Archive for the ‘Taxes & Welfare’ Category

What the government doesn’t pay in pensions it will have to make up for with welfare

Monday, July 7th, 2014

One of the biggest fiscal issues — if not the biggest fiscal issue — facing the government is the expected steep increase in the number of seniors who will require welfare benefits after retirement. Everyone assumes that the various national pension systems by themselves are not enough to sustain a minimum standard of living for the people who receive them, and so they will need additional income, either in terms of savings, returns from investments or wages.

Back to work?

Back to work?

In a recent survey conducted by the prime minister’s office and whose target respondents were people between the ages of 35 and 64, nearly 70 percent said that they are not now, nor do they think they will be, financially prepared for retirement. The government, anticipating this reality, several years ago passed a law to ensure that people who wish to work after their designated retirement age will be able to do so, though, as is often the case with socially-minded legislation, there is no compulsion toward employers to make this happen or any penalties if they don’t. It’s up to the employee and the employer working together.

In any case, when asked if they want to work after “retirement,” 31.4 percent of the respondents said they would after the age of 65, and 20.9 percent said they would want to do so after the age of 70. That means more than 52 percent want to work after the age of 60, which is still the standard retirement age at most companies. When asked why they want to work, 77 percent said “to make a living.”

As far as people who are trying to save money for their old age, only 1.6 percent admitted to having “more than enough,” with 21.7 percent saying they have saved or expect to have saved “the minimum necessary.” Of those who answered that they haven’t saved enough, half admit that their savings is “almost nothing,” with 74 percent in the 35-39 age bracket saying their savings is “insufficient,” which probably means nothing so far.

But perception of what they need is also an important consideration. In a survey conducted in June of 2013, the Ministry of Internal Affairs found that the average household whose head is between 60 and 69 spent ¥259,695 a month. This amount dropped to ¥196,500 for households whose head was over 70. According to another survey conducted by the Central Council for Financial Services Information, respondents who are currently working believe, on average, that a retired person needs ¥260,000 a month to live off of.

The government organ, Japan Pension Service, says that the monthly pension income of a retired “model household” is ¥230,000 a month, which comes down to ¥100,000 for a husband who was enrolled in the company sponsored koseinenkin system, ¥65,000 for the same husband’s basic pension (kiso nenkin), and his wife’s own basic pension of ¥65,000. The model assumes that the husband and his employer paid into both pension systems for a full 40 years, and since the dependent wife, as the spouse of a full-time regular employee, is categorized as a “number 3″ national pension subscriber, she is assumed to have paid her fair share, even though, in reality, she paid nothing.

This model household, however, represents a minority. Many other households have heads who are non-regular workers or who were not consistent in terms of payment schedules over the years. And there are other factors that can reduce what a household can expect. The JPS survey found in July 2013 that the average retired household of a former regular employee who paid into the koseinenkin system was ¥215,780. The monthly benefit for people who paid into the basic pension system for a full forty years is now ¥65,541 a month, but the average payout is ¥49,947. Households whose heads are between 60 and 69 said on average that their pension income was 44,000 less than what they needed.

This latter point is important because payments for the basic pension don’t start until age 65 for both spouses, so even for a model household, that means if the breadwinner retires at 60, their pension income is only ¥100,000 for five years. That means they would need another ¥160,000 to reach the level that most people now think you need when you retire. So for those five years, the couple will be short about ¥9 million in total.

In addition, the government is trying to extend the starting age for koseinenkin payments. Right now it starts at 61, but eventually the government wants it to start at 65, or even later, so that limit will rise gradually in the future, further reducing the pension amounts that people receive if they retire at 60. That’s why the government is trying to encourage employers to retain employees even after their mandatory retirement age. According to Asahi Shimbun, employees who are retained after retirement are essentially let go and then rehired at one-fourth to one-third their former salaries. There is nothing in the new law that guarantees a minimum wage for these workers.

And with boomer retirement increasing through to the middle of the next decade, it’s assumed that senior welfare rolls will just keep increasing as well. In 2011, 46.4 percent of the 2 million people on welfare were over 65. The majority of these people are seniors who only receive basic pensions and have no other income or property. The only bright spot is that many boomers already own their homes, so at least they won’t end up on the streets.

The price is right, but sometimes difficult to read

Sunday, April 27th, 2014

Do the right thing: this supermarket tells customers that all prices indicated include the consumption tax

A quick survey by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communiciations has revealed that the average price of goods and services, excluding “fresh produce,” since the consumption tax hike went into effect April 1 has increased 2.7 percent, which sounds about right since the hike itself was 3 percent. When the consumer price index is announced next month, the ministry projects that it will be 3 percent higher than it was a year ago, so everything is going as planned.

