A Comparison of Dutch and American Social Safety Nets - Part 5

This is a joint effort by Frank Thomas who is an American expat who has lived in the Netherlands for over 30 years and myself.The  previous work can be found here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Frank has contributed all the information about the Netherlands which is the greater part of the work. In this section we consider how each society provides for those in poverty, those with little or no income and temporarily or permanently unable to work - in other words "the least among us." The Dutch social assistance system guarantees a minimum income for people who are not able to support themselves – offering sufficient financial resources (limited in amount and managed in duration)  to achieve a “minimum acceptable”  lifestyle. The support takes the form of income support, activation, and specific basic facilities for most people against poverty and exclusion.

The SVB (central Social Security Institution, called the Social Insurance Bank) administers a social assistance program as follows:

1) Poverty

2) Social Assistance

3) Rights and Obligations

4) Decentralized Administration

5) Making Work Rewarding

6) Poverty Trap

7) Productivity Gap

Poverty

Poverty is seen as existing when people are afflicted by several problems simultaneously, including:

   - poor employment
   - inability to make ends meet
   - reduced ability to do things independently
   - poor state of health         

         
Social Assistance

Local Authorities play a very important role in the social assistance, activation, and reintegration measures, since they are responsible for administering social assistance. The Dutch social assistance system is based on the principle that citizens are capable of supporting themselves independently  (the ‘welfare-to-work’ goal). Those who are unable to do so are given income and support in finding work for as long as strictly necessary. In this regard, the Reformed Social Assistance Act puts great emphasis on self-activation with broad freedom and responsibility of the local authorities.

Rights and Obligation

Social assistance in the Netherlands takes the form of a cash benefit at a subsistence level for those who cannot support themselves and is paid to all eligible persons above 18 years of age. A precondition for receiving assistance benefits is that people must actively look for work and accept any reasonable work offer.       

Benefits
         
Single people receive 50% of the minimum wage, single parents receive 70%, and a married couple 100%. Additional allowances (from local sources, for example) are limited to 20% of the minimum wage for a single person and a single parent. Local authorities may deviate from general standards on the basis of individual assessments. The benefit for younger people can be reduced, for example, if a local authority sees that the full benefit makes employment unattractive to the recipient.

Decentralized Administration
    
Local authorities receive two budgets: one budget for benefit payments and one for local active labor market measures, referred to as the reintegration budget. The local authority may keep any budget surplus, but it must also finance any deficit out of its own resources.  This is to stimulate efficiency.

The size of the reintegration budget, for example,  depends on the economic cycle. Currently, local authorities are required to spend most of the budget in the private market (to reintegration service providers). This is to ensure best possible price to quality ratio.

The discretionary budget for local authorities enables the latter to customize their approach to limiting inflow into the social security system and encouraging people to get off benefits (again, the ‘welfare-to-work’ goal).

Making Work Rewarding

The strict focus here is to reduce the Poverty Trap Effect and to tackle the Productivity Gap, i.e., to make it attractive for employers to hire the less educated.

Poverty Trap
  
This exists when it is not financially worthwhile for the unemployed  who receive a benefit to do paid work. This abuse is strictly controlled. For example, any existence of local income-dependent support schemes on top of the central government's basic benefit will result in the loss of the latter, thus reducing income and abuse of system.

Productivity Gap

A productivity gap exists when it is not financially rewarding for employers to take on unskilled workers at the minimum wage because of their low level of productivity. To remove this threshold, local authorities can provide wage subsidies to employers out of their discretionary reintegration budget.

NOTES:

This may all sound very Socialistic but on the contrary it has played a key role in the historically relatively low unemployment rates in the Netherlands - in the 3-4% range … excepting now, of course, when, due to the economic crisis, the current rate is moving towards the 5-6% range. ‘Welfare-to-work’ is working!

Another  positive factor is that the Netherlands has a relatively low National Debt per capita of about $19,000 vs. $37,000  per capita in the US based on a current total National Debt of $11.0 trillion.  They achieve this by a tough balance-budget discipline.

In general the Dutch government and general population can be brutally realistic whenever social safety net programs need adjustments, reductions, and /or refinements to meet new economic conditions and/or inequities. The Dutch are an extremely prudent, hard-working people who have a deep dislike for all forms of debt, including credit cards. The average Dutch person has but 2 credit cards and the approval amounts are strictly controlled by law based on total debt obligations to income.

