Statistics confirm pensions time bomb
Malta has an aging population. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier
The low fertility rate and higher life expectancy have turned the pensions issue into a time bomb, according to David Spiteri Gingell, a leading consultant on the pensions reform.
Mr Spiteri Gingell, who had drafted the White Paper on pensions reform in 2004, said demographic statistics were showing the issue had to be addressed because it was a time bomb.
Speaking at a seminar on World Statistics Day last week, he said the country would eventually end up in a situation where there were more people receiving a pension and fewer contributing to it.
Apart from analysing past data, it was also important to project where that data was leading and policies should reflect this, Mr Spiteri Gingell said.
According to Malta in Figures 2010, live births in Malta between 1958 and 2009 were halved, with more than 8,000 births in 1958 plummeting to the present figure of 4,143. This translates to a birth rate of 10 per 1,000 people while the death rate last year was 7.8 per 1,000, with 3,221 dying, bringing the population down by 1.5 per cent to 412,970. The population as of 2008 stood at 413,609.
In July, a report issued by the European Commission placed Malta with a group of 15 member states that had problems relating to the long-term sustainability of their public finances and had called for urgent reforms in the pensions and healthcare sectors.
Shortly after, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi announced the government had started an internal exercise to take stock of the pensions reform, indicating that the second pillar of the reform – private pensions – would have to be “fine tuned”.
In an interview with The Sunday Times in November 2004, Mr Spiteri Gingell had warned that the status quo was not an option. “It willlead to a situation where revolutionary solutions will have to be implemented at some time,” Mr Spiteri Gingell had said.
Six years ago, his working group had proposed a three-pillar system: the first pillar, which is the two-thirds government pension with several proposed changes; the second pillar, where people will be obliged to put some savings into a private pension scheme; and an optional third pillar proposing tax incentives to encourage people to save in other pension schemes.
9 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
M.Mifsud
Oct 25th 2010, 15:42
How about a fourth option where in the future when we get older we remain in the workforce at least 10 hours a week to sustain ourselves rather than relying on handouts. The work at home concept should be taken seriously with jobs like customer care. I understand that the private sector fears security issues but not everyone will afford to save money or take out insurances so flexitime and work at home schemes should be taken seriously. And family friendly measures, monetary incentives to mothers to have that second child to counter the demographic decline.
Lino DeBono
Oct 25th 2010, 15:06
Sir,
From 61 to 65 yrs. to receive the pension. Average of 2/3 of the last 10 yrs instead of the best 3 yrs of the last 10 yrs. Husband & wife who paid the N.I.S., the husband get a lesser pension.
Does the spokesman think that Malta should do without a pension? Does introduction of new and not calculated financial costs of new thought social services, threatening the already existing ones?
I do believe that one must protect what one has and only when and if new social services are and can be financially supported, without threatening existing ones, should be introduced.
The welfare state of free medicine is indirectly being affected, by government's intentionally lack of ordering medicines in time, so to induce people to buy these privately through their own pockets, thus saving millions of euros.
One must take steps according to the measurements of his feet and not leap-frog.
Lino DeBono
Xewkija
victor pulis
Oct 25th 2010, 14:27
The low fertility rate means that in the long run there will be less elderly and so less pensioners. In time the situation will level off.
R.Zammit
Oct 25th 2010, 13:53
I understand the reasoning, yet I suspect that exponentially more are paying National Insurance/Social Security and Income tax today than in 1958, which happens to be two years after the National Insurance Act was legislated, as well as the climax of the emigration years, when most of our youth sought greener pastures.
So what I don't quite grasp in the reasoning above is that since albeit the pensioners are more in numbers today than in 1958, ratio-wise it should not make such a significant difference for 2 principal reasons.
1) The steep rise in number of jobs both full-time/part-time as well as self-employed (therefore NI contributions) has increased dramatically since 1958.
2) The amount of Income-Tax being generated and collected therafter has never been greater, and though this doesn't directly address pensions, it does infrastructure projects like Mater Dei etc.
Our poulation has increased by roughly 100,000 since 1958. Alot of this increase can be attibuted to pensioners living longer, but many are foreigners working in Malta, returned migrants, foreign retirees etc.
Methinks that the timing of this article could suggest an increase in National Insurance in tonight's budget.
joe gatt
Oct 25th 2010, 13:07
So hands off, & think twice all those with negative comments re single Maltese mothers, it seems they are making up for those who`s career is more important than children.
After all there is no such problems, it seems, with our uninvited guest, who have nothing to loose all to gain, not much to contribute, as they are mostly on mark time awaiting to be settled in countries with better prospects and brighter future, for themselves and their offsprings. (to them our country is just a convenient stepping stone, period).
Guess who is footing the bills??
As for us,unsustainable pensions, plus huge dept burden for our young and not yet born generations.
Guess who will be footing the bills??
M Tabone
Oct 25th 2010, 13:03
I perfectly agree with Mr. Roberts. It seems that in Malta people involved in politics are not aware of our biggest problems!!! No one is caring for the Maltese family and the state sees it as a burden. Just look at figures and you will realise what I am inferring. Politicians say something and act differently....no wonder we will have national crises soon with such low fertility rate...........
joe felice pace
Oct 25th 2010, 12:54
Mr Schembri quotes Malta in Figures 2010 starting with statistics between1958 and 2009, Incidentally it was in 1958 that a book entitled Problemi di Denatalitá was published in Italy warning about the effects of a low birthrate as was already being experienced in our neighbouring country. The warning was not heeded. From about the mid-50's onwards also our birthrate began to decline. It has become too late, even very late, in 2010.
MSciberras
Oct 25th 2010, 12:10
We've known all this for a long time. At the very least NI Contributions need to increase NOW. To this add another time-bomb - Malta's public debt. Luckily most Maltese debt is domestic, not foreign, ie the interest payments go to Maltese hovt bond holders. This does lessen the problem and is in a way an indicator of economic success. The economy continues to generate enought locally produced spare euros to invest in govt bonds, and in addition these bondholders must have faith in Malta, otherwise they would not be risking their money. However at some 70% of GDP, the interest payments on this debts are unsustainable in the short and long term - not with the govt commitments on health, social security and pensions. Apart from the fact that having surplus cash mopped up by govt bonds reduces money available for investment. Reducing our deficit to below 3% will not be an achievement because anything over 0% increases the debt. For comparative purposes, the austerity measures we are seeing in the UK are spurred by a national debt of about 70% of GDP, like ours, though once again, most Maltese debt is domestic, which does make a difference.
Mark Roberts
Oct 25th 2010, 11:42
The low fertility relate is probably due to the lack of family friendly policies and the pressure on women to go out to work. A very high percentage of women are deciding not to have children or if they do its usually just one, which isn't enough to maintain the population of Malta as witnessed in the company I work for. The work force in Malta has been feminised dramtically here in Malta and I feel there is an agenda in Malta to deliberately put women off getting pregnant!