2017年05月07日

アメリカは定年退職の問題があるがそれは貯蓄の問題とは違う。 政治家はその違いを勉強する必要がある。

America has a retirement problem, not a saving problem
Policymakers need to learn the difference

Apr 18th 2017by B.G.

アメリカは定年退職の問題があるがそれは貯蓄の問題とは違う。
政治家はその違いを勉強する必要がある。



HOUSE Resolution 67, which Donald Trump signed last week, rolls back a rule that the Labor Department finalised late last year, which would have made it easier for cities and counties to run retirement savings plans for citizens who couldn’t get them through work. It is an odd choice for Republicans to kill plans that would encourage private, voluntary, tax-deferred saving, which they tend to approve of. But a trade group for investment funds opposes the city-run retirement plans. The Democrats on Capitol Hill, beset with other problems, are not picking a fight. 

rolls back a rule:規則を戻す
odd choice:奇妙な選択
tax-deferred:課税猶予の・あとになって課税される
beset:悩まされる

They should. The resolution itself is nothing more than a kick in the shins for the three cities, all run by Democrats, that had considered setting up plans—New York, Philadelphia and Seattle. But it points to a larger problem, which neither party has confronted. The United States has a retirement crisis, which it is treating like a savings crisis. They are not the same thing. 

shins:向こう脛

In traditional macroeconomics, all saving serves the same purpose: investment in the capital stock, or new machines to make stuff. Workers either spend from their paychecks on rent and food, or put money away in bonds, shares or savings accounts. Through the magic of capital markets, their savings both return interest and buy machines and tools—capital stock. In turn, this stock becomes component of the basic model for economic growth. These economic models consider only the aggregate sum of all savings: 100,000 funded pensions are worth the same as a single billion-dollar estate. 

make stuff:何か作る機械
put money away :蓄える

It is easy to conclude from economics textbooks that more saving is always and everywhere good. Paul Samuelson, the Nobel prizewinner from MIT who also tutored President Kennedy in 1960, wrote the dominant primer on macroeconomics for 20th-century undergraduates. In an edition from 1973, he explains the way countries form capital: 

tutored:家庭教師として教える
dominant primer:群を抜いた入門書

Two kinds of thrift are involved. First, people must resist the temptation to eat up some of the capital amassed in the past; they must “abstain” from consuming more than their current incomes… Second, if there is to be positive net capital formation, the community must usually undergo “waiting”—in the sense of giving up consumption goods now in return for more such goods in the future. 

thrift:倹約
amassed:蓄える
abstain:控える
community:社会

Mr. Samuelson does concede that a country might save so much that it drives down the value of what it has saved, reducing interest rates. But his language—thrift, resisting temptation, abstention—makes it clear that saving is a virtue. Greg Mankiw of Harvard, whose textbook on macroeconomics has replaced Samuelson’s, is even more explicit that there can be too much as well as too little saving. But when discussing what governments can do to change the savings rate, he proposes solutions that all increase it: higher taxes on consumption, for example, or lower taxes on capital gains. So what all policy-makers learned as undergraduates in 1975 or 1995 is that there could be too much capital in theory, but it is unlikely to be a problem that needs fixing. 

concede:認める
drives down:抑える

There is, now, too much capital. Ben Bernanke, then chair of the Federal Reserve, first described a global savings glut in 2005. It is a well-studied and well-known phenomenon; here is Lawrence Summers of Harvard summing it up last year. And, as predicted in both Samuelson and Mankiw, there are not enough investments to accommodate the world's savings, and interest rates have dropped. Yields for both high-quality corporate bonds and long-term American federal debt are now lower than at any time since 1973 (see chart).

glut:供給過剰
accommodate:に応える

Members of Congress, however, seem to remember only that saving is good. As Washington considers rewriting the tax code, neither party is pushing to raise taxes on dividends, capital gains or estates, all of which could encourage more consumption now and drive down the total level of saving. Republicans have even signalled that they are considering a value-added tax, which discourages consumption. 



They continue to ignore the savings crisis that should worry them: Many Americans do not have enough savings ever to be able to retire. Traditional macroeconomics cares only about aggregate levels of capital stock. There is plenty of that. But it is shared among too few people. The median family of retirement age has $12,000 in savings. That is a terrifying figure for a country where Social Security, the state pension, pays out a maximum of roughly $2,500 a month, and pensions for both public and private employees are underfunded. 

For the median, wage-earning family, the best way to encourage saving is not to lower capital gains taxes or estate taxes, but to give the family access to a retirement plan that delays taxation until retirement. (In his textbook, Mr Mankiw encourages these plans, but only as another way to increase capital investment.) For those who put money into one, median accounts at retirement age rise to about $100,000—still inadequate for a lengthy retirement, but a significant improvement. About 70 percent of Americans have access to these plans through their employers. But just over half use one. 

lengthy:長く続く

The prospect of a large number of old people living in poverty should be as alarming as insufficient capital investment, not least because federal and state governments may be called upon to fix the problem with more money. The city-run savings plans would have addressed one small piece of the problem—offering plans to some private workers who currently do not have them, and encouraging the workers to use them through automatic enrolment. By rejecting the plan, Congress just made cities’ work more difficult. Macroeconomists do not have to care about the difference between a billion-dollar portfolio or 100,000 funded retirement accounts. But policymakers should put down their Samuelson and learn it. 

国家財政上の貯蓄と個人の貯蓄とは異なる事を認識する必要があり、貧しい個人の貯蓄レベルに着目する必要がある。退職前の減税政策を考える必要がある。また、消費を抑制するための課税と、キャピタルゲインに対する減税も考える必要がある。そうすれば低所得者層を救うことができる。

ということは所得に見合った使い方を促進するような政策を考える必要があると言っている。安く物を変えるようにするために、課税を減らすのではなく、逆に高い税金をかけて、消費を抑制するという考えだ。貯蓄の金利を上げて、お金を使わないようにする。問題は経済が停滞してしまう。

月曜日。朝会がある。内藤社長と一緒に製薬会社のFrank社長と合う。ではまた明日。

swingby_blog at 21:59コメント(0)トラックバック(0) 

トラックバックURL

コメントする

名前:
URL:
  情報を記憶: 評価:  顔   星
 
 
 
livedoor プロフィール
プロフィール

海野 恵一
1948年1月14日生

学歴:東京大学経済学部卒業

スウィングバイ株式会社
代表取締役社長

アクセンチュア株式会社代表取締役(2001-2002)
Swingby 最新イベント情報
海野塾のイベントはFacebookのTeamSwingbyを参照ください。 またスウィングバイは以下のところに引っ越しました。 スウィングバイ株式会社 〒108-0023 東京都港区芝浦4丁目2−22東京ベイビュウ803号 Tel: 080-9558-4352 Fax: 03-3452-6690 E-mail: clyde.unno@swingby.jp Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/clyde.unno 海野塾: https://www.facebook.com TeamSwingby
講演・メディア出演

最新記事
月別アーカイブ
Recent Comments
記事検索
ご訪問者数
  • 今日:
  • 累計:

   ご訪問ありがとうございます。


社長ブログ ブログランキングへ
メールマガジン登録
最新のセミナー情報を配信します。
登録はこちらのフォームから↓