In contrast, in the US, credit card limits and interest rates and various other charges are totally up to the credit card company which can raise or lower rates and other charges at whim.

In the US there is the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program which is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income. It is paid out of general tax revenues and not out of social security taxes. It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter. The program is authorized by Title XVI (Supplemental Security Income for the Aged, Blind, and Disabled) of the Social Security Act. Beginning in January 1974, SSI replaced the Federal/State matching grant program of adult assistance to the aged, blind, and disabled. Under SSI, there is no minimum age limit for establishing eligibility based on blindness or disability.

Although some of your earned income is counted against the SSI income limit, benefit amounts are not reduced dollar-for-dollar as the result of income from work. Thus, you are encouraged to work if you can. Blind and disabled recipients, if they are capable, are referred to the appropriate State vocational rehabilitation agencies for services to help them enter the labor market. In most States, they also permit continued Medicaid coverage after cash payments end.

For 2009 in the US the Federal Full Benefit monthly rate for an individual is $674. For Eligible Couples it's $1011.00. In the Netherlands the minimum wage is $1356. euros or $1784. Therefore, the equivalent of SSI would be 50% of $1784. or $892. or about 1/3 more than in the US for a single person. For a married couple the rate would be $1784. in the Netherlands vs. $1011. in the US or about 76% more. So the "world's richest country" is nowhere near as generous as the Netherlands when it comes to providing for "the least among us." The US does provide a Medicaid benefit of $30. per person.

Eligibility in the US is hard to determine from their website. But SSI is not available to anyone except the aged, blind and disabled according to their literature. Therefore, if one is destitute but able bodied, it appears that it would not apply allowing an untold number of people to "fall through the cracks." The Dutch elegibility requirements are not as strict. In general one only need be destitute.

In general the programs in the US and in Holland are similar although the Dutch benefits are considerably greater than in the US.

Also posted as a comment on Robert Reich's blog.
 

Comments

[John Lawrence]

John,

There is always a place to go to eat, sleep and shower in Holland, even for the chronically homeless -- funded by the government as well as non-profit charitable groups as in America. For those vulnerable with insufficient income or costly housing, rental susidies or living accommodations are provided by local communities depending on confirmed needs. This subsidized social-assistance is funded by central government and administered by local communities..

Regards, Frank

[John Lawrence]

John,

The word "facilities" includes an array of social benefits in addition to housing support and even accommodations for the extremely poor. The word "exclusion" refers to all programs to Reintegrate the poor to working functions to minimize the risk of extreme isolation and hence loss of any interest to get back on their feet. There's been a noticeable improvement in the duration of Dutch Social Assistance as evidenced by fact that over the last 15 years a little less than 25% of all benefit recipients received Social Assistance benefits for three years or longer. Still, the Dutch are striving to do better.

Combating Poverty in the Netherlands is an important role of the Local Authorities based on an integrated approach of tailor-made Benefit and Reintegration Budgets: (a) combining, for example, assistance measures with an active drive for socio-economic reintegration and playing a direct role in the reintegration of the (long-term) unemployed; (b) offering municipal income support for households on a minimum income (e.g., the elderly), debt relief assistance, budget assistance; (c) arranging provisions for the homeless, i.e., living accommodations; and (d) administering social work.

Thanks for all your wonderful efforts John!

Frank

[John Lawrence]

In general the programs in the US and in Holland are similar although the Dutch benefits are
considerably more generous than in the US.

Michael says; First This a bit long, but is a respectful desent to Johns and Franks comparisons
John,
Your conclusion reached a just a bit in haste!!!
The social safety net is by far much more extensive in the USA than your comparison and the conclusion suggests.

You have actually missed or don't know how extensive the entire social net is, thou certainly and always this net could and can be improved to giving more services to the needy, also to being more cost efficient.

As Frank wrote the Dutch are prudent, as so should we be.
Now Frank does hedge what he says by saying always that the Dutch don't have the problems we here in the USA have, yet we do indeed deal with them.

