Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook
Featured Hot News Nebraska Corona Joe Biden Top News

reads.

It is simplicity and transparency we advocate

According to Nilsson it is ”the most stupid of the seven proposals” to abolish the mandatory traditional insurance policies. Nilsson makes it seem as if we want to remove the option to save in traditional insurance, when we are in fact questioning the very obligatoriet, that is to say that savers are forced to place a part of their pension savings in a specific risk profile. We believe that it contributes to fragmentation and makes it difficult for savers to understand occupational pensions.

A solution, as for example the SAF-LO have chosen, is to let the whole capital be placed in a traditional insurance on the saver itself does not make any choice. The solution is, we are not critical, and it is completely in line with the beteendeekonomisk research – a field of research we are active in. Well-designed presets are important for those who do not want to make the active choice. We also have never claimed to more freedom of choice in itself, would be better. It is the simplicity and transparency we are advocating.

" on the contrary, we are very clear that it is a good order to the social partners control the tjänstepensionernas design. We also share Nilsson's view that today's occupational pensions are better equipped to handle the increased mobility in the labour market than their predecessors and to Minpension.see is a very good tool.

Despite the benefits of the current system, we believe it is necessary to continue the work on simplifying the pension that is already active, and for those who want to brush up on the knowledge of their pension. Nilsson seems, however, assume that it is impossible, or an unreasonable goal, to get people interested in their future finances and retirement. We believe that this attitude is unfortunate, and do not sit well with savers ' preferences. Many in our study express that they want to understand the scheme better.

It is a pity that Nilsson decided to, on loose grounds, may reject our proposal rather than to come up with their own suggestions on how occupational pensions can be improved. Had he chosen the latter, could we all perhaps learned something.

Avatar
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.