However, Minister Van Hijum writes that he shares the intention of the proposers to involve participants more actively and better in their pensions. He wants to address these concerns in a different way, both to increase support and to make more purchasing power possible. Funds must clearly explain the choice of whether or not to switch to the new system – the so-called transition – and involve participants in this choice. The minister will also look at how more perspective can be provided in the new system for maintaining purchasing power for retirees, while risks between young and old continue to be shared fairly. The House of Representatives will be further informed about this around the summer.
Minister Van Hijum: “What I have struggled with is that there is a tension locked in our pension system. On the one hand, people pay premiums, and some expect direct control over their money. I understand very well that many people feel this way. On the other hand, our pensions are collective: we share risks with each other, the choices of one have consequences for another. Leaving or dividing the collective usually has negative outcomes for the participant. Whether or not to object is actually an impossible choice for people, as the consequences are not known in advance. Between those two perspectives lies tension. I have come to the conclusion that the presumed benefits of the amendment do not outweigh the disadvantages for both the individuals themselves and the executors. However, I want to address the concerns in another way. By involving people better and making even more purchasing power possible, while ensuring that the risks between young and old are shared fairly.”