Retirees of the future - Deloitte United States...rupt—unless something changes. Governments have...

FEATURE

Retirees of the future Increased worries about income security and growing inequality

Dr. Patricia Buckley and Lester Gunnion

2

It is not only the workforce of the future that presents challenges to business and policy leaders. With more of the current workforce contemplating their postwork future with increasing trepidation, policy changes by the private and the public sector are critical … and this must happen sooner rather than later.

ADVANCES IN HEALTH care, education and nutrition, declining birthrates, and a grow-ing proportion of older adults have put the

world economies in uncharted territory—of plan-ning for retiree benefits. With fewer people entering the workforce, the exit of the older adults from the workforce is creating stress in many gov-ernment retirement plans, particularly in those where retirement payments are funded by current workers (the pay-as-you-go systems). Some of these plans will potentially be in a fund deficit—where taxes coming in will be insufficient to make full and timely payments—in the near term. In other words, the retirement plans will be bank-rupt—unless something changes.

Governments have a tough task on hand as there is more than what meets the eye. Although most governments are encouraging businesses to help ensure a financially secure retirement for their workers and are urging citizens to save for their own retirement income security, the reality is that most people depend on national plans for retirement income-security. However, national plans are stressed for funds and to shore up funds, they are pushing governments to increase retirement ages of workers. This worsens the hardships already borne by lower

income workers and exacerbates the already increasing income inequality, even in retirement.

To illustrate the precariousness of the situa-tion faced by a growing number of countries, we examine the national pension plans for six countries: The United States, China, Japan, India, Brazil, and the Netherlands.

The current state of affairs

The combined public and private retirement systems of the countries examined in this article cover a wide range of combinations of adequacy and sustainability.1 India ranks low on both factors, providing inadequate benefits and falling into the unsustainable range. Brazil ranks high in adequacy of benefits but ranks even lower than India on the sustainability scale. Japan’s pension system ranks slightly higher than Brazil’s in terms of sustainability, but below average in the adequacy of its benefits. China’s pension is equal to Japan’s in terms of benefits and somewhat higher in terms of sustainability. The United States has slightly higher sustainability and adequacy ranks, but it is the Netherlands that compares very well not only with this group but with the entire group of 34 countries that Mercer included in its study—second only to Denmark.2

As the cornerstone of most retiree security-systems is the public component, we focus our discussion on public financing schemes. For example, in the 24 countries from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for which

Pension funds of major economies are stressed for resources in the face of aging populations and falling birthrates. Policy fixes exist, but some of the most popular will further increase income inequality among retirees. Ensuring retiree income-security is a tightrope walk for governments and current and future retirees alike.

Retirees of the future: Increased worries about income security and growing inequality

2

3

data is available, private pension spending aver-aged 1.5 percent of GDP in 2013, equal to just 20 percent of the average public spending on retire-ment benefits.3 A description of the pension plan designs of the countries discussed in this article is shown in figure 1. These countries, with the exception of India, rely on a pay-as-you-go system (payments made by or on behalf of current workers flow to current retirees as a set or defined benefit)

and coverage is universal or near universal. In India, workers get the payout from their individual accounts at age 58. The full retirement age for the more standard pension plans ranges from 50 years to 66 years. Benefit formulae generally factor in wages and years of work, and most programs are financed by a combination of employer and employee contributions, with some countries also including general transfers from the government.

FIGURE 1

A snapshot of government or other mandatory pension plans: The Netherlands offers the best adequacy and sustainability among the countries explored in this article

Country and funding approach Coverage offered Retirement age Average benefit

Funding mechanism

United States Pay as you go

The Old Age and Survivor Insurance program (part of Social Security) is mandatory for all employed and self-employed, with a few exemptions. About 90 percent of persons over 65 currently receive payment.4

Full pension at 66 years, to rise to 67 by 2027; reduced pension at 62 years.5

US$1,461 per month; on average, equates to one-third of the total retirement income for the average retiree.6

Payroll tax of 10 percent, split between the employee and the employer.7

China Pay as you go

Both the Enterprise Employee Basic Pension (covering urban workers) and the Government and Institutions Pension (covering government and institutional employees) are two-tiered mandatory systems.8

60 years for male workers; 55 years for white-collar female workers; 50 years for blue-collar female workers.9

Based on an average of the individual employee’s wage and the average provincial wage, workers accrue 1 percent per year of work (minimum 15 years);10 government and institutional employees’ pensions are double of private employees’ pensions.11

Tier one: 20 percent payroll tax paid by the employer.