First the differences are 1)size of the 2 countries, 2)the populations, 3)age demographics, 4)immigration policy's, just to briefly touch on a few and there certainly are more than a few more

Next you have left off way more than I'd guess maybe 50% of the net here---and the net varies from not just State to State but actually county to county in the states---depending on the way the State has it set up---each State gets money from the Federal Government for many many programs---this money is supposed to be somewhat matched by the States---the details get mind boggling---

I know you live in or around the area of the city of San Diego in Southern Calif. I live in the city and County of Los Angles also in Southern Calif. We both get some what similar benefits from the State, but how the counties administer this or the benefits can be a world apart just from the 150 miles that separate where we live---

Here in the State of Calif. we have a Section 8 federal and State run housing program---that actually can and does supply a person rent subsidies to maybe 1500 a month---and more---just have to be poor, and patient, as the process is slow moving----Across the entire Nation we have food stamps programs----again this comes from the Federal Government, but then to the States, and the Counties administer it for state in their county---here in Calif this the way it works---in other states it works in a completely different way---right wrong or indifferent these are the way reality is---

Just like out Presidential Elections are not Federal Elections, they are State elections, set up and controlled differently in each State---actually they usually are different in each county, names on the ballot may be the same, then again some of the third party candidates are not on all 50 States as the candidate didn't follow that States way or rules---to get on the ballot---so in Rome do as the Romans do.

So you skipped the Food stamp program, and that's a big skip too----there is the WIC program also--for milk and food and other supplies for children that is above this basic food stamp---the small matter of the Federal tax code that actually gives family's with dependant children more money back than they even paid in tax---on their returns---about 1500 dollars, and this I believe was just expanded----

Many of these programs are not dependant on the years one has lived here ---be you a citizen of the country or not---be it Social Security, SSI, or what ever-----Then another small program you left off for the poor, be they 22, 44, or 60, as you do know we have a little thing called the constitution and last I checked it was still against the law to actually discriminate because of age, race, gender, and poor counts too as a few other small things do too---not that it is not done---just it is against the law---

Gee how about "meals on wheels for the elderly??--that is a nation wide program too---just for the poor and older folks---Here in LA the County will come and take an elderly person to the senior center, or to a day camp for the older people--3-5 days a week and both ways--they will take them to the airport, to and from a Dr., to see a sick person and it's all free real hard to put a dollar cost to this as the person doesn't get cash but a service-----go to another State and they have none of this, or maybe some but not all---as I said it is different State by State--

Here in the County of Los Angles an older person on SSI can get a person to help them under conditions called out---to help them shop, clean, and what ever everything---and the County will pay this person up to currently 850 dollars a month---yes it's taxed wages--but if your 86 and need help the county will either have a social worker come and do these things---or the 86 year old can say get a daughter, grand daughter, friend or pick anyone they trust---and then some paperwork filled out---and the County will pay them this 850 dollars, as it ends up cheaper for the county, no pension, health benefits to pay to the helper, and the older person gets the needed help

Then the Medicaid and Medi-Cal programs---Here in California there is Medi-Cal---other States there is from something to zero---Why? suggest asking the States that---Start with the Governors of the States that recently turned down the un-employment benefit help---

Thus I can't go along with the comparison, and your conclusion especially your conclusion that the benefits are considerably more generous in the Netherlands----maybe as compared to the States of these above mentioned Governors and a few more---but certainly not here in Calif. and many other States too

Last I'll add this little thing, you also skipped the general welfare programs--(completely)--they pay 160 a month in cash, well you missed a few things and I just hit some of the bigger ones----there are many many more parts to our total safety net I guess your lucky enough never to of had to know anything about----

Respectfully Michael

Thou I appreciate your great work I find it has some Flaws.

Michael

[John Lawrence]

Michael, cc: John Lawrence

You are hitting upon aspects of the structural problem distorting all social-nets in the States including health care and pre-college education. And that is a complete lack of some fundamental, simple HARMONIZATION of diverse system workings, taxes and administrative organs Within states and Among states and the Federal government.

Result is a mixed, chaotic, unequal quality and service ... the intensity of which varies by location, ability to migrate through the labyrinth of benefits, one's income, plus a measure of luck.

Little wonder, for example, Republican leaders have for years had an open field to critisize social welfare programs and lyingly accuse Democrats of being proponents of Big Government and Socialized Medicine ... while the Republican hierarchy cycnically leans back, relying cycnically on the principles of "To each his own and everyone for himself."

There are many positive examples of benevolent and effective private social assistance in the states. I recall when I was in involved in commercial real estate development there, I visited Utah a number of times. I was deeply impressed with how the Mormons unselfishly come to the immediate aid of fellow Mormons and others who are in trouble as well as their culture of being untiring mentors for young people having dificulties.

