Comments from pensioners about their pensions. Putin commented on the possible abolition of pensions for working pensioners. Oleg Smolin: pension reform, even with Putin’s amendments, is unacceptable

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev announced a new concept for pension reform. It is proposed to increase the retirement age for women to 63 years (plus eight years to what it is now) and to 65 years for men (plus five years). This major change is not only being adopted at an accelerated pace, but also directly affects each of us. If previously at the age of 55–60 you could choose whether to continue working or try to live on a modest pension, then soon there will be no such choice.

It is proposed to introduce a sufficiently long transition period from 2019 to step by step achieve retirement at 65 for men in 2028 and at 63 for women in 2034, TASS reports, citing a speech by Dmitry Medvedev.

Volgograd residents are accustomed to the idea that a gradual increase in the retirement age can no longer be avoided. The decision, they say, has been made. They also show a plus: the reform should lead to a significant increase in the pensions of those who receive them. And those who will live to see retirement.

the site asked Volgograd residents what they thought about increasing the retirement age.

There are practically no jobs after 50 years old

All Volgograd residents surveyed by the website’s correspondent unanimously reacted negatively to the innovations.

Vladimir Ledovskikh is sure that there are practically no jobs for those over 50

This is bad and wrong. Because there is practically no work for Russians over 50 years old. Those who work for pennies along with a meager pension somehow survive. How people up to 63–65 years old will feed themselves, the government does not explain and does not offer anything, Vladimir Ledovskikh is perplexed. - The increase in the retirement age is explained by the fact that there is no money in the Pension Fund. But those who work pay contributions to the fund. Where is this money? Let's hope that the measures taken will at least somehow influence the increase in pensions. But I don’t yet understand how exactly.

People are forced to work in order not to pay

For Sofia Salmanova, pension reform will directly affect parents.

Sophia's mom and dad will have to work in the Far North for another 8 years

My mom and dad work in the Far North. Naturally, the retirement age will also be raised there. They were just hoping to leave there in a few years, but now they will have to work extra years. It turns out that people are being deprived of the opportunity to move and live normally,” says Sofya Salmanova. - That is, they worked in the Far North for 30–40 years, tried for the good of the country, worked. And then suddenly it turns out that they built a house in Volgograd, but cannot move into it, because they need to work for another five years for the state to start paying them a pension. Raising the retirement age will not solve the problem in general. In Russia, no matter how they tried to solve it for several decades, there were no positive changes. It is wrong to force people to work just to avoid paying them pensions in old age. At the same time, many do not want to work or, due to their age, are unable to do so.

Everyone has been equalized, and this is wrong

Pensioner Elena Vladimirova believes that it is unacceptable to set a single retirement age for everyone.

Elena Vladimirova: some people break their health at work, while others work as deputies. But they will retire together

Each person has individual characteristics of the body, and by the age of 50, people’s health status varies. By the age of 40, many people have the same number of illnesses as 60-year-olds, says Elena Vladimirova. - This is an individual question. It would be better to leave 55 years for women and 60 for men. It is also necessary to take into account what industry a person works in. Some work physically all their lives and seriously damage their health. And others work as economists, accountants or some kind of deputies, but they will also retire at the age of 63–65. This is unequal and wrong. The fact that all people are equal is wrong. My mother had a very hard job. She retired at 55 and lived only five years afterwards.

Elderly people can no longer find decent work

The young Shelest family does not see the practicality of working for older people and does not believe in the availability of decent work and wages for them.

At this age, there will be no full-time work for normal money.

There is no point in working for people at that age. They can no longer fully and efficiently perform their duties. Older people are not paid decent wages. They are hired as wardrobe attendants, cleaners and representatives of other similar professions, say Maxim and Oksana Shelest. - Raising the retirement age will not solve the problem. It was necessary to look for opportunities for promotions earlier so that our grandparents could live with dignity on their honestly earned pension. But the authorities, apparently, now have no such desire. So instead of increasing pensions, pensioners are forced to work.

Pensioners do not work because they want to.

Raising the retirement age ruined Violetta Potylitsyna’s plans to retire soon.

Pensioners are now working because they have no money

The pension reform affected me directly. My attitude towards her is negative because I was born in 1965. This age falls under the reform. Before her, I could retire in two years, but now I have to work for another eight long years. The difference is noticeable,” shares Violetta Potylitsyna, coordinator of one of the areas of work for the 2018 World Cup volunteers. - Different categories of workers have a length of service. But it concerns some people and not others. Pensioners now work not because they really want to. They would also be doing something else, but they work because there is no money. Pensions, unfortunately, are very small. All this is not from a good life.

Vladimir does not believe that most older people will live to see retirement

This is absurd, people don’t live to that age,” Vladimir answers laconically. - The reform was carried out only in order to save money for those who die before they reach their earned pension.

There is no work and there won't be any more

The pessimism of Volgograd residents regarding pension reform aggravates the general situation in the labor market. Those who do not qualify for retirement will chase the lowest paid jobs.

Now people who are not eligible for retirement will be chasing the lowest paid jobs

There are no jobs for pensioners. And, unfortunately, in Volgograd there is no such thing for young people either... - Ruslan Loginov says with sadness. - Where and for what salary should they work? I doubt that everything will change. It will only get worse. Both pensioners and young people will suffer.

People simply have nothing to eat!

An elderly woman, who did not want to give her name, briefly and laconically gave her assessment of the pension reform.

Elderly people are already barely surviving, and now they will also be chasing work

People simply have nothing to eat! Elderly people are barely surviving! Where else can we raise the retirement age if the pensions themselves are completely worthless and disgusting?! Now we won’t live to see them at all!

What do you think you will do after age 60?

• I will continue to work in my specialty
• Perhaps I’ll change my job to a less difficult but interesting one
• I will become a freelancer. I've been dreaming about this for a long time, but I can't decide
• I'll find a source of passive income so I don't have to work
• I'll open my own business. More precisely, I will try to do it
• I will raise my grandchildren, and the children will help with the money.
• I'm already retired. I don’t take part-time jobs / don’t work
• I'm already retired. I have to work: there is not enough money

Today, one of the most painful and discussed issues is the topic related to the new pension reform. Despite the fact that laws providing for a gradual increase in the retirement age from 2019 were adopted a long time ago, the debate on this topic still does not subside and is very important for many citizens of the Russian Federation. Many arguments have already been made in favor of later retirement and no less important reasons have been indicated for maintaining the old age standards, however, an increasing number of citizens perceive this reform negatively.

Is it possible to cancel the insurance pension for employed citizens?

In addition to the issue related to delayed old-age retirement, Russian citizens are alarmed by the assumption of the abolition of financial payments for working pensioners. People are frightened by the possibility of being left without additional income, especially since repeated statements by people's deputies belonging to the United Russia government faction hint at the possibility of canceling pension payments altogether.

Representatives of this party believe that citizens can and should take care of their old age on their own, saving part of their income during their lifetime. By making these statements, government officials forget that the residents of our country diligently pay considerable hidden and obvious taxes to the state budget throughout their adult lives.

Another indirect argument in favor of the credibility of rumors about the denial of pension payments to working citizens is the abolition of inflation-related compensation for employed pensioners since 2016. Elderly people often complain about their difficult financial situation and the need to work, despite their age and illness, for additional income aimed at ensuring a decent lifestyle.

Most people fear that their financial situation could deteriorate greatly if an unpopular government decision is made to cancel employee pension payments. Before the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the government practiced the use of restrictive measures related to payments to working pensioners. Many people still remember this and seriously fear the repetition of such draconian practices aimed at reducing the nominal and real income of people.

President's response

Taking into account that this topic has become widespread and caused a negative resonance in society, the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin considered it necessary to study this issue and, after familiarization, reassure citizens with a statement that pension payments to workers will not be cancelled. He also said that the statements of individual deputies of the United Russia government party are their private opinion. And, in general, V.V. Putin called all conversations on this topic speculative and without any real basis.

