Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Estimated parameters_
| Annual income above one income base amount | Business income above 0.25 denotes significance at 10% | |
|---|---|---|
| Constant | 0.4371 significance at 1%. | 0.0301 significance at 1%. |
| p (before reform = 0, otherwise 1) | 0.0765 significance at 1%. | 0.0122 significance at 1%. |
| t (Age 66 = 1, otherwise 0) | -0.3283 significance at 1%. | -0.0143 significance at 1%. |
| Reform (p × t) | 0.0313 significance at 1%. | 0.0106 significance at 1%. |
| Highest education secondary school | 0.0412 significance at 1%. | -0.0034 |
| Highest education university | 0.1615 significance at 1%. | 0.0098 significance at 1%. |
| Married | -0.0316 significance at 1%. | 0.0067 significance at 1%. |
| Male | -0.0140 denotes significance at 10% | 0.0301 significance at 1%. |
| Married and male | 0.1103 significance at 1%. | 0.0175 significance at 1%. |
| Foreign-born | -0.1168 significance at 1%. | -0.0249 significance at 1%. |
| Self-employed | 0.2883 significance at 1%. | —— |
| Self-employed and foreign-born | 0.0874 significance at 1%. | —— |
| Medium-sized city | -0.320 significance at 1%. | -0.0048 significance at 5% |
| Rural | -0.0364 significance at 1%. | 0.0049 denotes significance at 10% |
| Mean for percentage with income in the entire sample | 0.387 | 0.057 |
| Mean for percentage with income in the treatment group before the reform | 0.166 | 0.044 |
| The estimated reform efect without control variables | 0.0382 significance at 1%. | 0.0117 significance at 1%. |
Probability of collecting old-age pension_
| Variables | Men | Women |
|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 771.6555*** | 1244.0820*** |
| Initial value | 12.5024*** | 10.4820*** |
| 2010 | 3.2093*** | 2.4360*** |
| 2011 | 4.0886*** | 3.3542*** |
| Age | -25.9246*** | -40.5899*** |
| Age2/100 | 21.4813*** | 32.9001*** |
| Compulsory school | 1.0436*** | 0.7356*** |
| Secondary school | 0.9632*** | 0.5444*** |
| Large city | -0.3362*** | -0.3831*** |
| Native-born | 0.8478*** | 0.7693*** |
| Replacement rate | 1.4188*** | 1.4211*** |
| Income above cap | 0.4773*** | 0.1591 |
Summary of evaluations of effects on the employment rate of targeted tax reductions for older workers_
| Reform effect Estimated parameter | Percentage effect in relation to mean, entire sample | Percentage effect in relation to mean, treatment group before the reform | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pirttilä and Selin (2011) | 0.020 | 3 | 19 |
| Data: LFS, 2001–2010 | |||
| Control: 55–64, Treatment: 65–74 | |||
| Mean | |||
| Entire sample, 60% Rough estimate based on Figure A5 | |||
| Treatment group before reform, 10.3% | |||
| Ministry of Finance (2012) | 0.07 | 18 | 47 |
| Data: HF, 2004–2009 | |||
| Control: 64, Treatment: 66 | |||
| Probit model | |||
| Mean | |||
| Entire sample, 38.8% Calculated based on Table 7.1 | |||
| Treatment group before reform 15% Estimate based on Chart 7.1 | |||
| Laun (2012) | 0.015 | 5 | 8 |
| Data: Total population, 2001–2009 | |||
| Control: Aged 65 Jan–Feb | |||
| Treatment: Aged 65 Nov–Dec | |||
| Only individuals with income 1996–2000 | |||
| Mean | |||
| Entire sample 30.6% | |||
| Treatment group before reform 19,3% Calculated based on LINDA data | |||
| Flood (2016) | 0.031 | 8 | 19 |
| Data: LINDA, 2004–2011 | |||
| Control: 64, Treatment: 66 | |||
| Mean | |||
| Entire sample 38.7% | |||
| Treatment group before reform 16.6% | |||
| Flood (2016) | 0.022 | 7 | 13 |
| Data: LINDA, 2004–2011 | (Signifcant at 10%) | ||
| Control: Aged 65, Jan–Mar | |||
| Treatment: Aged 65, Oct–Dec | |||
| Mean | |||
| Entire sample 31.4% | |||
| Treatment group before reform 16.2% | |||
| Flood (2016) | 0.011 | 19 | 24 |
| Data: LINDA 2004–2011 | |||
| Self-employed | |||
| Control: 64, Treatment: 66 | |||
| Mean | |||
| Entire sample 5.7% | |||
| Treatment group before reform 4.4% |
Net present value of general government net lending in SEK billions and percentage change compared with the reference alternative_ The calculations refer to the period of 2015–2035 and individuals older than 60_