I've described how European countries are ethnically and historically rather harmonius entities occupying small, densely populated land territories with a restricted labor mobililty among countries. This not only requires but also makes the inner social-net and infrastructure workings of each country -- with healthy multi-party system inputs -- very Overseeble, Transparent, and relatively more easily Manageable than the geographically widespread US 50 state conglomerate situation ... all on a bi-polar roller coaster of political change bringing much discontinuity into social-infrastructure planning.

This, however, does not mean that creative social-welfare-taxation reforms in the states cannot significantly improve quality of US social welfare and infrastructure performance, for example.

But then one quickly comes down to earth when one reads about sad tales like that of an uninsured person waiting for hours in the Emergency Room of some inner city hospital to be treated for severe migraine headaches by an unqualified nurse! Or the poor woman recently who fainted in a waiting room for the lower-tier, was ignored, died and left lying there for some time!

But I'm off track. Want to get back to divergent taxation in states vs. downsizing of basic services (that are already meager) to meet financial crises. To be continued...

Frank

[John Lawrence]

Michael,

As you also imply, no social-welfare system is perfect or without problems, including the Dutch and other European models and Canada's model.

As mentioned, The Dutch are constantly reality-adjusting their system -- as painful as that sometimes is -- when and where necessary without debasing binding values of Solidarity and Sharing for the common good ... i.e., equitably striving to uphold the norm that "We are all in this life together."

Frank

[John Lawrence]

Michael, cc: Frank:

Thanks for filling in a lot of stuff that I left out which should definitely be included in a more exhaustive analysis.

However, I note that there are 60,000 homeless on the streets of LA every night so I don't think all the piecemeal programs you mention are getting the job of alleviating poverty done. Yes, if one does the research and is patient enough and lucky enough, one might be able to avail himself of one of the programs you mention. But most people don't have the patience or the means to do that.

Frank mentioned that in Holland they're proactive; they reach out to people in distress. It's called reintegration. Here it's sink or swim in even finding a helpful social program. My girlfriend, for instance, applied for a housing assistance program ( I forget which one) years ago and was told that when she worked her way up the list, she'd be contacted. She's never been contacted so that program is either a sham or at least it was worthless to her.

I called around about the SCHIP program after Obama recently extended it inquiring for the sake of my grandchildren. No one in all the local agencies even knew what SCHIP was.

While certainly some of the programs you mention, Michael, have some relevancy, they still don't prevent a lot of people from falling through the cracks. For food satmps, WIC and Medicaid your income has to be so low as to be practically non-existent.

But certainly your input is appreciated and should be included in an even more exhaustive study than the one Frank and I have undertaken.

John

[John Lawrence]

Michael,

That housing program my girlfriend applied for and was told she would have to "work her way up the list and then they would contact you" was Section 8. She applied as a senior citizen over 5 years ago and has heard nothing. Fortunately, she doesn't need it now, but they wouldn't know that. Actually, we have done quite nicely by buying a foreclosure condo last year. And I bought another one for my daughter and her family after they lost everything in the current economic crisis. But even with a baby they don't quality for food stamps or WIC. They do get food from a food bank though. You forgot to mention that. And if I hadn't been able to help them out, they'd be out on the street as their credit rating is zero and nobody would rent to them even with me as a co-signer and my credit rating is great.

John

[John Lawrence]

Frank, John, Michael:

Is interesting that as the discussion unfolds we come back to cultural mores as the crux of the problem.

We can do comparative analysis all we want but it comes down to the fact that our dilemmas, in social safety nets is less political than cultural. Granted solutions are manifested through the political process but they are driven by cultural views. Understandably there is a huge difference between the cultural values of the US and those of Europe, most of it based on history and the evolution of the respective societies.

It is far more difficult to get collective agreement in a country of 300 million people than one of 16 million people. Add to that the fact that we are not a true democracy but a Republic. The states have abrogated much of their independence over the years, usually with their hands out, but they still maintain significant control of issues which the Constitution does not allow the federal government to get into. The normal way around that has been for the federals to provide funding and then impose rules regarding that funding. Of course we often see the federal gov't make the rules, promise the funding and then not deliver on the funding. No Child Left Behind ring a bell?

We have many states which are stil primarily agrarian and while the citizens of those states are good and caring people, many of them eke out a decent living through long hours and hard work and they aren't real enthused about others in cities and towns getting, what they view, as a free ride.

