|
97
Table 4.2.
Finland. Continued
1997
Elements
Correct'
data
Ill, 1 week
-1.5
Unemployed 3 months,
- 9.8
insured
Unemployed 12 months,
- 39.3
insured
Unemployed 3 months,
- 15.5
non-insured
Unemployed 12 months,
- 71.9
non-insured
Wife unemployed
- 10.6
12 months, insured
Injuries work,
- 7.7
100 % loss
Injuries work,
- 2.2
33 1/3 % loss
Pensioner,
- 34.2
full working history
Pensioner,
- 67.7
no working history
Pensioner couple,
- 30.4
full working history
Family
1 child
+4.5
2 children
+10.0
3 children
+16.5
Maternity
Max. period
- 7.3
Common period
- 2.0
'Correct' data for 1994 are defined as the published gross wage data in OECD's 'The
Tax/Benefit Position of Production Workers', 1995 Edition, for 1995 and 1996 it is the
98
gross wage data in
The Tax/Benefit Position of Employees', 1996 and 1997 editions
respectively.
Table 4.2 contains the results of the repeated calculations based upon 'correct' data as well
as the original calculations from 'Elements'. The deviations for each year are commented
upon in the following.
Comments on table 4.2
1994
The estimate of the APW gross income was almost 2 per cent too low in 'Elements' com-
pared to 'correct' data. This alone implies a projection error which will have an impact in
all cases where the benefit includes a flat rate element. This is the case in situations with
unemployment benefits, pensions and family allowances. There were, however, also other
errors in the original calculations which interact with the projection errors.
The cases where the projection error is the only one which has an impact is the unemploy-
ment cases where the recipient is not eligible for the earningsrelated component, the basic
pension (no former work history) and the family allowances. Here 'correct' data results in
a negative impact (unemployment and pensions) which is a little larger and a positive
impact (family allowances) which is a little smaller than in 'Elements', just as should be
expected.
In the earningsrelated U.B. cases the income base should have been reduced by 3.5 per
cent before calculation of the benefit, this has been done in the 'correct' data cases. The
result is a somewhat larger negative impact on disposable income in the 'correct' data
calculation, both as a result of this correction and because the larger wage income in
'correct' data has an impact in the same direction on the flat rate component of the benefit.
The
correct' data calculation of U.B. is on a daily basis, implying a slightly smaller nega-
tive impact than from the short cut method used in
Elements'.
The benefit related to injuries from work is income related. The significant difference in
the case of 1/3 loss of working capability is because the benefit was incorrectly reduced in
'Elements' (by 1/3 where there should be no reduction).
Concerning pensions, the basic amount (437 FIM/month) was not allocated to the single
pensioner with a full work record in 'Elements'. Correction for this error increases the net
replacement rate by approximately 2 percentage points. This error was repeated for the
pensioner couple, but was partly counteracted by too large a deduction in the tax calcula-
tion (local tax). The net result is an increase of approx. 1.5 percentage points in the net
replacement rate when 'correct' data are applied.
99
In the cases with maternity leave the income base for calculation of the benefits should
have been reduced by 3.5 per cent, just as in the cases with earningsrelated U.B. A counter-
acting error was made in 'Elements' in the tax calculation where the taxable income (for
local taxation) of the mother was too high resulting in too high taxation. The overall effect
of the corrections is a negative impact which is a little larger when based upon 'correct'
data than upon projected data ('Elements').
1995
In 1995 the APW estimate in 'Elements' was more than 4 per cent below the 'correct' gross
wage estimate. This again implies a projection error impact on benefits with flat rate ele-
ments, i.e. unemployment benefits, pensions and family allowances. There were also other
errors in the original calculations, although fewer than in 1994.
The projection error is 'alone' in all cases of unemployment benefits, the basic pension (no
former work record) and family allowances. Here the negative impact (unemployment
benefits and basic pension) is somewhat larger in the calculations based upon 'correct' data
than in 'Elements' and the positive impact (family allowances) is somewhat lower, no
surprises. The isolated effect of the U.B. calculation on a daily basis in
correct' data is a
slightly smaller negative impact than when the short cut method from
Elements' is applied.
Concerning injuries from work, the benefits in the case with 1/3 loss of working capability
were unduly reduced, just as in the 1994 calculations. The negative impact in this case is
substantially smaller when based upon 'correct' data.
For pensioners with a full former work record, the error from 1994 was repeated, the basic
amount of the national pension (445 FIM/month) should have been added, but was not.
The net replacement rates based upon 'correct' data are 3-4 percentage points higher in
these cases than in 'Elements'. There were no counteracting errors for the APW-couple in
1995.
For maternity leave benefits there were no errors, and the two sets of calculations are very
close.
1996
The 1996 APW gross wage estimate in 'Elements' was slighty above the 'correct' data
estimate, so there is no projection error of any significance. No other errors have been
discovered, so the two sets of calculations should be almost identical. This also turns out
to be the case. Only the U.B. calculations on a daily basis in
correct' data result in a
somewhat smaller negative impact than when the short cut method from
Elements' is
applied.
The calculations are documented in appendix 3
100
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
