about half the people in formal employment — would have benefits, while people who currently pay for retirement plans would probably pay no more than they do at present.

The Green Paper came as a surprise

This paper came as a surprise to the constituencies at the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac), Treasury deputy director-general Ismail Momoniat told Business Day in August.

But a national mandatory retirement fund has been part of thinking across government departments for close to two decades, since the 2002 publication of the Taylor Committee of Inquiry into a Comprehensive System of Social Security for South Africa. It has been a constant feature of discussion papers since then.

For instance, in a 2010 paper on bargaining council retirement funds compiled by Jacques Malan and Associates for the Department of Labour, lessons for designers of a National Social Security Fund are offered. And these are based on even earlier proposals put forward by a 2007 National Treasury Second Discussion Paper and a 2009 document, called ‘Reform of Retirement Funding’. In 2012, the Interdepartmental Task Team on Social Security and Retirement Reform produced its first discussion document, developing the idea of the NSSF.

In a Nedlac paper, the business representatives even complain that the Green Paper that they saw in early 2021 — before the public caught sight of it — is largely unchanged from drafts from five years before.

The business lobby would prefer the government to prove it can manage a more modern set-up before implementing the NSSF. “Demonstrated progress in the modernisation and governance of existing social security funds is a precondition for further expansion of the social insurance framework,” they say in the Nedlac submission.

Specific issues raised by business in the Nedlac discussion document include that the contribution ceiling of R276 000 per year is too high, which would erode the customer base of the retirement industry.

In fact, the Green Paper ceiling is not far from the UIF benefit ceiling of R212 544 annually. Further, there would still be a market for supplementary pensions for people earning above the contribution threshold. There are 2.4 million people who currently contribute to retirement funds earning a gross income more than R353 000 per year, and most of those would probably top up their retirement funds using private schemes. Currently about 90% of people in these income bands contribute to retirement funds.

We CAN afford it, says former Treasury official

One of the main criticisms of the proposed national pension plan is that the country cannot afford it.

For example, Old Mutual Investment Group chief economist Johann Els has said the plan is not at all viable. And in an article first published in the City Press, Alexander Forbes executive John Anderson was quoted as saying that the contributions of 7.5 million workers in the formal sector, plus those of 4.7 million farm, domestic and informal sector workers would have to be subsidised. Alexander Forbes estimated that “this would require between R15 billion and R30 billion a year from the National Budget depending on the level of subsidies required.”

In a paper in a series published in Econ3x3, economist and former National Treasury official Andrew Donaldson estimates that the subsidy needed to cover the contributions of people who could not afford to pay into the fund, is R23.8 billion.

But in a third paper, Donaldson shows how this could be funded.

Donaldson takes the current retirement system as his starting point, using SARS and Treasury data that assesses about 85% of revenue collected in 2017.

At present, retirement contributions up to a limit are exempt from tax. Retirement contributions can be deducted for 27.5% of taxable income, or R360 000 – whichever is smaller.

Only when funds are drawn down, in retirement, is tax applied – and even then, pensioners are able to apply for very generous rebates on these drawdowns.

This means that people who can afford to contribute to pension funds — a minority of working people — are afforded the single largest tax credit in South Africa, approaching R100 billion per year, according to Donaldson’s own calculations and the National Treasury’s budget review . This credit disproportionately accrues to the very wealthy.

For the very highest income band – gross incomes over R1.975 million per year – the average retirement contribution is R255 230 and the average tax benefit to these people on these contributions is R114 854 per person. The total benefit on this income band alone is R10 billion per year. The lower income bands also accrue high benefits — net incomes between R917 000 and R1.975 million get R23 billion in benefits per year, with the average tax benefit of R56 757 per person.

Donaldson proposes a model through which more than R22 billion in revenue could be collected, by reducing – not removing – these benefits.

He suggests retirement contributions should still be liable for tax benefits, but at a lower rate as income rises. At present, gross incomes between R494 000 and R917 000 per year get the highest tax benefit as a share of gross income of 4.9%. Under Donaldson’s proposal, the highest benefit would be 4.1% for middle-incomes at R353 000 to R494 000 per year, with incomes higher than this band receiving relatively smaller benefits. The highest income bands would therefore move from receiving an average of R114 854 per year in tax benefits, to R51 213 per year – still the highest net benefit.

