首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


Longevity risk and retirement income tax efficiency: A location spending rate puzzle
Affiliation:1. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University and the Fields Institute, Toronto, Canada;2. Schulich School of Business, York University and the IFID Centre, Toronto, Canada;1. Department of Mathematics, University of Zagreb, Bijenička 30, Zagreb, Croatia;2. Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering, University of Zagreb, Pierottijeva 6, Zagreb, Croatia;1. School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China;2. School of Mathematical Sciences, Liaocheng University, Liaocheng 252059, China;1. Department of Mathematical Analysis and Applications of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Palacký University, 17. listopadu 12, 771 46 Olomouc, Czech Republic;2. Department for Analysis and Scientific Computing, Vienna University of Technology, Wiedner Hauptstraße 8–10, A-1040 Wien, Austria;1. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, Toronto, Canada;2. Schulich School of Business, Finance Area, York University, Toronto, Canada;1. Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, Centrale Marseille, I2M, Marseille, France;2. University of Waterloo, Canada
Abstract:In this paper we model and solve a retirement consumption problem with differentially taxed accounts, parameterized by longevity risk aversion. The work is motivated by some observations on how Canadians de-accumulate financial wealth during retirement — which seem rather puzzling. While the Modigliani lifecycle model can justify a variety of (pre-tax) de-accumulation or draw down rates depending on risk preferences, the existence of asymmetric taxes implies that certain financial accounts should be depleted faster than others. Our analysis of data from the Survey of Financial Security indicates that Canadian retirees maintain approximately two-thirds of their financial wealth in tax-sheltered accounts and a third in taxable accounts regardless of age. The ratio of taxable to tax-sheltered wealth increases slightly or remains relatively constant depending on household income which is not what one would expect from the lifecycle model. Indeed, using our model we cannot locate a plausible tax function that justifies a constant “account ratio” regardless of age. For example under flat rates taxable accounts should be depleted well before tax-sheltered accounts are ever touched. The account ratio should go to zero quite rapidly in the absence of government mandated withdrawals. We also demonstrate that under progressive income taxes withdrawals are made from both accounts but at different rates depending on account size, pension income and longevity risk preferences. Again, the “account ratio” should eventually decline. We postulate that this sort of behavior is likely due to irrational considerations linked to mental accounting, etc. It remains to be seen whether this will persist over time and under a more careful analysis of Canadian cohorts or if retirees in other countries exhibit the same behavior.
Keywords:Pension planning  Retirement planning  Lifecycle model  Longevity risk  Optimal consumption
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号