Culturally we have always believed in individual responsibility and tended to abhor government interventions that appear to breakdown that tenet. Being a decent people most have accepted that some form of aid to the poor is necessary. That acceptance has always been tempered with a concern that those kinds of safety nets could get out of hand and we would find more and more of our citizenry relying on them, not so much out of need but out of a desire to escape personal responsibility. Be that concern folly or not it is a cultural belief and it cannot be easily unwound by a wave of new legislation, especially from the central government level.

We have two major stumbling blocks to entering the world of "we are all in this together". The structure and founding principles of our governments and the cultural beliefs that allowed those governments to create, what had been, if not still is, the greatest, most properous freedom loving country in the world.

Events, major events, of the past 30 or 40 years, have called into question the wisdom or feasibility of continuing those cultural views. Those who know this country well know that we are neither a country of Solomon's nor of Abraham's. Many of our values, the deep seated ones, are like our children and most of us will not sacrifice them gladly.

Art a Layman

[John Lawrence]

Art,

I've heard this thesis from you before. You think that individual rights and community rights and concerns can never be culturally merged in the states without some loss of our unique heritage of persoanl freedom. Sublimated in your reasoning appears to be the argumemnt that Europeans are not as free as Americans. Pure fantasy!

It's a great thesis for doing nothing about our fatally determined existence of "free" economic instability and leaving those in trouble to the wolves of Wall Street and thr market place.

But I respectively am of another opinion ... having seen both sides of the cultural prisms very closely. I believe in what the Constitution also made sacrosanct, that is the principle of providing for the General Welfare of all citizens as well as the priceless principle of individual freedom.

Frank

[John Lawrence]

Frank:

Sometimes in your stubborness you revert to universal statements or often incorrect readings of what I say or believe.

I've heard this thesis from you before. You think that individual rights and community rights and concerns can never be culturally merged in the states without some loss of our unique heritage of persoanl freedom. Sublimated in your reasoning appears to be the argumemnt that Europeans are not as free as Americans. Pure fantasy!

I don't ever "think" that anything can "never" be done. In all my writings on the subject, of which there are many posts, I have always said that cultural change, especially major cultural change, and you are talking major cultural change here, is a generational evolution, and if that change is ever possible it will not happen in your lifetime nor your children's, iffy even in your grandchildren's.

Understand too that when I talk of our culture I am not alluding to my personal beliefs or views but rather the general consensus as I see it. I personally don't know but I doubt that Europeans are any less "free" than we in the US but that is not necessarily the general view in the US. But "free" is relative. In our view a healthcare system under which the government exerts some degree of control over healthcare availability is a loss of "freedom". We accept, foolishly, that allowing the private markets a similar degree of control is somehow the way life was intended.

We may countenance cultural change more readily when our pocketbooks are not affected. We are seeing a rather rapid change in our view of gays and gay marriage, although the roots have taken a few generations to set in. That cultural change doesn't affect my pocketbook so the actualization is more palatable. We view our "freedom" to earn a living and spend that living however we see fit as the right of all men. When the thought arises that the government will take more of our money and spread it around, as happens in the countries of Europe based on the proffers of you and John, we see that as an abridgement of our "freedom". Proclaim fantasy all you want, most often, perception is reality.

It's a great thesis for doing nothing about our fatally determined existence of "free" economic instability and leaving those in trouble to the wolves of Wall Street and thr market place.

Now am not arguing that our economic model is not flawed and certainly globalization has greatly altered it but let's not forget, and most Americans do not, that without us there would be no Europe, twice. Our wealth, power, desire for fairness and "freedom", fostered, eventually, getting involved in saving the world. We hold those memories dear and tend to reject that those who we saved should now preach to us of a better way. Your arguments are not with me, my friend, but with American cultural and beliefs. Preach salvation all you want and I don't disagree with much of what you propose but currently and in the foreseeable future you are shouting at the rain.

In the best tradition of American change, baby steps are the force majeure. Universal health care is vital presently, both for the populace and the welfare of the economic system. That change alone, fraught with its many variables, will be a major undertaking. Trying to add in better or more social safety net changes at the same time could end us up losing both the battle and the war.

Realize that the vast majority of our populace hasn't a clue what's in the Constitution. Beyond that, most of us believe that the "general welfare" clause should be interpreted as "to each his own". In our minds, "general welfare" means best to let individual drive and free markets shape the universe, at least in the USA.