Indexation for working pensioners

Several months ago, rumors appeared about the return of indexation of pension payments for workers. The government was talking about the fact that with economic growth and an increase in financial revenues to the budget, it would be possible to resume traditional indexation for all categories of pensioners. But, since these messages were not tied to any specific date, there is no reason to expect monetary compensation associated with inflation processes in the foreseeable future.

Yuri Boldyrev: Russians will pay for raising the retirement age

Economist Yuri Boldyrev noted such a sad point about the so-called pension reform: in fact, Russian citizens will pay for it themselves, although they oppose it.

As it turned out, Putin said that after his “softening” the pension reform became downright unprofitable for the state, that is, additional money would have to be spent on it. And this is strange for several reasons.

What will they spend the money on?

Putin said that decent sums would be spent on pension reform - 500 billion rubles. That is, less than the material motivation of officials, but if they talk about officials as if 630 billion rubles are mere pennies, then Putin said that 500 billion rubles seems like an amount that will be very difficult to find, Putin is just like that and stated that “we need to find the amount.” They will be found in the pockets of citizens, Boldyrev believes.

We are talking about spending here, but what is the spending going on? For example, the government decided to reduce the retirement age for both men and women by 5 years. Then it would be clear what the additional expenses are for.

Here the authorities do not plan to improve anything, that is, they will simply increase the retirement age - that’s all. People will not receive any bonuses, no additional expenses are required from the authorities. The authorities will receive less money from the pension reform, since women will retire not at 63, but at 60, but in fact this is not really a plus for women, but for the authorities it is +5 years in the sense that it is not necessary will pay a pension.

Power won't work?

Economist Boldyrev considers the president’s words absurd that the supposed pension reform is unprofitable for the government, but beneficial exclusively for the population. These words are exclusively needed to justify an obvious scam on a large scale.

After all, in fact, Kudrin stated in advance that the government would gain from 1 to 2 trillion a year from the pension reform. Due to Putin’s amendments, this amount may be reduced by a maximum of a quarter - no more.

But in addition to direct profit, the state will save a lot of money, if only because many people will not live to reach retirement age, but will pay contributions until the end.

And for some reason this point is not particularly discussed, although it is relevant within the framework of new realities. Indeed, in 47 regions of Russia, men actually live on average 65 years, that is, a considerable part of them will never be able to receive a pension, which must be admitted honestly.

Sergei Kurginyan: pension reform is Putin’s fatal mistake

Political scientist Sergei Kugrinyan believes that Putin made a fatal mistake when he supported and especially when he signed the pension reform. Because, Kurginyan believes, pension reform is the most blatant way of taking money from Russians.

There are various schemes that the government used in the 2000s, but, as a rule, they were not as overt, and thus both the president and the government are doing everything to destabilize the situation. Why do they need this, Kurginyan asks.

Is Putin no longer a guarantor of stability?

It is worth noting that Kurginyan previously supported Vladimir Putin, although he has a negative attitude towards Medvedev. Now, it seems, he has a negative attitude towards Putin. After all, Kurgiyan’s priorities were to maintain social stability more or less.

This was not full support for the authorities, but rather critical support for the authorities for maintaining a certain social peace for quite a long time. Now this is no longer the case and now no one will say that there is stability in Russia.

Unfortunately, the situation will only get worse, because the pension reform cannot but affect the lives of the majority in a negative sense, since not all people are ready to work for an extra 5 years, especially considering that even at the previous retirement age, about 40 people remained at work % of citizens. Where will the rest, that is, the majority, go now?

Loss of adequacy

Kurgiyan characterizes government members as people who have lost their adequacy. Because in reality, in order to maintain social stability, it was worth taking some measures to maintain the retirement age in the old format. After all, this is a consensus, why break it?

The pension fund deficit has recently amounted to 100-200 billion rubles. Is this a sufficient reason to carry out pension reform? This is not such a critical point, to put it bluntly. And for the stabilization of the pension fund there is the National Welfare Fund, where there are more than 5 trillion rubles!

Kurginyan believes that the consequences for the authorities can be very different, including the most negative, especially during the years of this very reform. Kurginyan also noted that the government has proven that it does not care about the people. Kurginyan’s movement “The Essence of Time” collected 1 million signatures of Russians and took them to the State Duma. The State Duma not only ignored this, but also representatives of the ruling party called opponents of the pension reform “demagogues” and “chatterboxes.”

Dmitry Medvedev: Russia’s priority is to support companies that suffer from sanctions. Is this the reason for the pension reform?

Dmitry Medvedev now rarely speaks publicly, but when he speaks out, interesting points immediately emerge. The fact is that Medvedev recently appointed himself to be responsible for the economic development of Russia, which, of course, can hardly be considered something positive.

Since he took up this matter, he now indicates Russia's priority tasks. And although his words are as vague as possible, we still note some points and perspectives.

About support and development

Seriously listening to how Medvedev plans to develop innovations in Russia is not even funny; many remember 2008 very well and how these same innovations ended. Actually, the treasury spent a lot of money, for some reason it cut the Russian Academy of Sciences, but Rusnano and Skolkovo appeared, that is, unprofitable structures where many former government officials work.

Support for our private companies is support for the richest citizens of Russia, for example Vekselberg, Deripaska and so on. They are losing from the sanctions, so they need help. And it’s good to help.

The government allocated $1 billion to Vekselburg, that is, a very decent amount. And such measures will continue, as Medvedev hinted. And for Deripaska, that is, a person with dual citizenship, offshore companies were created in Russia at 0%.

Is there a connection with pension reform?

In this case, the connection with the pension reform is direct. The fact is that the state had a choice: who to help. Either do everything to maintain social stability, or do everything to maintain stability for a narrow group of people - officials and billionaires. The authorities chose the second option. And by stability in this case we also mean income growth, as evidenced by real facts, since the richest in Russia are only getting richer during the years of sanctions. But there are no losses and cannot be, since the government “does not abandon its own.”

Since the authorities have settled on the second option, this means that no additional funds will be allocated to support the population, since billionaires need funds to ensure stability.

Therefore, it simply says in whose interests the Russian government is acting. It’s definitely not in the interests of voters, because 75% of Russians are against pension reform, and neither Medvedev, nor Putin, nor any other senior official wants to take this point into account.

Putin-Siluanov: You deceived me with the pension reform, and you will pay for it

How should we understand the president’s words that the reform brought nothing but losses to the budget?

In the photo: First Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation - Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation Anton Siluanov and Russian President Vladimir Putin (from left to right) (Photo: Mikhail Metzel/TASS)

The pension reform after the presidential amendments will give a negative financial result for the state. This was announced on October 2 Vladimir Putin at a meeting with the government. The Cabinet of Ministers must find funds to finance these changes, the head of state noted.

“Another very sensitive issue. When planning the pension reform, the government assumed that there would be a positive financial result from these measures within several years. But after the adoption of the presidential amendments, it became clear that there would be no income, but, on the contrary, the government would have to finance the presidential amendments,” Putin said.

Here's what the situation looks like in numbers. The previously proposed government plan provided for “saving” more than 3 trillion between 2019 and 2024 by raising the retirement age. rubles These funds were supposed to be used for increased indexation of pensions in order to increase its size to 20,000 rubles per month. The Minister of Labor spoke about this on August 21 Maxim Topilin. However, Putin’s amendments proposed at the end of August reduced the size of the “savings” by 0.5 trillion. rubles for six years. At the same time, plans to increase pensions, which still require 3 trillion. rubles, no one refused. As a result, the missing 500 billion will need to be found somewhere.

To these words of the president, the First Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance Anton Siluanov reported: The Ministry of Finance will increase transfers to the Pension Fund from the federal budget in order to finance the presidential amendments. The volume of these additional transfers at first will amount to about 100 billion rubles per year.

Note: the fact that financing the presidential amendments will require an additional 0.5 trillion. rubles for six years is not news. Earlier, both Siluanov and the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned this figure Tatiana Golikova. The news is different - that the budget will remain at a loss as a result of the reform.