Of course, that’s the word from on high. Here in the real world, meaning in the stores where we all shop, the situation isn’t that clear-cut.

Some consumers will notice that prices have gone up much more than what they would perceive as 3 percent, while some prices have actually gone down, and many prices have stayed the same.

CONTINUE READING about post sales-tax prices →

Australian EPA: Let them eat beef (but not cheese)

Monday, April 14th, 2014

Stuck in the middle: Australian cheese competing in the dairy case with New Zealand and Switzerland

Stuck in the middle: Australia cheese competing in the dairy case with New Zealand and Switzerland

Though its participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership seems to be dead in the water for the time being, last week Japan signed an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with Australia that could revive Japan’s TPP hopes, but before we get to who lost and who won in the Australian deal, let’s talk about cheese.

Personally, we were looking forward to some sort or tariff reduction on Aussie cheese, not because we prefer Aussie cheese over other kinds, but because all so-called natural cheese — meaning not processed — is expensive in Japan owing to the dairy farmers lobby and their demand for high tariffs on imported milk products.

Japan is close to an EPA with the European Union, but the cheese tariff will likely remain. The Australian EPA only addresses natural cheese that is exported to Japan for purposes of being blended with other ingredients to make processed cheese. The tariff on such cheeses will be reduced from 40 to 0 percent over time, but the tariff on natural cheese that is sold to the public in stores will remain at 29.8 percent, so no cheap cheddar right away.

CONTINUE READING about Japan's EPA with Australia →

Some local governments think health checkups save money, and some don’t

Saturday, April 5th, 2014

Preemptive stride: If you do have metabolic syndrome you can guess what the doctor will tell you to do

Preemptive stride: If you do have metabolic syndrome you can guess what the doctor will tell you to do

Though there’s a minority opinion to the contrary, conventional wisdom says that regular health checkups are the only way to prevent the development of major illnesses, so, logically, they should also help reduce healthcare costs in the long run. This is the concept behind tokutei kenko kensa, or “special health checkups,” that were started six years ago by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. The main target is metabolic syndrome, the inevitable gain in fat that accompanies midddle age and which, unchecked, is thought to be the gateway to many so-called lifestyle diseases, like diabetes.

The idea is that local governments would provide checkups to insured residents between the ages of 40 and 74 with national insurance, which, in principle, doesn’t cover regular general health checkups since Japan’s public health system is designed to treat existing problems. If the special checkups uncover unhealthy situations, then the individuals are advised with regard to better diets or exercise regimens, or even pharmaceutical assistance, so as to head off costly treatment down the road, like, for instance, dialysis, which can cost on average ¥5 million a year, most of which ends up being paid for by the government, both local and central.

CONTINUE READING about health checkups →

Consumption tax hike projected to increase appeal of electronic money

Monday, March 24th, 2014

The ones: You'll be seeing more of these guys in the near future

The ones: You’ll be seeing more of these guys in the near future

Last month the national mint intensified production of ¥1 coins in anticipation of the consumption tax hike on April 1. The Ministry of Finance wants 26 million of them manufactured by the end of March, and then another 160 million after the start of the new fiscal year. Once the consumption tax goes up from 5 to 8 percent, retailers will need more small change.

With a 5 percent tax, it’s relatively easy for stores to limit their use of coins since they can set prices based on multiples of 5. Maybe it’s possible to do that with multiples of 8, too, but not right away, and many fear they will not have enough ¥1 coins on hand when the tax hike goes into effect. An employee of the nationwide ¥100 shop CanDo told Asahi Shimbun, “Altough we sometimes receive ¥1 coins in payment from customers, we don’t recycle them as change to other customers, but now we’re trying to hoard as many as possible.”

If the consumption tax increase is an inconvenience to retailers, it’s even more of a pain in the neck for the government, since it costs between ¥2 and ¥3 to make a ¥1 coin, which is 100 percent aluminum. It’s the first time the mint has produced ¥1 coins on anything approaching this scale in four years. It will also produce an extra 100 million ¥5 coins, just to be safe. The government doesn’t want to relive the small change panic that happened in 1989, when the 3 percent consumption tax was first introduced.

CONTINUE READING about the consumption tax hike's effect on e-money →

Government’s new scheme to bolster social security is still hopeless

Monday, March 10th, 2014

This document was sent out several years ago after the government discovered that it had lost the pension payment records of 50 million people. The document would be used to help locate those records. The program was expensive, but very few people responded.