Tier two: 8 percent of wages deposited into individual accounts.

The Urban-Rural Resident Social Pension covers rural workers and excluded urban and government workers. It is a two-tiered voluntary system.

Same as above Equals only 2 percent of the amount paid by government and institutional pensions.12

Tier one: Same as the urban plan, but funded by central and local governments.

Tier two: Individual contributions subsidized by local governments.


4

FIGURE 1 Continued


Funding mechanism

Japan Pay as you go

The National Pension System (basic flat rate pension) mandatorily applies to all residents between ages 20 and 59.13

Basic old-age pension paid at 65 years for persons participating for at least 10 years; full benefit paid at 40 years; early retirement option with reduced payment starting at age 60 (70 percent of the payment at age 65) and a later retirement option at age 70 with a higher payment (142 percent of the age 65 payment).14

Approximately US$600 per month (full basic pension).15

Per person monthly contribution of

~US$150, for persons not covered by the Employee Pension Insurance.16

The Employee Pension Insurance (private sector) or the Mutual Aid Association (public sector) mandatorily applies to all employed persons.17

All employees working at least 75 percent of full-time employment.18

At full retirement, the average worker receives about 50 percent of lifetime average working wage.19

Employees and employers together contribute a sum equal to 18.3 percent of salary, which applies to both the National Pension and the Employee Pension Insurance.20

India Fully funded

The Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) administers a mandatory defined contribution system for all workers in establishments with more than 20 employees in the organized sector (be it public, private, or government).21 It covers only 12 percent of total workforce.22

In 2009, the voluntary National Pension System (NPS) was extended to all citizens.23 The NPS also provides a voluntary government-subsidized retirement saving scheme to workers in the unorganized sector.24

Funds in the retirement savings account payable at 58 years, partly as a lump sum and partly as monthly annuities;25

“gratuity” paid when retiring or leaving an organization after at least five years of service.26

Accumulated individual savings and government subsidies

In the EPFO-administered system, both the employee and the employer pay 12 percent of basic wages each into the employee’s account. Total employee contributions are collected as a lump sum on retirement; employer contributions are bifurcated, with 3.67 percent going toward the lump sum payment on retirement and the remaining 8.33 percent toward the monthly annuity post retirement.27


5

FIGURE 1 Continued


Funding mechanism

Brazil Pay as you go

The private sector plan (the Regime Geral de Previdencia Social) is a single-tier system covering all private sector workers.28

65 years for men, 60 years for women, for the minimum pension equivalent to the minimum wage of those working today; should have made 15 years of contribution.29

Full pension may be claimed at any age after completing 35 years of contribution (for men) or 30 years of contribution (for women).30

Average private pension of approximately 1,339 reals (about US$350) per month.31

Payroll taxes from both employer and employee plus revenues from sales taxes, with federal transfers making up for the shortfall.32

A separate public sector plan (the Regimes Próprios de Previdência Social) covers politicians as well as government and army personnel. Only 3% of total pension recipients are covered by the public sector plan.33

Public sector-plan pensions roughly 6.5 times the average private pension of 1,339 reals or about US$350 per month.34

Same as above

The Benefício de prestação continuada, administered by the Lei Orgânica da Assistência Social, covers old and disabled workers who do not qualify for retirement benefits. The Previdencia Rural covers rural workers.35

Equal to the minimum wage, which is more than five times the poverty line-defining limit of 170 reals (about US$55).36

Noncontributory; paid by government transfers.