If so, why was it necessary to fence the garden? Why was it necessary to push through the most stringent option of raising the retirement age? Crash the ratings of United Russia, put the bill up for voting in the second and third readings, just to quickly remove the irritant that has already come back to haunt the crushing defeat of three Kremlin candidates in the gubernatorial elections? Finally, why risk the rating of Putin himself, which, according to VTsIOM, in just 9 months of this year fell from 84% to 63.7% - that is, by a staggering 20%?!

In essence, the presidential amendments provide the opportunity for men born in 1959−1960 and women born in 1964−1965 to retire six months earlier, the right to early retirement for mothers of many children, and a three-year reduction in length of service giving the right to early retirement (up to 37 years). years for women and up to 42 years for men) - were a forced concession from the Kremlin. Since if the president had not softened the reform, it is possible that the whole country would have rebelled.

What is behind the president’s words, what does the situation with financing the pension reform actually look like?

Let me remind you of the main principle of the pension insurance system: it should be autonomous and self-financing,” says Doctor of Economics, independent expert on social policy Andrey Gudkov. - But our insurance rates are too low, and this does not allow us to make the system self-financing. In 2000, when Vladimir Putin was first elected president, the tariff was 29%. Of this, 28% was paid by the employer, another 1% was taken from the employee. And now the tariff is only 22% - and that’s all.

At the same time, in July 2018, the State Duma of the Russian Federation finally ratified Convention No. 102 of the International Labor Organization. From the point of view of this convention, the pension should be no less than 40% of average earnings. You can, of course, understand differently what average earnings are. But according to the methodology adopted by the OECD, everything is considered extremely simple. The country's wage fund is taken, divided by the number of employees - and 40% is taken from the result.

Since the convention has been ratified, pensions in Russia need to be increased. Now they make up approximately 34% of the average salary, and this is significantly less than in Soviet times. Let me remind you when our pension system was just emerging - in 1932-1933, when Stalin- we were talking about 50%. That is, the old-age pensioner had to receive half the salary. And almost all the post-war years, the Soviet government supported this situation.

In modern times, only in 2011, when the tariff was raised to 26% at Putin’s insistence, the pension system did not have a deficit, and the wage replacement rate with pensions reached 41%. But this lasted less than a year.

Thus, now we are talking about the following: by raising the retirement age to 65 for men and 60 for women, and increasing the replacement rate to 40%, our government will have to slightly increase funding for the social insurance fund. For those same 500 billion rubles.

Let me emphasize: this only happens because of the reduced tariff. If the tariff had been the same as in 2011 - 26% - half a trillion rubles would not have been needed. Moreover, the government would be able to eliminate the Pension Fund deficit. According to the draft budget of the Pension Fund for 2018, it amounts to 318 billion rubles. Agree, with a total fund budget of more than 7 trillion. rubles is not very much.

In fact, what the government and specifically Vladimir Putin are doing now to increase pensions is the minimum possible.

“SP”: - Why doesn’t Putin raise the insurance rate again?

This mystery is great. Government economists claim that raising the tariff means increasing the burden on business, which business allegedly will not bear. In fact, now the share of wages in the cost of production is about 30%. And an increase in the insurance rate will increase this share by literally one percent. Which, given automation, a reduction in material consumption, an increase in labor productivity, and ultimately an increase in output, makes the tariff increase a completely insensitive measure.

I'll say more. Increasing the insurance tariff and insurance payments will expand the sales market for Russian products. Pensioners, even with increased pensions, remain a low-income segment of the population that buys relatively cheap products. Mostly Russian products.

Roughly speaking, choosing between imported apples at 150 rubles per kilo and Stavropol apples at 70 rubles, a pensioner will definitely choose the latter. And even if his pension is increased, he will not run for imported apples, but will simply buy two kilograms of Stavropol ones.

For comparison, increasing VAT does not have such an effect. On the contrary, this measure, although it replenishes the federal budget, restrains consumption growth.

“SP”: - Can we say that the President and the Cabinet of Ministers make such decisions because they are playing on the side of big business?

I got the feeling that the economic bloc forced Putin to raise the retirement age, saying that otherwise - without increasing budget revenues - the military program would not be implemented. But economists deceived the president a little, saying that this decision would not entail any political consequences.

However, the political consequences are obvious. And now the only way out for Putin to regain his rating and strengthen his authority is a truly rapid and noticeable increase in the well-being of pensioners. That is, pension increases at a rate higher than inflation.

In addition, our economy has resumed growth. And soon workers who have lost real wages since 2013 will demand an increase. As a result, the average salary in the country will jump - at least this is what can be expected. And along with it, the pension must rise to reach the level of 40% of the salary.

And it is quite possible that Putin’s words spoken to Siluanov at the meeting can be understood as follows: “Well, my dear, I followed your lead in raising the retirement age. And now you will still comply with my decision of 2009 that the insurance tariff rate for the Pension Fund should be 26%. Because otherwise we won’t keep pensions at the level of 40% of the average salary.”

If so, this is welcome.

Siluanov: we will create a new funded pension system. Will Russians be connected to it without asking?

Anton Siluanov said that soon, probably in 2020, the so-called individual pension capital will be created. This is a new version of the storage system. The previous one, as you know, was frozen.

This point means that people need to be attracted to this scheme, because the government wants to make money in this way, since Siluanov provides in advance the opportunity to invest funds from the pension capital of citizens.

Why was the old storage system “frozen”?

Before Siluanov’s new project, there was an old accumulation system. There is not much difference. The point of both projects is that Russians should save for their own retirement, and should slowly abandon the solidarity system that existed in the USSR.

However, here's the problem - the state constantly got into the savings system, helping banks, Gazprom and other similar institutions. And what is the result? Just freezing.

Of course, freezing is a word that supposedly suggests that they can reconsider this decision and return all savings. However, this will never happen, since the money has been withdrawn. And they’re not just introducing a new system. They still want to raise money.

Is it worth believing? Will citizens have a choice?

Siluanov states that nothing bad will happen 100% with the new savings system. He notes that although people like Chubais and others will get involved, no one will actually freeze the system.

After all, it is clear that the people who take Russians’ money from there will spend it effectively: they will invest it and receive a big profit, that is, pensioners will have even more money! Which, of course, is hard to believe.

Now regarding the voluntary-compulsory nature of this very system: information appeared in RBC that “silent people”, that is, Russians who do not renounce individual pension capital in writing, will simply be transferred there without asking. Therefore, it is worth considering this point in advance and not spending extra money on a structure that may disappear in a few years.

After such information appeared on the Internet, Golikova immediately began to say that not everything had been decided yet; that there will always be a choice. However, Golikova does not have much faith, especially since we always take into account previous experience. Mistakes in Russia are never taken into account. Take the same Rusnano. The first five-year plan is unprofitable. They promised to check everything, correct the situation and make Rusnano an effective company. The second five-year plan was just as unprofitable for the state. And so on.

For what reason are Russians' pension savings disappearing?

Pension savings of Russian citizens is a sore point for the Russian government, which regularly “reforms” pensions so that it is less profitable for ordinary citizens, but beneficial for the elite.

Let's consider individual factors why pension savings are disappearing and whether it is even possible to correct this within the current system.

Non-state pension funds

Non-state pension funds are now the most unprofitable sector in terms of pension provision. In fact, every year the largest NPF participants report losses in the amount of several tens of billions of rubles.

It is noteworthy that until recently the main figure in the field of private pension funds was a certain Mints, a friend of Chubais and Kudrin. Not long ago he left with his family for London, after which the authorities noticed huge losses from his activities.

The formal reason that “there is no money” is ineffective investment of funds, that is, the money of future and current pensioners is managed as if it were their personal capital. They simply invest them and, apparently, are not particularly worried about losses. So far there have been no benefits from such activities. And in the coming years, judging by the dynamics, it is worth preparing for the bankruptcy of a number of non-state pension funds.

Savings system and pension fund

With the funded system, everything is clear: the state, when there is not enough money, always cuts the social or a sphere close to it. Since the money of the savings system was perceived as state assets, although this is strange, part of the funds went to support banks and Gazprom. If someone thinks that Gazprom is a profitable company, then it is worth noting that the price of Gazprom as an asset is regularly declining.

This is actually why these funds were frozen. If we consider that a new savings system is now being prepared - known as individual pension capital - we can conclude that this money will not return anywhere.

As for the state pension fund, there are obvious problems. Money is controlled very poorly - hence the shortage. There are more than 100 thousand employees in the state and for some unknown reason palaces are being built using pension funds, the maintenance of which costs, according to the head of the Pension Fund, “only” 1 billion rubles.

The conclusion from these facts is obvious: the system is ineffective. Unfortunately, instead of taking an example from the effective systems of other countries, in Russia we will talk about a “special path” so that we can make good use of budget funds and carry out dubious reforms almost every year. By the way, these same reforms ultimately led to an increase in the retirement age.

The President signed the Federal Law “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation on the Issues of Assignment and Payment of Pensions”, adopted by the State Duma on September 27, 2018 and approved by the Federation Council on October 3, 2018.

The head of state also signed federal laws “On amendments to Articles 46 and 146 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation in terms of expanding the list of budget revenues of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation”, “On ratification of the Convention on Minimum Standards of Social Security (Convention No. 102)”, “On the introduction amendments to the Labor Code of the Russian Federation”, adopted by the State Duma on September 27, 2018 and approved by the Federation Council on October 3, 2018, and the Federal Law “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation”, adopted by the State Duma on September 25, 2018 and approved by the Federation Council 3 October 2018.

The Federation Council mercilessly pushed through the predatory law, the president signed

The Federation Council overwhelmingly approved changes to the package of documents on pension legislation, which had previously been hastily adopted by the State Duma of the Russian Federation. The documents were also quickly sent to the president for signing, and he approved them immediately.

Coincidentally, the consideration and final approval of this painful issue fell on October 3. On this day 25 years ago between supporters of the president Boris Yeltsin and the Supreme Council, a confrontation began. A state of emergency was declared in Moscow, tanks were brought in, and shelling of the White House began. More than 150 people died in the outbreak of armed clashes. The opposition was defeated, on December 12, 1993, a new Constitution was adopted, and the country followed the socio-economic course determined by President Yeltsin and his government.

Apparently, some senators remembered this when discussing the law, or rather a package of laws, on the so-called pension reform, but the majority were not bothered by this coincidence.

Senator from the Irkutsk region Vyacheslav Markhaev noted that this government initiative caused mass protests, which, unfortunately, went unnoticed. According to him, this norm contradicts the country's Constitution: Article 7 - Russia is a social state, and Article 55 generally prohibits the issuance of laws that abolish or diminish the rights and freedoms of man and citizen.

“When elected to the State Duma, under the beautiful veneer of concern for the people, they stamp out laws orchestrated by the government. Name at least one government initiative that was for the benefit of our population and increased welfare? It will be difficult to remember anything,” he stated.

The senator is also interested in why the pension is formed only from tax contributions from citizens. At the same time, he recalled that in 2005, after the introduction of monetization of benefits, pensioners took to the streets and blocked roads.

“And the proposed reform is even more painful and kills the people’s last faith in their future. This step is a consequence of all previous policies. Having completely destroyed production, agriculture, the country and people were left with only shopping centers, robber banks and an army of security guards and police officers. What will be taken away next: the last thing - education and medicine? Will the state now solve all problems at the expense of those from whom it can be taken?” - the senator is indignant.

In his opinion, for the state, raising the retirement age is just a way to save money. He also fears that with the development of technology, even young people will not have jobs.

“We need to lift the economy from its knees, and not deceive us with an increase of a thousand rubles,” Markhaev emphasized. He also recalled that even in the most difficult years of the war, men over 60 were not allowed to go to the front and asked: “So, the situation now is worse than in 1941?”

The senator emphasized that the only source of power in the country is the people, and “the people live poorly.”

Senator from the Vladimir region Anton Belyakov believes that the bill does not answer the questions that were raised in the conclusion of the Accounts Chamber for the second reading in the State Duma, and also does not take into account a number of amendments.

“This is, as before, an attempt to break the knee, raise the retirement age, say that “you work as much as you can until the end, regardless of your health status, whether you are needed in this profession or not,” possible discrimination in the labor market, on the contrary, against young people age,” he said, adding that there are a huge number of complaints about the law.

At the same time, the Speaker of the House Valentina Matvienko I noticed that senators are no longer considering the draft law, but the law itself.

“We are adopting a law that has been corrected and adjusted taking into account the amendments of the president... It (the law - ed.) is completely different from the version on which the Accounts Chamber gave an opinion,” she emphasized.

However, not all senators were satisfied with even this version of the law. Senator from the Oryol region Vasily Ikonnikov noted that, despite the amendments made to the second reading, more than 2/3 of the country's population does not support raising the retirement age. And this is a reason, in his opinion, to pay attention to the consequences of the adoption of this law.

“You and I do not live in the Looking Glass and we know the state of affairs in the regions. It can be stated with confidence that after the adoption of the law, a bitter aftertaste of social injustice remained in the minds of most people, which gave rise to distrust in the authorities and delayed protest,” he said.

He also drew attention to the accumulated dissatisfaction among the population caused by the decline in living standards, which was a consequence of the government’s financial and economic policy.

“We see that an explosive mechanism is being laid for stability in Russian society, the trigger of which may be overseas. Given the use of hybrid warfare methods against Russia by the United States and its allies, the factor of dissatisfaction among the population with the ongoing social policy could lead to irreparable consequences,” the senator warned.

He believes that the country needs a mobilization course of development and an increase in the role of the state in economic development.

However, the majority of chamber members supported changes to pension legislation. The president had the last word. He put his signature on this law...

The head of Russia, Vladimir Putin, addressed the government and called for the implementation of the amendments he proposed to the pension reform.

The President announced this during a meeting with the Cabinet of Ministers. Putin noted that earlier the issue of additional financing for the reform was not raised, since it was assumed that the initiative would give a positive economic result. However, the amendment to the bill determined an increase in expenses, which, on the contrary, will require the attraction of additional state funds.

According to Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, we are talking about 500 billion rubles, which will need to be allocated to the Russian Pension Fund over the next six years. Vladimir Putin called on the government to find these funds to implement the reform as planned.

Writer Bushin: there is nothing surprising in the pension reform. The government has been depriving citizens of their rights for 30 years

Writer Vladimir Bushin, one of the few famous writers of our time who did not abandon their principles after the collapse of the USSR, said that in reality pension reform is a natural process.

The fact is that our government ceased to represent national interests back in the years of perestroika, when the main task of propagandists led by Yakovlev was to convince people that communism is worse than fascism.

Process of abolition of social rights

Since the late 80s, social rights have been consistently taken away from citizens. In the past, public property provided many benefits to people. Now this property is in private hands, and the results of privatization are the foundations of modern Russia, which no one will touch.

Putin himself stated that revising the results of privatization is something unacceptable, which proved that he is not fundamentally different from his predecessor. In fact, relative stability for citizens was only due to the preserved Soviet legacy, Primakov’s economic reforms and expensive oil.

All these factors have disappeared in principle. Therefore, even the ideology of the ruling party has changed, which not everyone noticed. Previously, United Russia was a party of moderate left (some publicists even call them “pink”) and right, that is, it was a centrist party, which actually included people of different views.

But since 2015, there are no more “leftists” there. Now the official ideology of United Russia is liberal conservatism. That is, in practice something in the spirit of Yegor Gaidar, but in words, of course, patriotism. That is, the difference is this: in the 90s, social rights were taken away as cynically as possible, but now it is veiled and a little slower. But the result is always the same.

This is a retreat before the west

Bushin believes that the main problem of modern Russia is complete dependence on the West. Even sanctions will not convince management to give up this dependence. The reason is banal: the Russian elite keeps its savings in countries that work against Russia.

Therefore, under the current system, Russia will never give any special answers to the West, which can be admitted with great regret. Our head of banks is Nabiullina, who regularly visits the United States and is praised by the IMF for her “effective work,” which has led to what Nabiullina herself admits - the Russian economy is at the bottom.