The extra R22 billion collected this way would very nearly cover the shortfall of R23 billion which would be needed to ensure that all South Africans — not just the wealthy — could retire in some comfort.

This is the fourth in a series on the Green Paper on pension reform, read the previous articles below:



© 2021 GroundUp. This article was first published here.


Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in to comment.


Pie in the sky. 27 years of destruction and lies and you believe these criminals will be able to run a pension fund? They can’t run a bath

NO….wealth can’t be distributed it can only be created, right? but no we are stuck in SA so obviously the National pension can be reformed…the African way.

So do those Pensioners currently receiving a Private Pension as their taxable income , now need to contribute from this (taxable Income) to a State pension as well ???

Forget the laborious rebuttals in reply to those who oppose this redistribution of income. It boils down to one simple question really – will this proposed scheme respect and protect my property rights?

Well, it cannot respect the right to private property because the savings of the higher earner will be used to provide benefits to the lower earner. This is tantamount to expropriation without compensation. This scheme will reward laziness and mediocrity at the expense of frugality and excellence, while it allows the politically connected criminals to skim off the cream.

People are different, therefore, it follows logically that there will be differences in their material position. We can either be equal before the law, or materially equal, but we cannot have both at the same time. A free society, where the rule of law prevails, will inevitably be distinguished by material inequality.

This proposed pension scheme is an act of social engineering that attempts to invalidate the inherent human condition of material inequality. Differences in cognitive ability, work ethic, cultural norms, education, and mental capability manifest as material inequality. Differences in thought patterns automatically lead to differences in income. It is impossible to reach material equality without the violent crushing of independent thought.

This implies that social justice and material equality can only be delivered through coercive and oppressive state intervention. The state will have to plunder one socio-economic class for the benefit of another. Equality, therefore, is simply slavery by another name.

Also, we should never forget that there is a naturally fair and logical reason for the fact that South Africa is the “most unequal” nation on earth. Nowhere on earth exists a larger discrepancy between the IQ of citizens. Interestingly, some poorer nations, where the average IQ is more representative of all citizens, are also more equal. This implies that in order to reach material equality, we have to manipulate the IQ of citizens. The brain drain is clearly part of this process.

James Stent must be the most naive person on earth.He is sitting with the direct evidence around him off state incompetence and corruption and then he use Columbia as a exemplary example (a third world drug ridden 3 world state and also not from africa give a example here.)Please every body a government here or any where cannot run anything it is by nature the most inefficient institution for execution of service or product A government should only write the rules and only referee the private sector.Big government is the root of all evil ex. Big government = big regulations = big taxes= big incompetence= big unemployment = big poverty=big lack of freedom.This is a law in human history.Imagine the government owned pep stores the following will be the result : You will stand in a queue for hours ,served by unfriendly assistants ,have a choice of one size of shoes or garment one colour double the price and the government would have to subsidise them with your money.Why on earth will anybody think they can run far more complicated functions like ,trains airways,police,hospitals,schools,roads and anything else.They use to say that if the germans in east Germany could not make socialism work who else on earth can do it never mind africa.The road to hell is paved by government with good intentions.

The scale of govt corruption is so vast and the trust in govt to manage money is so low, that SA needs a period of time where nongovt players manage the money.

Crooked govt officials have proven their ability to cannily bypass regulations designed to curb corruption.

A govt board could set policy and perform audits, but a separately privately elected (by taxpayers?) board should implement it and control the money.

That way govt gets what it wants policy-wise, and public has more confidence that money won’t be stolen.

Surely this proposal will not pass our competition laws.

I don’t support it all because we cannot afford it – where most the funds come from?

But anyway : for there to be any sense the contributions should not stop at R23k per month. As % of Total income the poor will be contributing MORE than the wealthy. Basically dipping a bucket in a dam to spread it back in the same dam: what is the point???

End of comments.





Follow us:

Search Articles:
Click a Company: