Even if the nominal annuity appears adequate at retirement for the NPS, persistently high inflation can significantly reduce the real value of the monthly payout.
UPS seems more fiscally prudent than Old Pension Scheme, but reverses New Pension System’s equitable coverage. More spending on pension may limit space for spending on productive avenues.
There is, as yet, no clarity on how the new scheme is going to be operationalised, and what happens to the existing National Pension System architecture.
To widen pension coverage in the informal sector, India must use existing infrastructure to its full extent. The mechanism in place for the NPS can be used to implement other schemes as well.
The former RBI governor batted for direct cash transfers to citizens, but said these become a problem if the transfers are untargeted and competitive before polls.
FM adds that AI-assisted technologies should be adopted in all districts to bring development & highlights importance of collaborative ecosystems in tech innovation.
To be truly functional and durable, even eternal, a state doesn’t just need a leader, a party or an ideology. It needs functional and robust institutions.
This is a downright misleading article. I suggest that all people opt for UPS without hesitation.
The author, like all other authors on this topic, has taken an accountant’s view of the two options. This article represents the narrow view of bean-counters.
In NPS, an employee needs to be financially smart.
In UPS an employee with no financial acumen, which is most Govt. employees, will get pension every month. If the employee is financially smart, he can separately invest in financial instruments over and above UPS.
That is not all there is to it. What about the psychological and emotional sense of security that there will be money coming in at the beginning of every month after retirement – priceless. What about the sense of security that the spouse will get family pension after the employee’s death – even more priceless.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I predict that more than 95% of the Govt. employees will switch from NPS to UPS. Almost all women employees are likely to switch to UPS due to the sense of security it gives over the long term. For men employees, even if they want to go with NPS, a few discussions with their wives and looking at their children will convince them to go with UPS.
The author and other bean counters don’t seem to understand that the older one gets more money is not so important as guaranteed money every month.
Once again, I recommend all to go with UPS over NPS to avoid a lifetime of regret.
This is a downright misleading article. I suggest that all people opt for UPS without hesitation.
The author, like all other authors on this topic, has taken an accountant’s view of the two options. This article represents the narrow view of bean-counters.
In NPS, an employee needs to be financially smart.
In UPS an employee with no financial acumen, which is most Govt. employees, will get pension every month. If the employee is financially smart, he can separately invest in financial instruments over and above UPS.
That is not all there is to it. What about the psychological and emotional sense of security that there will be money coming in at the beginning of every month after retirement – priceless. What about the sense of security that the spouse will get family pension after the employee’s death – even more priceless.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I predict that more than 95% of the Govt. employees will switch from NPS to UPS. Almost all women employees are likely to switch to UPS due to the sense of security it gives over the long term. For men employees, even if they want to go with NPS, a few discussions with their wives and looking at their children will convince them to go with UPS.
The author and other bean counters don’t seem to understand that the older one gets more money is not so important as guaranteed money every month.
Once again, I recommend all to go with UPS over NPS to avoid a lifetime of regret.