United Russia has made amendments to the pension reform

Since most regional subgroups do not show any activity, in mid-October 2018 the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation will most likely stop the procedure for organizing a referendum on raising the retirement age in our country. The parties of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Socialist Republic intend to appeal to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the near future with a request to check the current legislation on referendums.

As VEDOMOSTI Ural previously reported, last Thursday, September 27, 2018, deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation in the third, final reading approved the scandalous government bill on raising the retirement age in our country. 332 deputies voted for this decision, 83 were against it, and there were no abstentions. Based on the results of voting on the most scandalous bill of the 7th convocation of the lower house of parliament - pension reform - it turned out that out of 332 votes in favor, 330 belonged to deputies from United Russia. Natalya Poklonskaya distinguished herself again by refusing to support the bill. Previously, for such a “trick,” the ex-prosecutor of Crimea had already been subjected to party sanctions and lost her post as head of the Duma commission for monitoring the reliability of information about the income of deputies, and the day before, when considering the document in the second reading, she did not vote. One way or another, Poklonskaya became the only United Russia member who voted against the pension reform.

For a protest to be effective, for it to be heard by the authorities, you need to come to the polling stations and express your position by voting. And people are not used to this. The vast majority of citizens stay home on Election Day. But if you ignore the elections, the authorities ignore you.

“We have adopted Convention 102, the minimum will be 40% of the salary with which a person leaves,” he noted.

“I’m not yet used to the fact that I don’t have money. Because I earned very, very decent money and spent even more,” recalls pensioner Zoya Latypova.

Although she is already over 70, she still wants to work. Ready to be a guide, personal escort on foreign trips. Knows English and French.

The president softened the pension reform: in particular, he promised to preserve benefits, tying them to age (60/55 years for men and women), but not to pensioner status.

The initial version of the bill introduced by the government was adopted by the State Duma in the first reading on July 19. Then only representatives of the constitutional majority voted in support of the initiative. All opposition factions (Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, A Just Russia) opposed it.

“These people are not fired from the company. This agreement is secured by the agreement of the State Unitary Enterprise Mostransavto. These drivers are valuable to us because they have extensive experience,” said Alexander Pyatibratov, Deputy Director for Traffic Safety at State Unitary Enterprise Mostransavto.

“This is an extremely important decision that people have been waiting for a very long time. We don’t need to mislead a huge number of people now. Today, the decision affected 46.5 million people, and we need to talk about it,” the politician called, responding to criticism of the law from the opposition.

But the main thing is that the state takes people of pre-retirement age under protection. From now on, they cannot be fired without explanation or not hired without justification. For this there is criminal liability.

“We ratify Convention 102 of the International Labor Organization, which imposes Russia internationally recognized obligations on a number of social norms, including the norm that the pension should be at least 40% of lost earnings,” explained Andrey Isaev, first deputy head of the United Russia faction in the State Duma of the Russian Federation.

Voting is the simplest and most effective way to influence government. In the last elections, in those regions where the turnout was slightly higher, the result changed dramatically. In Primorye, turnout in the first round was low, and the opposition candidate scored almost half as much as active governor. And in the second round the situation changed simply because people came. And in the Khabarovsk Territory it’s the same story. And in the Vladimir region.

“Today the average pension is about 14 thousand rubles. And unless you and I increase pensions at a rate higher than inflation, then 46.5 million people will live very poorly,” the speaker warned immediately after voting on the bill.

The presidential amendments have been hotly discussed in the Duma Committee on Labor and Social Policy over the past month. The changes that Vladimir Putin proposed in August were ultimately supported by the majority of deputies, as the last two readings showed. The bill adopted by the Duma must now pass Council of the Federation and lie on the president's desk.

In the Sverdlovsk region, the 57-year-old ex-leader of the scandalous Ekaterinburg organized criminal group "Uralmash", former deputy of the Yekaterinburg City Duma, Alexander Kukovyakin, was released from Ivdel colony No. 62, a VEDOMOSTI Ural correspondent reports.

Proposals to improve the government bill came not only from State Duma deputies, but also from their regional colleagues, representatives of business, public organizations and trade unions.

The announcement of the pension reform provoked numerous protests across the country and a decline in the ratings of United Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Moreover, even the “party in power” itself admitted that the decision to raise the retirement age had a negative impact on United Russia’s rating and its results in the elections on September 9, 2018 (following the results of a single voting day, United Russia suffered several unexpected defeats in the gubernatorial elections ).

“And our task is to do everything to ensure that the pensions of our pensioners grow, grow quickly, and this very task was solved through the adoption of a law that received the support of 332 deputies,” Volodin emphasized, noting that the number of those who supported the bill has become larger compared to previous readings.

All week they argued, convinced and even protested in their own way. Up to violation of regulations. Communists Valery Rashkin and Denis Parfenov came to discuss changes in pension legislation not in suits, but in T-shirts. With the numbers 65 and 63 crossed out. This is exactly the retirement age for men and women that was going to be established according to the bill proposed by the government. But only two of the entire communist faction wore protest T-shirts.

In total, more than 300 amendments were received. Their mixing was carried out by a specially created working group in the State Duma to improve pension legislation. As Vyacheslav Volodin stated, the group will continue to work after the adoption of the pension package of laws and will “study law enforcement practice, receiving feedback from citizens, so that the laws work effectively for results.”

On September 25, the chamber adopted, at the initiative of the president, another important law as part of the pension package, which introduces fines of up to 200 thousand rubles for refusing to hire or dismissing people of pre-retirement age. Pre-retirement age is understood as “the age period of up to five years preceding the assignment of an old-age insurance pension to a person.”

“As such, there was no organized movement against raising the retirement age. There was a spontaneous protest. Russians are not in the habit of expressing their opinions publicly. Basically, everyone prefers to express dissatisfaction at home, sitting on the couch, or complain on social networks. The authorities do not particularly react to this.

Deputy Makarov: I believe that the deputy’s salary is already very small, it cannot be reduced

Deputy Andrei Makarov recently spoke out about reducing the salaries of deputies. As Makarov noted, this is impossible for the reason that now the salary is very small, and although it is possible to live on it, there are inconveniences.

That is, the deputy believes that it is more relevant to talk about an increase in the salaries of deputies, but not about a decrease. Why did such a discussion arise at all? Because members of A Just Russia proposed to equate the deputy’s salary to the average salary in Russia, that is, to pay them 35 thousand rubles.

The logic of the Social Revolutionaries was that in this way the deputies would begin to really work for the benefit of the people, and thus the salaries of not only the deputies, but in general of all Russian citizens, would begin to increase. However, the idea was immediately rejected.

Makarov's complaints

Makarov believes that deputies now do not earn enough. Let us remind you that we are talking about a salary of 380 thousand rubles. Moreover, we also take into account that deputies have income declarations, which show that, on average, salary is not their main income. For many deputies it is more of a bonus.

We will also say that deputies are provided with apartments, cars, assistants and many other benefits for which they do not have to spend a penny. And Makarov considers all these truly excellent living conditions “insufficient.”

I wonder what he wants? Just to pay a billion rubles or what? That is, the interests of the people’s representatives are not entirely clear. In order to work effectively, do they need to be as far away from the people as possible?

“Fair” wages

Makarov, apparently, has set a temporary goal of receiving 800 thousand as a salary. There have been discussions about this for a long time. And there is no doubt that this increase will pass over time. The fact is that back in 2013, deputies received 160 thousand, and now it is 200 thousand more. That is, they immediately add significant sums to themselves, and not some small change. But this year they added as much as 117 rubles to the minimum wage.

Mr. Shuvalov offered to pay huge salaries to deputies. He believed that deputies, like other senior officials, should receive no less than top managers of large companies, that is, people like Sechin. This would undoubtedly suit the deputies, but it is not clear how all this would be ensured.

The retirement age has been raised. But this is not enough for the authorities

The government believes that the state’s obligations to the population are still too high

The creative potential of the Russian government is truly inexhaustible. Against the background of raising the retirement age (the bill was voted in the third reading on September 27), almost immediately it became known about a possible change in the formula for calculating pensions of Russians.

According to the Vedomosti newspaper, the authorities intend to improve “the main parameters of the distribution component of the pension system, taking into account demographic and economic conditions.” As one of the publication’s sources explained, we may also talk about abolishing the so-called “points system.” She stated this earlier Deputy Prime Minister Tatyana Golikova.

The officials' reasoning given by the publication sounds wild. Since the current pension score is indexed according to the rate of inflation, in the long term this will “inflate the pension liability” of the state. That is, officials are afraid to overpay the population.

Another argument: a pension calculated using a “points” system is too dependent on salary. And therefore, a public sector employee, who, according to officials, receives relatively little, is doomed to a low pension.

Vedomosti also provides an alternative opinion. Instead of abandoning the “points” system, it turns out that its shortcomings can be addressed. correct: the procedure for calculating the value of a pension point and its indexation can be specified additionally. Simply put, stop adjusting this indicator in accordance with inflation.

Most likely, Moscow will come to this option sooner or later. Why change the entire system if you can take away the “excess” from people by acting within its framework?

By the middle of the same day, the Cabinet of Ministers came to their senses - an employee of Golikova’s secretariat stated that the issue of revising the system for calculating insurance pensions until 2024 would not be addressed. However, one thing is clear from the published insider: the authorities are ready to endlessly “improve” pension legislation. Infringing on citizens in everything possible. The explanation for this obviously lies on the ideological plane - liberal ideas still dominate the financial and economic bloc of the government.

The consequence of such tosses will be a total decline in confidence in the pension system as such. Young people, instead of working diligently, in the hope of improving their retirement standards, will look for alternative forms of saving for old age. It’s easier to buy an extra apartment and live like a rentier than to give your hard-earned money to the management of ignoramuses.

As a result, the state will have to forget about “long” cheap money, which could be successfully invested in the country’s economy.

Abandoning the points system is an expected option, says economist Nikita Maslennikov. - This proposal was expected from the government in the context of pension reform. In my opinion, this should have been done much earlier, since the “points” principle creates deep distrust in the pension system in general.

The unrest that we are seeing in connection with raising the retirement age just means that the “points” system has not worked in full. People have experienced the erosion and loss of connection between their future pension and the length of service they have earned and the amount of insurance contributions. The calculation of the coefficient remained opaque and unverifiable.

“SP”: - The government, making a decision on the “points” system, referred to the economic recession, crisis, sanctions.

Yes, but over the past four years it has not adopted a clear, transparent methodology. Although this is a requirement of the law, which introduced the “points” system.

By the way, Golikova, being the head of the Accounts Chamber, acknowledged this problem at a meeting of the Ministry of Finance and spoke about the likely transformation of all these “ballroom dances.”

I will assume that the Vedomosti article is an authorized leak, signaling that the government has addressed this systemic problem.

“SP”: - What could be the benefit of abandoning the “point” system or changing it?

What I said is a diagnosis. People are irritated. When there was money and not points, it was clearer to them.

But how to carry out treatment is not yet clear. I think that in many ways the government does not know this either. It is only clear that the pension coefficient must be transparent, understandable, and verifiable. And every person should feel the connection between the results of their work activity and their future pension.

“SP”: - The officials’ arguments are alarming. They say that indexation will lead to inflated pension obligations of the state.

This sounds like words from a world beyond the looking glass, because the point of raising the retirement age is to ensure that indexation always exceeds inflation.

“SP”: - Most people do not delve into the details, but they are reasonable to fear for their future.

In connection with the increase in the retirement age, at least two issues remained in limbo: the creation of a system of continuous education for adults and economic incentives for employers in order to maintain employment of those of “pre-retirement” age. Because criminal liability for dismissing older people will only lead to their dismissal long before they reach that age. For example, based on the results of recertification.

SP explained the prospects for indexation of pensions Deputy Director of the Institute of Social Analysis and Forecasting, RANEPA Yuri Gorlin.

- Vedomosti refers to the “Main Directions of Government Activities”. But we are talking about further improvement of the distribution insurance pension system. This does not necessarily imply a change in the formula for calculating pensions. The pension formula is just one element.

In order to make the insurance system harmonious, it is necessary to continue the theme of “premature recipients” and “harmful people”. We need to raise the requirements for experience. The minimum length of service of 15 years, which will be in effect by 2025, is not enough.

There is also the problem of low dependence of the size of the pension on the work of a particular person.

But now even talk about changing the formula for calculating pensions does not strengthen confidence in the pension system. Moreover, against the backdrop of raising the retirement age, when the population is agitated. This is even risky to a certain extent.

Moreover, for the next six years the topic of changing the indexation mechanism is generally closed, since the bill adopted in the third reading already spells out the “cost” of pension coefficients and the fixed part of pensions. Simply - in rubles. This was done specifically in order to guarantee the size and indexation of pensions by raising the retirement age.

“SP”: - Six years will fly by and we won’t notice. What happens next?

For the next period - after 2025 - the same law contains rules for indexing pensions, which are actually directly borrowed from the period before 2015. It turns out that practically the same government that abandoned the previous model will return it in a few years.

The disadvantage of this system is that the indexation mechanism built into it is such that pensions will never grow faster than wages. Although it is always said that the task is to increase the replacement rate from its current level of 34 percent to 40 and even 50. So this definitely will not happen.

A purely formal “points” system suggests more opportunities for the government to manipulate the size of pensions, notes Secretary of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions Alexander Shershukov. - After all, the value of the point is determined annually. So, if you wish, you can even reduce the size of your pension.

In general, talk about abolishing the “points” system has been going on for a long time. But compared to the sharp increase in the retirement age, these things are of a technical nature. I think we will encounter more than one innovation in the pension field. Unfortunately. The Quest for the Grail will continue.

Oleg Smolin: pension reform, even with Putin’s amendments, is unacceptable

Deputy Oleg Smolin believes that although Putin’s amendments soften the pension reform to some extent, which can hardly be denied, fundamentally these amendments do not resolve issues with the pension reform, that is, all the criticisms against this government initiative remain in full.

Putin, as you know, said before his “softening” that he would take into account the opinions of all social groups when making a decision and that this should be done very carefully. But the end result was something not entirely “cautious.”

Whose opinion did Putin take into account?

Putin actually promised before his speech to seriously consider the possibility of easing the pension reform. As a result, he proposed that women raise the retirement age not by 8 years, but by 5. This is better than it was, but in principle it is still a negative reform for the majority of the population.

After all, there is no benefit to the people at all. That is, for example, it is generously reported that benefits for people of pre-retirement (currently retirement) age will remain. And where is the “goodness” here? That is, they will leave some crumbs for pensioners, but will take away 5 years - for both men and women.

It is doubtful that this is a consequence of the president listening to the people. Still, the majority is still against raising the retirement age. Even according to official opinion polls, 75% of Russians did not support Putin in this matter.

About the rich

Deputy Smolin noted that the pension reform does not in any way affect the rich in a bad way. That is, it was probably implemented precisely in their interests. The logic here is as follows: if the pension reform had not been carried out, then it would have been necessary to look for additional funds to maintain the pension system.

There were two ways out if it were not necessary to touch the pensioners themselves: either take additional money from the state, or look for sources of income from the rich, that is, oblige them to pay more taxes or cancel various types of tax breaks and benefits that are used more often in Russia just in relation to the richest citizens.

As you can see, the government did not “offend” rich citizens, but decided to deal with the issue by redistributing funds from the poor to the rich. That is, the reform is 100% unfair in the social sense.

Kudrin: if we make at least one softening of the pension reform, then there will be no money for pensions

The head of the Accounts Chamber, Alexei Kudrin, said that if the government once again compromises with the people, then there will be no money for pensions. According to Kudrin, even a “magnanimous” softening of the pension from Putin is not a good thing, because it will have to spend additional money and the government will receive less profit than originally expected.

It is worth saying that Kudrin can be understood here, because he was the first among Russian political figures to propose raising the retirement age for women to 63 years, and for men to 65. He spoke out for this at the beginning of this year.