Art

[John Lawrence]

Art,

As for the generalization that we Americans are steadfastly against government involvement in our lives, Holland's new health care
system is 95% private with some strong government oversight controlling for fairness, corrections, and abuses. That's hardly what I would term a "loss of freedom" by anyone's definition of the concept.

Talking about generalizing,
your phrase, "perceptions are most often reality," wins first prize. How many idiots in your lifetime and in our nation's lifetime (i.e., the most recent being George Bush Jr.) thought their perceptions were reality when in fact they were downright ludicrous if not dangerous. Just because someone may have difficulty exploring, conceiving and implementing new ideas does not mean the ideas themselves are neither viable nor implementable.

I generally try not to too quickly prejudge anyone with ideas different from mine as being ipso facto "unrealistic" ... have learned the hard way not to reject new strategic thrusts, creative, and pragmatic systemic problem resolution without allowing proper time for careful, patient analysis and well-considered positive, alternate, or negative views.

John and I are merely opening up social-economic realities in other parts of the world for further exploration ... in the hope some may be interested and see something constructive to expand on.

We are not suggesting the US should adopt carte blanche Europe and Canada's social-welfare systems (another generalization), but simply that our leaders might learn something from how other civilized people do things ... i.e., perhaps elements of successful experiences of others in managing their economies might be usefully adapted to some of our broken systems.

Can understand your personal belief that "baby steps" are the force majeure or way to go by American cultural standards. True for some things. But sometimes baby steps remain just that ... a comfortable do-nothing progress that postpones facing facts of serious Systemic Disfunctions requiring "substantive change" --where the absence of tough action increases the final cost and pain causing our economy to sputter on for years like Japan's stagnant decade. Facing facts, may mean, for example, stepping up to reality that some of our banks are INSOLVENT and cannot be rescued other than by temporary nationalization.

As far as interpreting the term "general welfare" as meaning that "Free markets and individual drive shape the universe," this Reagan generalization says everything is just dandy with the least government, that government's role in overseeing the "general welfare" (except for Defense) is an unnecessary intrusion on our "freedoms." Well, what a Godsend this wisdom has been over the last 25 years!

It's just more of the wacky ultra-right's dogma of Individual Rights overriding a Sense of Community that's got our nation into its current economic breakdown and two-tier democracy of the Haves and the Have Nots. I say, thank you but no thanks, as I'm sure you do!

Frank

[John Lawrence]

John, Frank , Art,

You will get no argument from me as to there are differences in how both countries handle retirement, health care, and a social safety network

There are things we all can learn --and thou the comparison is extremely difficult, some broad and general concepts can be seen and evaluated--

The USA gives the states here control over most of the safety nets---this then leads to many solutions---and gaps in places---from State to State

This of course as John said, also has problems that certain programs take a while to get into---thou usually there are temporary programs that help till one can get into a main program. Take as John said the Section 8 housing program in Calif., it does take about 2-3 years on the waiting list to get to the top and get in the program----thou there are shelters and such that are basically free to a person while they wait----many times as this wait goes on things will get better for the person and they don't require the more permanent housing assistment, and the wait also requires a person to stay in touch with the local County administrator for the state program,this of course is the responsibility of the individual,also people with children are given a preference or placed in front of people who don't have children,-- Yes again John your correct, there are also food banks, but their resources are being currently tapped beyond what they can do----it would help, if many people could and would help out with their local food banks---

This same personal responsibility is what we all look to for the third leg in both countries of the retirement program---the individual has to thru their life time have the skills and will required to "save" somehow for this third leg, this requires the person to be able to over their lifetime thru ups downs and everything to reach a goal----if this person doesn't get the skills required, and they are free and available to everyone---then their 3rd leg will not be there---which results in not having a retirement at all in many case's---

Frank, and what is the status of a person in the Netherlands that lives the 50 years there --gets the AOW, has a topped out defined benefit pension, and is now at the 70% or so-----but just failed in their responsibility to save anything for the third leg, Currently would they still be able to retire at age 65? Broadly speaking or estimating from your knowledge at the present--to costs, what would be the status--of this person, meaning would it be easy --tough, or maybe impossible to retire, pay rent, the Utilities and food insurance costs----of what an average person has to pay today there or budget for??

Again, thank you John and Frank for the great work to the information made available -I think we all want to make the system better for all too, meaning a common goal--some States are going to be very slow coming along due to what Art and Frank call the social differences--they are vast too!!!!

Michael