This document was sent out several years ago after the government discovered that it had lost the pension payment records of 50 million people. The document would be used to help locate those records. The program was expensive, but very few people responded.

The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare has announced that starting in April it will “take action” to increase the “collection rate” of national pension premiums, specifically those for kokumin nenkin, the obligatory pension plan for the self-employed and those who otherwise don’t belong to the company-supported kosei nenkin pension system. According to Tokyo Shimbun the idea is to send warning letters to individuals whose incomes are more than ¥4 million and who haven’t contributed for at least 13 consecutive months.

Presumably, the next step will be for the ministry to start siezing assets. The initial criteria would target approximately 140,000 pension scofflaws. Eventually, however, they will go after everyone who hasn’t paid, and since it is estimated that close to 3 million people who should be paying into the system haven’t been for at least 24 months, the job seems daunting if not impossible.

There are many reasons for this delinquency, but the main one has to do with the system itself. Basic pensions apply not only to the self-employed, but anyone who is employed part-time or on a contract basis, meaning their employers don’t pay into the kosei nenkin system. It also includes the unemployed, because according to the law every adult who lives in Japan must belong to the system, whether they work or not. And the premiums are the same, regardless of income or lack thereof: right now ¥15,250 a month (it goes up gradually every year).

The ministry assumes that about 90,000 people who should be “members” are not, and that number is probably higher, but in any case, excluding those who are exempt from paying (very poor, disabled, etc.), the rate of payment into the kokumin nenkin fund was only 59 percent as of 2012, and that portion continues to decline.

In a 2011 government survey, the number one demographic of delinquents was the unemployed, which is easy to understand. However, 28 percent of delinquent payers had part-time jobs, and they said they didn’t make enough to pay. Moreover, 22 percent of the so-called deadbeats were self-employed or working in their families’ businesses. Overall, 74 percent of those who said they couldn’t pay gave their reason as “can’t afford the premiums.” The percentage is increasing because the number of non-regular employees is also increasing.

But the government says that 10.5 percent of households whose income exceeds ¥10 million have also failed to pay their fair share, and it’s these people they are citing first. After that, 17 percent of households with incomes of between ¥5 and ¥10 million are delinquent. Both of these seemingly solvent income brackets say in surveys that they, too, cannot afford the premiums due to “financial difficulties,” but there is also a considerable number who refuse to pay simply because they “don’t trust the system.”

The pension system’s fairness has always been a point of contention. As it stands, if a person pays his fair share for 40 years, the maximum monthly payment he receives at 65 will be ¥66,000, which is not enough to live off of. The main concept behind kokumin nenkin when it was first devised was that the self-employed would still have income from their businesses or the sale of their businesses when they retired. Not only is that not necessarily true, but the bulk of basic pension members are non-regular employees who have nothing else to fall back on when they retire, unless they’ve saved and invested, which is unlikely.

Also, everyone in Japan must also pay into the national health insurance plan, which for most people takes priority since anyone can get sick at any time, but you only retire when you get old. Then there are people with some money who have bought life insurance annuity plans that give them some income when they retire. They may not see the point in paying double for a pension, so they don’t bother paying nenkin.

But the most discouraging aspect of the system is that in order to receive even the minimum payment at retirement, which is less than ¥30,000 a month, you have to pay into the system for at least 25 years. Regardless of one’s mathematical skills, it doesn’t take much calculating to understand that paying ¥15,000 a month for 25 years for a pension that will be so low one will have to apply for supplemental welfare (which is increasingly the case) is not worth it.

What’s particularly maddening about the government’s refusal to acknowledge reality is that it continues to throw money at the problem. Tokyo Shimbun estimates that for every ¥100 that the ministry will collect with its new hardline policy starting in April, it will spend ¥90. In real terms, the ministry has budgeted ¥5.3 billion for “forced collections.” Also, according to the law, it can only make delinquents pay up to two years retroactively, and if the individual has been delinquent for much longer than that the individual may wonder, “What’s the point?,” since he can only receive a pension if he’s paid for a full 25 years.

There is no sense to the system, especially when you consider that the Democratic Party of Japan wanted to change it to something more rational, and made the Liberal Democratic Party promise to revise the system when it gave up the reins of government in December 2012. Since then the LDP has done nothing, because it believes that any change would be unfair to the people who have paid into the system properly all along. Famous last words.