No money left?

It seems that “no money” will soon become a kind of slogan of the current government. Because senior officials like to repeat this too often. However, in reality there is money. We can easily prove this.

What is the main problem? State Duma Speaker Volodin says that the Pension Fund has a deficit. Is this true or not? This is true. The pension fund deficit is 250 billion rubles. And Volodin even stated that if the entire pension fund is constantly in deficit, then the abolition of pensions is possible. By the way, Kudrin is also hinting at this now.

Through reform they plan to eliminate this very deficit. That is, it is 250 billion, and the state will receive 1 trillion rubles from the pension reform. From the outside everything looks reasonable, but if you delve into the problem, it will immediately become clear that something is wrong.

There is money!

We take the deficit of 250 billion rubles and look at the budget surplus this year. The surplus is more than 2 trillion rubles. What is a surplus? This includes funds that the budget did not even expect to receive this year. Consequently, this is “extra money” that could have been used to ensure that there was no deficit in the Pension Fund.

In fact, not all of the surplus needs to be spent, but only part of it, and not even half, but by the end of the year, probably only about 10%, which is not that much.

But in addition to funds in the budget there is also a National Welfare Fund. And he - attention - is needed solely to support the pension system. However, this does not happen in practice.

The National Welfare Fund now has more than 5 trillion rubles, that is, there are enough funds to cover the Pension Fund deficit for clearly more than one year. Therefore, the problem is something else that Kudrin is not talking about.

Let's say for him: the state, following liberal guidelines, simply refuses social obligations. It's a slow process, but everyone notices it. Schools, free services, and so on are being cut. Now it’s just time for retirement.

No one needs older people, even if they are triple professionals

The Dozhd TV channel shared interesting information from its sources “close to the presidential administration.” We are talking about the next renewal of the governor's corps. The reason cited is the negative results for the party in power in the recent elections of regional leaders. According to an unnamed Kremlin official (who shared it with Dozhd), four governors will be dismissed first. In the foreseeable future, the heads of Altai, Kursk, Rostov and Lipetsk regions must resign.

“The term of office of these governors will expire in the near future - they are elderly and sociology has long shown their low popularity,” Dozhd quotes the words of a Kremlin insider.

Head of Altai Alexander Berdnikov- 65 years old.

To the Governor of the Kursk region Alexander Mikhailov- 67 years old.

To the Head of the Lipetsk region Oleg Korolev- 66 years old.

Vasily Golubev, the head of the Rostov region - 61 years old.

This news came almost simultaneously with the adoption by the State Duma of a law on criminal liability for the dismissal of persons of pre-retirement age. If the presidential administration (head Anton Vaino and his first deputy Sergey Kiriyenko- author) and indeed dismisses these four, then the supreme power - whether it wants it or not - will show by its decision that it is possible and necessary to get rid of unwanted older workers.

If someone says that the example is incorrect, we ask: why, exactly? It seems like a completely real-life situation, the piquancy of which is added by the fact that it involves senior officials calling specifically not to persecute under-retired people.

Perhaps these governors, like all older people, do not have the charisma and energy typically associated with younger, more aggressive politicians. At the same time, some heads of regions aged 60+ still retained the “Soviet” culture and a broader view than the current victims of the Unified State Exam, vying for positions in high offices. Therefore, it is far from certain that immature appointees will perform their duties better.

Take from the above four the Rostov governor, who is younger than the new retirement age. Compared to his colleagues, Vasily Golubev looks quite dignified and is not involved in reputational scandals. There aren’t enough stars in the sky, but he doesn’t do outright stupid things, which, by the way, the unsinkable does from time to time Prime Minister Medvedev, “famous” for its zero ppm rate, switching the switches and many other strange initiatives.

So, during his 8 years of rule, Vasily Golubev did not damage the regional industry. Of course, we can talk about actually marking time, but isn’t stagnation in the economy characteristic of the entire country?

If we take agriculture, then the gross grain harvest in the Rostov region, on the contrary, under Golubev began to set records. Even this year, Donetsk residents will harvest 11 million tons of grains and legumes, despite the unfavorable weather.

In Rostov-on-Don, the 2018 World Cup took place without serious problems, not counting the fact that Serafimovich Street in the very center of the city was not reconstructed in time for the opening of the World Cup. Imagine what would have happened if, during this global event, Moscow's Arbat looked like it did after a bombing. They say that those at the top were seriously angry, placing the blame on the governor. Like, they “lost face in the dirt” in front of foreigners. But the ever-optimistic local officials reported that “life doesn’t end at the World Cup, we’ll finish it later.”

In reality, if you look at it, the Rostov administration did not have enough guest workers from Central Asia, while on the streets neighboring Serafimovich, whippers, outcasts and homeless people were whiling away their time in huge numbers. And all the “Tajiks” who had local business at their disposal at that time were laying tiles day and night on the Left Bank next to the new stadium. This is exactly the case when contractors categorically did not want to pay decent wages to workers from the region.

Another possible disadvantage of Golubev is probably the demographic problem. The population of the Rostov region has been steadily declining over the past eight years, despite the fertile region and warm climate.

This is due to the higher mortality rate in the Rostov region compared to the birth rate and, as a consequence, to the low life expectancy, which, as is known, correlates with poverty. The average salary in the region is 29.8 thousand rubles, while the average in Russia is almost 40 thousand. But every third, or even second, poor region in the country.

In other words, the Rostov picture, a little better, a little worse, with the exception of Moscow and St. Petersburg, is observed everywhere in Russia, and governors have to work in the environment that is formed from above.

It is curious how ordinary Rostovites reacted to the news about Golubev’s possible departure.

“The main thing is that it’s local, those who come in large numbers are fed up, they’ll snatch a piece and leave.”

“Will the new governor be better than the old one? The question remains open. As practice shows, the new one begins to do weird things with even more enthusiasm. Look, in Bataysk they changed the head and the cost of travel immediately went up by three rubles. So now think what you want.”

The question is not even whether Governor Golubev is good or bad? It is clear that the presidential administration is obliged to resolve personnel issues so that people locally can live better. However, in this case, Moscow is not guided by poor demography and poverty in the Rostov region, but by how it will lose future elections to the opposition.

“We see that the ‘elderly’ governors faced problems, the ‘young’ ones coped with the task successfully, so it makes sense to continue the course of renewal,” Dozhd quotes another Kremlin source as saying. As they say, what a role model.

So it turns out that if the owner wants to fire his employee, he will do it, even if he has to kick out a dedicated professional. Of course, Golubev, unlike other elderly people, will not be left without a piece of bread; after all, the capital he earned will be enough for him in his old age. Moreover, the governor is entitled to a pension under the previous legislation.

But what should other under-pensioners do, whose fate will be decided by the conventional “Vaino and Kiriyenko” standing above them? Apparently, go to the porch if there is still room there.

What are the pros and cons of pension reform for Russians?

A lot has been said about pension reform recently. Naturally, the positions are different. Those in power say that pension reform is good for citizens, but the citizens themselves do not want to accept this. But officials paternally declare that citizens do not understand the benefits only because they do not have enough knowledge to determine their attitude to pension reform and understand such issues.

Let's consider the pros and cons of this reform from the point of view of the population and from the point of view of the authorities. Again, let us emphasize that there really is such a division here, that for the bureaucrats, pension reform is a real benefit, so we consider this a plus from their point of view.

Pros of reform from officials

Officials, especially senior ones, say that there will be clear benefits from the pension reform. For example, the main advantage is an increase in pensions. It is noteworthy that people like Valentina Matvienko say that the main goal of pension reform is to increase the size of pensions. And everything else, including raising the retirement age, is a minor point. The main thing is money. And the money is “huge” - a thousand a year.

Another plus from the point of view of officials is that now people will not be ashamed of their pensions. After all, from the point of view of German Gref, in our country women give birth at the age of 55. How can they be considered pensioners? They are ashamed, but they are still young!