The Netherlands Pay as you go

The universal public pension system comprises three interconnected programs:

1. Basic state pension (mandatory for employers to offer).

2. Occupational pension (quasi-mandatory—provided by 90 percent of employers).

3. Private pension (used primarily by the self-employed).37

66 years A 2 percent claim to a full basic pension per year of work (a 66-year-old who worked 50 years would receive a full pension of up to 70 percent of minimum wage).38

Financed by a mandatory tax on all residents aged 15 to 65.39

Source: Deloitte analysis.


6

Another important measure of retiree benefits is the replacement rate. Only India has a flat replacement rate of 87.4 percent across income classes, and while it looks impressive, it is not actually as useful as one might believe because a mere 12 percent of the population is covered by the plan (figure 2). The other five countries have progressive replacement rates, i.e., although high earners will receive higher-value pension amounts, lower earners receive a higher propor-tion of their prior earnings than their better-paid peers. Of these countries, only the Netherlands has mandatory private plans. With both private and public plans, the country has a flatter dis-tribution of replacement rates, albeit rates in all three earnings groups are almost 100 percent.

Rough going ahead

While policymakers can debate as to what portion of retirement income governments should have

responsibility for, what is not in debate is that all these programs will face challenges due to aging populations. Although Japan has the most severe imbalance between the size of the working population and the retiree population, all the six economies we are discussing are aging. Even Brazil and India, with their relatively younger populations, will likely face severe demographic headwinds in the future. In the next five years, the ratio of people aged 65 and older to working age population will average just under 30 percent for the OECD countries, but for all these economies that ratio rises rapidly after that (figure 3).

With fewer workers to support a growing number of retirees, the pay-as-you-go pension plans are going to get significantly more expensive. Three of the six countries discussed will see their public pension costs rise substantially as a percentage of GDP between now and 2050 (figure 4). India, Japan, and the United States will not see a large relative increase, but each for

FIGURE 2

Gross pension replacement rates vary across countries (percent of individual earnings)

Mandatory public Mandatory private Total mandatory

Half mean earnings

Mean earnings

One-and-a-half mean earnings

Half mean earnings

Mean earnings


Half mean earnings

Mean earnings


United States 48.3 38.3 31.7 - - - 48.3 38.3 31.7

China 96 76 69.4 - - - 96 76 69.4

Japan 47.8 34.6 30.2 - - - 47.8 34.6 30.2

India 87.4 87.4 87.4 - - - 87.4 87.4 87.4

Brazil 85 69.5 69.5 - - - 85 69.5 69.5

The Netherlands

57.4 28.7 19.1 40.7 68.2 77.3 98.1 96.9 96.5

Source: OECD pensions at a glance, 2017, table 4.5.


6

7

a different reason. In India, pension coverage is very low, and the country follows a fully-funded model. Therefore, public spending as a percentage of GDP could remain unchanged. Japan has undertaken reforms to rein in costs by changing the indexation scheme for benefits and gradually raising the mandatory contribution-rate from 13.9 percent in 2004 to 18.3 percent in 2017.40

The United States’ projected increase is not particularly large, but it is not clear how the system will be funded once the current source of public pension funds runs out. There is only one source of funds for the retirement portion of Social Security—the funds payed into the Old-Aged Survivor Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund. Until 2011,

this trust fund was still growing relative to costs outlays (benefit payments and administration costs). However, according to the intermediate estimates in the 2019 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees, the OASI trust fund reserves will be depleted in 2034. After this point, only an estimated 77 percent of scheduled benefits would be payable.41 In addition, the United States has another major retirement funding issue. A large group of employees—approximately one-quarter of state and local government employees—are not included in the federal Social Security pension plan, but are covered by state and local plans, many of which are extremely underfunded.42

FIGURE 3

Economies are getting older

Old-age dependency ratio, historical and projected, 1950–2075

Sources: World Population Prospects—2017 Revision, United Nations, 2017; OECD Pensions at a Glance, 2017, table 5.5.Deloitte Insights | deloitte.com/insights

20151950 205020251975 2000

United States

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Brazil The Netherlands

India

2075

Note: The demographic old-age dependency ratio is defined as the number of individuals aged 65 and over per 100 people of working age (defined as those between 20 and 64 years).