Tax structure encourages getting wasted

Monday, March 3rd, 2014

Zero's not in it: Selection of Suntory chuhai at discount store

Zero’s not in it: Selection of Suntory chuhai at discount store

There’s no end to speculation as to how the consumption tax increase in April will affect the country, socially as well as economically. Last week, Tokyo Shimbun published a conversation between a college professor and one of its reporters about the effect on beer prices and, in turn, beer consumption, which last year declined for the ninth year in a row.

When the reporter asks the professor about this effect the professor feigns amazement that the reporter, who specializes in tax matters, didn’t know that “42 percent of the price you pay for your beer is already tax.” He goes on to explain that the beer tax is a holdover from the 19th century, when beer was considered a luxury item. Since then it’s become much more the drink of common people thanks to improved and cheaper refrigeration, but the government liked the revenues too much and maintained the tax structure for beer. To the professor’s thinking, the tax should be pegged to alcoholic content, and since beer’s is relatively low the tax should also be lower than it is for other alcoholic beverages.

It’s easy to get people to pay the tax since it isn’t indicated on the package or even at the place of sale, unlike the consumption tax. For the sake of reference, when you buy a 350-ml can of beer you pay ¥77 in tax. If you bought the same volume of whiskey you’d pay ¥129 in tax; shochu ¥70, nihonshu ¥42 and wine ¥28.

Basically, that means the consumption tax is levied on a tax, since the consumption tax is determined by the price that the wholesaler and retailer pays for the product, which, by the time they receive it, already includes the alcohol tax that is levied at the manufacturing stage. “When the government said they’d increase the consumption tax, people got angry,” says the professor. “But no one says anything about the alcohol tax, because people don’t notice it.” The reporter thinks that a “tax on a tax” violates the principle of taxation. The professor doesn’t disagree, and adds that beer accounts for half the revenues brought in by the alcohol tax. Because beer makers are large companies with responsible accounting practices, it’s easy for the Finance Ministry to collect the tax. The reporter says, “Why don’t manufacturers get angry?”

Actually, that’s why they started making the “beer-like” happoshu in the late ’90s. Because the ingredients used in happoshu are different from those that define beer for tax purposes, the beer tax doesn’t apply, and so makers could sell it at a much lower price. The government, of course, didn’t like that and eventually raised the tax rate for happoshu, too, though not as high as it is for beer (¥46 for a 350-ml can). Makers came back again with dai-san (third type) beverages, which use fermented soybeans for flavor instead of hops, and that got around the happoshu tax (¥28 for 350-ml). But while these new, cheaper brews outsold “real” beer handily, sales for all three beverages have still decreased over time, due to the shrinking population and a younger generation of consumers who don’t drink as much as their parents did.

In that regard, beer makers don’t see much of an impact of the consumption tax hike on beer and beer-like beverage sales; or, at least, they don’t see any point in trying to offset the hike. But they are modifying their lines of canned drinks that contain shochu, colloquially called chuhai. As the price of chuhai goes up thanks to the consumption tax, they are increasing the alcohol content. In fact, many companies have already added more alcohol to their chuhai products.

Kirin Beer increased its Hyoketsu Strong from 8 percent to 9 percent alcohol, and in April it will boost its Hon-shibori Lime chuhai drink from 6 to 8 percent.

Asahi Beer is already advertising its new Karakuchi Shochu Highball, which is 8 percent, in a bid to persuade normal fans of high balls — whiskey and soda — to switch to shochu and soda. That’s a full 5 percentage points higher than Asahi’s other chuhai, Slat, and both beverages will be sold for the same price. (Note: Slat is aimed at young women and the word suggests slimness, though an English speaker may be forgiven for thinking the name an unfortunate choice for such a target group.)

Suntory’s chuhai product, -196 Degrees C Strong, which enjoyed a 22 percent share of the chuhai market in 2012 thanks to its already hefty alcohol content, will be strengthened from 8 to 9 percent. The company told Asahi Shimbun that it expects sales to grow by 8 percent.

The target is middle-aged and elderly men, the main demographic for alcoholic beverages anyway. Makers think they will be attracted to the cost effectiveness, according to the Asahi, which means they can “get drunk more easily” for the same amount of money. In many countries, tax on alcohol is referred to as a “sin tax,” since it has a double-edged purpose: raising revenues on a product or service that may be harmful to society, on the one hand, and on the other checking consumption of the harmful product or service by making it more expensive.

This latter purpose doesn’t seem to apply in Japan, where alcohol companies have figured out a way to use the tax structure to their advantage. There’s no sin in that.

RSS

Recent posts