It is for the sake of such “youth” that people allegedly want to give up their pension. This is flawed logic in every sense, but officials view this as one big plus. After all, the pension reform will bring about 1 trillion rubles to the budget, and an increase in pensions for people. That is, everyone is just happy!

Disadvantages of reform from the point of view of Russians

The main disadvantage of the reform is that many people, especially men, are outraged by the fact that their retirement age has been raised to 65 years, that is, to the average life expectancy of men. This is absurd, and the interesting thing here is that Putin stated back in 2015 that it is impossible to increase the pension of men under 65 years of age because of what will happen: after retirement - straight into the coffin. Now, in just 3 years, Putin has changed his position and believes that 65 years for men is the best option.

Further: the new retirement age means guaranteed unemployment, because employers do not want to hire older citizens for decent work, which is an undoubted fact. In the past - and many Russians remember this - a specific age was indicated in vacancies. There were rarely values ​​up to 50 years.

Petition to President V.V. Putin’s proposal to deprive working pensioners of their pensions caused an unprecedented public outcry. The document has already collected more than 27 thousand signatures from residents of Russia. The problem is growing in opinion, people are no longer shy in their expressions, discussing who needs and how much money to live in the current conditions.

The drafters of the document are confident that the deprivation of pension payments to people who continue to work after “retiring” will improve the financial situation of mature-aged citizens who are unable to earn a living.

The text of the petition says: “The average salary in the country, fixed not by income, but by expenses, is 35,900 rubles, and the pension is 13,300 rubles. If a person who has reached retirement age can work, he is quite capable of ensuring a comfortable existence for himself. By receiving pension payments and wages at his place of work, he takes money from those who cannot work - this is unfair.”

It is up to every citizen to agree with the petition or not. Opinions were divided; many Russians signed the document in order to express their negativity regarding this statement.

And indeed, how can one talk about “injustice” when paying pension savings to a person who has worked for the benefit of the state for many years and has earned the right to payments. However, here are quotes from the signatories:

• “People who work in retirement simply survive! What nonsense! Mom receives a disability pension of 10 thousand rubles after 40 years of continuous service. This is where the bullying comes in. The amount of pension payments is enough to pay for utilities. Dad's pension is 13 tr. How can you live if you don't work? Prices for food, medicine, and gasoline are rising every day.” O. Yevtushenko.
• O. Rodina writes: “I wonder what pension the author of this document has? Mine is exactly 9 tr. with 35 years of experience. How can I survive?
• L. Ponomareva is no less indignant: “Don’t forget to take away all social benefits, payments and pensions from people who have not worked all their lives, but receive pensions from the state. Also, do not forget to cancel pensions and payments to officials and members of the government - with salaries above average and more, they have already saved up for a comfortable old age not only for themselves, but also for all their relatives. At the same time, they will be sent to retirement at the age of 50, because the work is very “harmful”. I hope the petition will get enough votes not for it, but just against it. There are more adequate people in the country than such people. I personally signed the document in order to leave my own comment, and at the first opportunity I will cancel my vote.”

These are the opinions of those who are “against”, but there are citizens who are “for”. They say the following:

• G. Vinetskaya fully approves of the petition: “Very correct opinion! Both pension and salary – isn’t it too much? Because of working pensioners, the retirement age is being raised, because the government sees that people can continue to work. In fact, everything is exactly the opposite - working pensioners want to receive two payments, and that’s all.”
• T. Batyrov also spoke quite sharply: “In addition, in order to take away pensions from working pensioners, I propose to increase payments to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation to 40% of wages. It wouldn’t hurt to introduce a tax on those who lived to see retirement. They are robbing the state, which is unfair. The tax rate should be up to 70% of the average pension throughout the country. People, wake up already."

Experts' opinion

And, of course, it would be a good idea to look at what the professionals say. Mr. R. Shayakhmetov, associate professor at USNTU, economist, fundamentally disagrees with the petition. He says that a person who has worked his entire life has every right to a pension. Working in production, education, services or anywhere else, each of us creates a gross product. Punishing a citizen for this is not only wrong, but also illegal.

It would be much more correct to normalize the pension calculation system, that is, to make it uniform for both an ordinary citizen and an official or deputy. But regarding the issue of replacing young people with pensioners, look at where pensioners work - in the most unprestigious places, where the pay is below average. Will young people go there? No. And who then will take the places of concierges, elevator operators, cashiers and others. Finding a retired employee in the IT technology field is unrealistic.

Instead of driving pensioners out of their jobs, it is better to develop a reward system. People will have an incentive to work.

What is your opinion? Do you think that depriving pensioners of pension payments is legal? What can this measure lead to, what does it threaten for society and the state as a whole.

Popular opinion was also divided in voting on forums

Some believe that pensioners can only take positions that would be given to the unemployed. However, in every city there are plenty of empty vacancies for janitors, security guards, dishwashers and many others. The unemployed are in no hurry to take these places, safely receiving social benefits.

Those who are in favor are asking for stricter measures, including a tax on hiring pensioners, as is the case with migrants. If: “migrants are a drag on the country’s economy, then pensioners are no better, employers keep wages low only because pensioners go to work for them, if you deprive them of one payment, there will be more working people of retirement age, and employers will be forced to raise wages "

Opinions are subjective. Not every one of them has a sound idea, but once the petition has been launched among the people, there won’t be long to wait for an answer. And it will be better for each of us to firmly decide on a position.

Video about the abolition of indexation for working pensioners

An alternative view of working retirees

Because he doesn’t need to pretend.
Vyacheslav, learn to behave with dignity if you are trying to present yourself publicly. Or don't publish. You are not able to offend me with your “disrespect”, since I don’t know you, but I see your inadequacy. I understand that she may be your age, but I’m not young either. Don't forget. I don’t need your respect, don’t self-confidently consider yourself Santa Claus dispensing respect.

As for your complaints. Have you just now realized your poverty? If not now, then why have you waited so many years? If you only now understand, then rejoice that it’s better late than never. And there is no need to whine that you are the poorest. There are many more unfortunate than you, both in our country and in the world. Only the state of happiness is found within the person himself; it is not given from the outside. That is, this is a person’s ability to react to one or another circumstance and evaluate satisfaction with his life. I have seen literally beggars, but cheerful people. Including in old age.

I have no desire to teach you at this age. At your age they don’t relearn, but if you have a conscience, then it should show up. Well, if all the juices of life go into self-pity, then you need a priest, not me.

The most disgusting thing in life is to watch a person feel sorry for himself. This is such selfishness smeared across the face with tears and snot all over itself. You say that you worked from the age of 14 until you were 70? This is not a phenomenon. I have seen people in other countries who started working much earlier than you, and died earlier without receiving a pension. Do you know how many years a pension is given in other countries? Do you know the working conditions and working hours? But they never work there at the same job, since they are busy with a package, finishing one job, rushing to another on the same day.

Do you know the pensions of our Russian women amounting to six thousand?! Six thousand!!! Perhaps you consider them fair - they can’t get paid on par with you, such a well-deserved hard worker. From your words it is clear that your complaint applies only to you.

I agree that it is very worth condemning the hypocrisy of the Russian state. But feeling sorry for yourself is not a dick. Otherwise you put pity first. I also don’t receive a luxurious pension, but I don’t feel sorry for myself, I understood what kind of pension the state would give me. I have it like everyone else, not higher. There are also people in Russia who receive a very high pension. And it’s not just deputies. They have sanatorium treatment and special benefits. Those who feel very sorry for themselves are depressed by precisely this injustice - why Vasya the cop receives a pension of 35 thousand, and even spends every year in a sanatorium and the trip is free. Do you regret not being one of them? Me not.

In Russia they have been whining selflessly for centuries about how poor and wretched they all are. What did you do when you were young? Did you snitch on your neighbors? Was Stalin exalted? Were you shaking with fear? Who was supposed to build you the life that now, as you think, no one is serving to you on a plate. And what do you leave for your children besides the songs “My native country is wide”? Even now you are jumping around with portraits of Stalin and voting for assholes. You get what you deserve, and so do I.

The chatterboxes and cowards who, being slaves, considered themselves citizens, had fallen into senile insanity.