China Japan


7

8

As for China, the public pension program faces a similar funding-crisis timeline. Public reporting indicates that accumulated pension funds are likely to peak in 2027 before running dry in 2035.43 Despite government support (more on this later in this paragraph), pension funds are likely to be in deficit in 2028 and accumulated deficits are projected to increase to 90 percent of GDP by 2050.44 For now, however, the government can and does make up shortfalls in the various plans. Each of the three two-tiered pension schemes (covering government workers, urban workers, and rural workers; detailed in figure 1) faces funding challenges. The plan for urban workers, for example, is fully funded in principle, but as the retiree population grew, administrators of tier-one funds reached into tier-two funds to make current payments. To add to this, employers fell behind in making their payments. A 2018 survey revealed that only 27 percent of companies paid their entire social security contributions.45 As a result, several individual and notional accounts at the second tier were depleted. Not all hope is

lost, though, as the National Social Security Fund will likely be used to make pension payments.

In general, the risk of poverty increases with age, and public pension funds are in a position to influence it to an extent with appropriate budget planning. For example, funds in the Netherlands and Brazil have been instrumental in reducing poverty among those over 65 to very low levels (figure 5). However, in China, the United States, and Japan, the poverty rates of the elderly are high and exceed even that of children, while

FIGURE 4

Public pension costs as a percentage of GDP are set to rise substantially for some countries

Public pension spending as a percentage of GDP, historical and projected, 2013–2050

Sources: OECD pensions at a glance, 2017, table 7.3 and table 7.5; the United States Social Security Administration.Deloitte Insights | deloitte.com/insights

2013 2050

0%

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

18%

United States India Brazil The

NetherlandsChina Japan


9

in India, the poverty rate among those over 65 is roughly on a par with that of children.

Possible solutions could further increase income inequality among retiree populations

Shoring up public systems while figuring out how to lower (or at least not raise) retiree poverty-rates is a challenge. The two approaches usually considered are (1) increasing mandatory contribu-tions and (2) raising the full retirement age. Each approach is likely to harm those at the lower end of the income spectrum and contribute to income inequality among those 65 years and older.

Income inequality has been increasing across the globe,46 and raising mandatory contributions

will further exacerbate it. The fact that retiree benefits are almost always based on earnings contributes to increased inequality in the retire-ment phase, especially as the lower-paid workers are also much less likely to have access to private pension plans or to be able to save much toward their own retirement. There is also a substantial urban/rural divide, another type of inequality created in some countries. This is certainly true in India and China, and the state and local pension issues in the United States could also contribute to increase in geographic unevenness.The other avenue to shore up the health of public systems is increasing the age when a person can receive full retirement benefits, but this can leave lower-paid workers worse off than the higher earners. Specifically, lower-paid workers are more likely to have physically demanding jobs and a higher likelihood of poorer health, causing them to take early retirement with smaller pensions. In contrast, the more highly compensated workers

FIGURE 5

Brazil and the Netherlands have lowered their poverty rates for the aged

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

United States

India Brazil The Netherlands

Poverty rate by age group

Note: The poverty rate is the ratio of the number of people (in a given age group) whose income falls below the poverty line, which for this purpose is set as half the median household income of the total population. Latest available data ranges from 2011 (India, China), 2013 (Brazil), 2015 (Japan) to 2016 (USA, the Netherlands).

China Japan

Source: OECD.Deloitte Insights | deloitte.com/insights

0 to 17 years 18 to 65 years 66 years and above


10

may be able to work longer, earning higher-than-full-retirement payouts (in countries that have that feature), as they accrue additional savings and private-pension balances and are able to put off drawing down assets for living expenses.

Besides these two popular solutions is the “means-testing” approach. A means-tested public pension system decides eligibility for pension payments based on income and assets. Retired workers with income and assets above a certain threshold are considered ineligible to receive full pension payments, despite having made contributions to the pension system. Such an approach, if adopted, could bolster state coffers, reduce retiree poverty, and narrow inequality after retirement by redistributing wealth. However, the approach has been criticized for discouraging savings, and transition to such an approach in countries where it does not already exist is likely to be contentious.

How will the responsibility for retirement funding change?The current economic environment of low invest-ment returns makes it harder for the funds to fulfill their pension obligations. As a result, there is a palpable retreat from defined benefit models to

defined contribution models, with the burden of providing for the future shifting from the state and the employer to the worker.47 Defined contribu-tion models are common in developing countries, but workers in developed countries are likely to feel unease at the idea of not being guaranteed a pension.48 Nonetheless, such a shift seems neces-sary from a financial-sustainability perspective.

Unfortunately, for older workers, it usually means more work and less leisure, a prospect that has been met with consternation. For instance, in the Netherlands, where the pension system is consid-ered one of the best in the world, workers and trade unions were on strike, in June, against further increase in retirement age and proposed cuts to existing benefits.49 In Brazil, reform proposing a longer period of work before pension benefits can be availed has faced fierce opposition for decades.50 In Japan, the existing pension system catalyzes intergenerational conflict while proposed reform is usually met with political opposition. In the United States and China and even in India, existing pension systems are caught between workforce expectations and what can be provided. Amid all of this, the population of workers on the verge of retirement keeps growing … and so does the problem. The employees are increasingly focused on this issue, so too should the employers.


11

Endnotes1. Monash University, Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index 2018, October 2018.

2. Ibid.

3. OECD iLibrary, “OECD pensions at a glance,” pp. 146–167, accessed July 16, 2019.

4. The United States Social Security Administration, “Fact sheet,” accessed July 16, 2019.

5. Congressional Research Service, “How social security benefits are computed: In brief,” May 3, 2019.

6. The United States Social Security Administration, “Fact sheet.”

7. The United States Social Security Administration, The 2019 annual report of The board of trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, April 25, 2019.

8. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Pensions at a glance 2017: Country profile—China, 2017; Huoyun Zhu and Alan Walker, “Pension system reform in China: Who gets what pensions?,” Wiley Online Library, January 22, 2018.

9. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Pensions at a glance 2017: Country profile—China.

10. Ibid.

11. The Social Protection Platform, Universal Pension Coverage: People’s Republic of China, accessed July 16, 2019.

12. Ibid.

13. Japan Pension Service, “National Pension System,” February 2, 2019.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid; Pension Funds Online, “Pension System in Japan,” February 2, 2019.

17. Japan Pension Service, “National Pension System.”

18. Alfie Blincowe, “Understanding the Japanese Pension System part 1/3: What is it and how does it work?,” GaijinPot, August 2, 2018.

19. All About Japan, “All about pensions in Japan,” March 18, 2019.

20. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Pensions at a glance : How does Japan compare?,” December 5, 2017.

21. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Pensions at a glance: Country profile—India, 2017.

22. Ibid.

23. National Portal of India, “National Pension System,” accessed July 16, 2019.

24. Ibid.

25. Yogima Sharma, “Finance ministry seeks labour ministry help to fund proposed hike in minimum EPS pension,” Economic Times, February 6, 2019; Paisabazaar, “Employees’ Pension Scheme (EPS): Eligibility, calculation & formula,” May 23, 2019.

26. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Pensions at a glance: Country profile—India.


12

27. Sharma, “Finance ministry seeks labour ministry help to fund proposed hike in minimum EPS pension” ; Paisabazaar, “Employees’ Pension Scheme (EPS).

28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Pensions at a glance 2017: Country profile—Brazil, 2017.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

31. Aureo Dias Mesquita, “The case for pension reform in Brazil: An unequal and exhausted retirement system on the verge of collapse,” Wilson Center, May 29, 2018.

32. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Pensions at a glance,” December 5, 2017.

33. Mesquita, “The case for pension reform in Brazil.”

34. Ibid.

35. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Pensions at a glance.”

36. ”Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “OECD policy memo: Pension reform in Brazil,” April 2017.

37. Sociale Verzekeringsbank, “AOW pension,”accessed July 15, 2019; IamExpat, “Pensions & retirement age in the Netherlands,” accessed July 15, 2019; Expatica, “The Dutch pension system,” March 21, 2019.

38. Ibid.

39. Ibid.

40. Sharma, “Finance ministry seeks labour ministry help to fund proposed hike in minimum EPS pension” ; Paisabazaar, “Employees’ Pension Scheme (EPS)”; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Pensions at a glance : How does Japan compare?.”

41. The United States Social Security Administration, The 2019 annual report of The board of trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds.

42. The Pew Charitable Trusts, “‘Lost decade’ casts a post-recession shadow on state finances,” June 4, 2019.

43. Gao Baiyu, “China’s pension system is out of pocket,” Caixin, April 19, 2019; Zheng Bingwen, China Pension Actuarial Report 2019–2050, China Labor and Social Security Publishing, April 2019.

44. Baiyu, “China’s pension system is out of pocket”; Economist, “Paying for the grey,” April 5, 2014.

45. Caixin, “China’s dilemma: Lower tax burden or bigger pension hole,” November 20, 2018.

46. For some examples, see Sonali Jain-Chandra et al., “Inequality in China: Trends, drivers and policy remedies,” IMF working paper, June 5, 2018; Kaja Bonesmo Fredriksen, “Income inequality in the European Union,” OECD working paper, April 16, 2012; Daniel Bachman, Income inequality in the United States: What do we know and what does it mean?, Deloitte Insights, July 12, 2017.

47. John Authers and Brooke Fox, “Legacy of Lehman Brothers is a global pensions mess,” Financial Times, Septem-ber 24, 2018.

48. Ibid.

49. Chris Flood, “Clock ticks louder as Netherlands’ pension crisis intensifies,” Financial Times, June 1, 2019.

50. BBC News, “Bolsonaro proposes pension overhaul for Brazil,” February 20, 2019.


13

Contact usOur insights can help you take advantage of change. If you’re looking for fresh ideas to address your challenges, we should talk.

Practice leadership

Patricia BuckleyDirector | Deloitte Services LP+1 571 814 6508 | [email protected]

Patricia Buckley | [email protected]

Patricia Buckley, Deloitte Services LP, started at Deloitte in September 2012 as the director for eco-nomic policy and analysis with responsibility for researching, framing, and developing the external strategic messaging for Deloitte’s US CEO. Buckley is an expert in critically assessing and synthesizing complex data for the purpose of informing public policy debates at the highest levels of government and business.

Lester Gunnion | [email protected] Lester Gunnion is an economist and assistant manager at Deloitte Insights. He is skilled in macroeco-nomic analysis and country profiling, having covered the economies of Russia, South Africa, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam early in his career. Gunnion also researches and writes on topics spanning sev-eral sectors in the US economy and provides frequent macroeconomic briefings to senior firm leaders.

About the authors


About Deloitte Insights

Deloitte Insights publishes original articles, reports and periodicals that provide insights for businesses, the public sector and NGOs. Our goal is to draw upon research and experience from throughout our professional services organization, and that of coauthors in academia and business, to advance the conversation on a broad spectrum of topics of interest to executives and government leaders.

Deloitte Insights is an imprint of Deloitte Development LLC.

About this publication

This publication contains general information only, and none of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, its member firms, or its and their affiliates are, by means of this publication, rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your finances or your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your finances or your business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser.

None of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, its member firms, or its and their respective affiliates shall be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies on this publication.

About Deloitte

Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) does not provide services to clients. In the United States, Deloitte refers to one or more of the US member firms of DTTL, their related entities that operate using the “Deloitte” name in the United States and their respective affiliates. Certain services may not be available to attest clients under the rules and regulations of public accounting. Please see www.deloitte.com/about to learn more about our global network of member firms.

Copyright © 2019 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved. Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

Deloitte Insights contributorsEditorial: Kavita Saini, Nairita Gangopadhyay, and Preetha DevanCreative: Anoop K R and Tushar BarmanPromotion: Nikita GariaCover artwork: Tushar Barman

Sign up for Deloitte Insights updates at www.deloitte.com/insights.

Follow @DeloitteInsight

http://www.deloitte.com/about

Retirees of the future - Deloitte United States...rupt—unless something changes. Governments have...

Documents

Transcript of Retirees of the future - Deloitte United States...rupt—unless something changes. Governments have...