| SEK billions | Percentage change compared with reference alternative | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No discount | Discount rate 3% | No discount | Discount rate 3% | |
| Reference alternative | –7,532 | –5,537 | ||
| Increased JSA at 66 | –7,023 | –5,199 | –6.7 | –6.1 |
| Increased JSA at 61 | –7,085 | –5,243 | –5.9 | –5.3 |
Working hours/week, 2014_
| Women | Men | |
|---|---|---|
| 55–64 | 36.1 | 40.0 |
| 65–69 | 24.3 | 28.1 |
| 70–74 | 13.8 | 21.3 |
Statistics for individuals aged 64 and 66 (2004–2011)_
| 64 | 66 | |
|---|---|---|
| Percentage with annual income above one income base amount | 0.53 | 0.22 |
| Percentage with business income above 25% of one income base amount | 0.06 | 0.05 |
| Percentage highest education compulsory school | 0.31 | 0.34 |
| Percentage highest education secondary school | 0.52 | 0.51 |
| Percentage highest education university | 0.16 | 0.15 |
| Percentage married | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| Percentage male | 0.53 | 0.55 |
| Percentage foreign-born | 0.12 | 0.12 |
| Percentage self-employed | 0.08 | 0.08 |
| Percentage residing in a large city | 0.31 | 0.31 |
| Percentage residing in a medium- sized city | 0.40 | 0.40 |
| Percentage residing in rural area | 0.29 | 0.30 |
| Number of individuals in the sample | 47,342 | 41,381 |
Size of old-age pension assuming collection_
| Variables | Men | Women |
|---|---|---|
| Constant | 11.560*** | 11.198*** |
| 61 | -1.028*** | -1.146*** |
| 62 | -0.731*** | -0.829*** |
| 63 | -0.605*** | -0.720*** |
| 64 | -0.519*** | -0.568*** |
| 65 | -0.383*** | -0.354*** |
| Compulsory school | -0.534*** | -0.339*** |
| Secondary school | -0.344*** | -0.212*** |
| Large city | 0.103*** | 0.109*** |
| Native-born | 0.385*** | 0.250*** |
| Replacement rate | 1.010*** | 1.292*** |
| Replacement rate2 | -0.173*** | -0.246*** |
Attempt to replicate some results for evaluations of the effects on the employment rate of the targeted tax reductions for older workers_
| Reform effect Estimated parameter | Percentage effect in relation to mean, entire sample | Percentage effect in relation to mean, treatment group before the reform | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comparison, Ministry of Finance | 0,06 | 16 | 36 |
| Data: LINDA, 2004–2009 | 0,05 | 13 | 30 |
| Control: 64, Treatment: 66 | 0,026 | 7 | 16 |
| Probit model evaluated at mean | |||
| Probit model, mean of individual values | |||
| OLS | |||
| Mean: | |||
| Entire sample 37.6%** | |||
| Treatment group before reform 16.6%*** | |||
| Comparison 1, Laun | 0,021 | 5 | 11 |
| Data: LINDA, 2001–2009 | |||
| Control: 64, Treatment: 66 | |||
| Only individuals with income 1996–2000 | |||
| Mean: | |||
| Entire sample 39.9% | |||
| Treatment group before reform 18,0% | |||
| Comparison 2, Laun | 0,024 | 8 | 12 |
| Data: LINDA, 2001–2009 | (Significant at 10%) | ||
| Control: age 65 Jan–Mar | |||
| Treatment: age 65 Oct–Dec | |||
| Only individuals with income 1996–2000 | |||
| Mean: | |||
| Entire sample 28.6% | |||
| Treatment group before reform 19,3% |
Evaluation of the increased JSA based on the 2014 rule system_
| Increased JSA for people age 66 and older | Increased JSA for people age 61 and older | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without behavioral modification, percent (1) | With behavioral modification, percent (2) | Without behavioral modification, percent (3) | With behavioral modification, percent (4) | |
| Employment rate | 0 | 13.3 | 0 | 3.8 |
| Working hours | 0 | 9.0 | 0 | 5.9 |
| Pension income | 0 | -0.2 | 0 | -0.3 |
| Labor income | 0 | 6.9 | 0 | 2.9 |
| Income tax | -1.0 | -0.3 | -1.8 | -1.3 |
| Transfers | 00 | 0 | -0.4 | |
| Disposable income | 0.4 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 1.3 |
| VAT | 0.4 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 1.3 |
| Payroll taxes | 0 | 3.7 | 0 | 2.0 |
| Total budget efect, SEK millions | -432 | 275 | -1,514 | -66 |