opinion of pensioners. Lies about pension reform. Maria Kiseleva, Doctor of Psychology
Because he doesn't need to pretend.
Vyacheslav, learn to behave with dignity if you are trying to present yourself in public. Or don't post. You are not able to offend me with your "disrespect", since I do not know you, but I see your inadequacy. I understand that it may be from your age, but I'm not young either. Don't forget. I do not need your respect, do not self-confidently consider yourself Santa Claus distributing respect.
As for your complaints. Have you just now realized your poverty? If not now, then what have you been waiting for so many years? If you only now understand, then rejoice that it is better late than never. And you don’t need to whine that you are the most miserable. There are many more unhappy than you, both in our country and in the world. Only now the state of happiness is in the person himself, it is not given from the outside. That is, this property of a person to respond to a particular circumstance and evaluate satisfaction with his life. I had to see literally beggars, but cheerful. Including in old age.
I have no desire to teach you at that age. At your age, they are not retrained, but if there is a conscience, then it should manifest itself. Well, if all the vital juices 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 in the face with tears and snot on its own. You say that from the age of 14 to 70 you worked? It's not a phenomenon. I saw people in other countries who started working much earlier than you, and died earlier, without receiving a pension. Do you know how many years the pension is given in other countries? Do you know the working conditions and working hours? But they never work there at one job, since they are busy with a package, finishing one job, and rushing to another on the same day.
And do you know the pensions of our Russian women in the amount of six thousand?! Six thousand!!! Perhaps you consider them fair - they can not get on a 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 worthwhile to condemn the hypocrisy of the Russian state. But to feel sorry for yourself - not dick. And then you put pity in the first place. I don’t get a luxurious pension either, but I don’t feel sorry for myself, I understood what kind of pension the state would take me. I have it like everyone else, not higher. There are those in Russia who receive a very high pension. And it's not just deputies. They also have sanatorium treatment and special benefits. Those who are very sorry for themselves are overwhelmed by just such an injustice - why does Vasya the cop receive a pension of 35 thousand, and even every year he spends in a sanatorium and the road is free. Do you regret not being one of them? Me not.
In Russia, for centuries, they whine about how poor and miserable they are. What did you do when you were young? Did you knock on the neighbors? Stalin was glorified? Shaking with fear? Who was supposed to build the life that you now, as you think, no one brings on a plate. And what do you leave for your children besides the songs "Broad is my native land"? Even now you are jumping with portraits of Stalin and voting for assholes. You get what you deserve and I, along with you.
Talkers and cowards who fell into senile insanity, who, being slaves, considered themselves citizens.
Maria Kiseleva, Doctor of Psychology
Raising the retirement age has sparked heated debate. Historically, retirement in our country is not just a termination of employment due to age and a modest cash payment. Retirement has a deep psychological meaning: often it is the right to relieve oneself of responsibility for one's life, and for some, the right to be offended and dissatisfied. A natural question arises: offended by what and whom? The target is traditionally the state, as the figure of a father who did not love and did not give enough to his child. Few people are ready to admit that a person created the result of his own life before retirement. Even fewer people will agree that this is not the final result, that there is still time ahead, which means that something can be corrected, even when you are over ... even when you are retired. (Hereinafter, the word "pension" will be understood as the period of a person's life after the termination of labor activity.)
For many, life is a mindless race between getting out of dependency in one's own family to state dependency - pensions. Even as children, teenagers, many begin to dream of retirement as a time when they can live for themselves, namely: return to childhood and spend time on the principle of pleasure, when everything is there, but nothing needs to be done. In fact, a pension is perceived as an opportunity to do what you want, not to be responsible for yourself, your health, development. For many, a pension is a permission not to be active, to become infirm, not to want anything, or to want, but not to do, because finances or health do not allow.
An active life for such people is the need to somehow hold out from “childhood” to “senile childhood”. The most fruitful years are often spent waiting for the "real life": I'll start working, buy a car, start a family, make a career, retire, and then I'll live like a human being. With this approach, the delay in achieving the cherished goal, "pension", is perceived as a depreciation of the entire previous life, as a betrayal, as a mockery. After all, the opportunity to finally start living is pushed back for a few more years.
At the same time, in reality, people who retire early and do not want to work, for the most part, never begin to live. They quickly turn into grumbling old men, regretting missed opportunities, talking about the injustices of the world and their unfortunate fate. Suddenly it turns out that the cherished pension is a time when you need to occupy yourself with something, set goals for yourself, give life your own meaning. All this is much more difficult than just going with the flow towards retirement.
Back in the middle of the last century, the psychoanalyst E. Erickson created a psychosocial theory of development. The main idea that follows from the eight stages of life he described is that everyone creates his own life, his own destiny. Surrounding people and external circumstances can either help or hinder in this, but the responsibility for the result lies with the person himself.
The last, eighth stage of life, according to Erickson, begins exactly at the age of 60-65, and the central conflict of this stage is expressed by the opposition "integrity - hopelessness". The main work ends, it's time to think about life. A sense of wholeness, meaningfulness of life arises in those who, looking back at the path traveled, feel satisfaction. The one who sees the past as a chain of petty goals, unfortunate blunders, unrealized opportunities, understands that it is too late to start again and the lost cannot be returned. A person is overcome by despair and a sense of hopelessness at the thought of how his life could have developed, but did not. And believe me, such a sense of self does not depend either on the time of retirement, or on its monetary expression. Because the main life mistake was laid at the very beginning. Living for retirement is a thankless task. It is necessary to live here and now, so that it would not be excruciatingly painful in the future.
Who benefits from raising the retirement age? For all of us! The pension innovation, stretched over 15 years, will now primarily affect healthy, not burdened by a large number of children, people who predominantly do intellectual "harmless" work, living in favorable climatic conditions, who are not yet 50 at the moment. That is, they are quite young people! Why such panic?
New rules are needed so that we start living now, so that we believe in ourselves, so that we view life as a long, exciting project for which we ourselves are responsible. Early permission to be old and needy breeds helplessness in us. If we do not believe that a person at the age of 55-60 can be active, capable, creative, useful, healthy, then we do not strive for this. You need to rise above yourself, lift yourself off the couch and start acting. Internal incentives are not always enough, so we often rely on external ones, on what is accepted in society. If a pensioner is already 55, then there is a temptation to grow old earlier. Moreover, there are so few examples around how to grow old beautifully. We see either ugly youthful pop stars or frail cripples. Adequate examples of dignified aging are rare, but you must admit that when we see them, it is impossible not to admire them. So why can't we be like them?!
Raising the retirement age brings psychological benefits to all of us, here are some of them.
- View life as a long project. It is extremely difficult to decide who you are in this life, what you really want in an era of unlimited choice, and at the age of 25 it is completely impossible. The frontal lobes of the brain have not matured, there is no experience, there is not enough knowledge. By pushing back the final destination, we provide young people with the opportunity to slow down a bit at the start, better prepare, better understand themselves, identify and apply their strengths. Life is no longer a sprint, there is time to develop a long-term strategy.
An incentive to stay healthy. If you want to enjoy your retirement, take care of your health. At least now it is necessary to live ten years longer. And it's possible. Life expectancy is growing, there is a world struggle for immortality. The early write-off of oneself as an old man looks strange and out of date. The foundation of health laid in youth is an important condition for well-being in adulthood. You smoke, you drink - you won't live until retirement!
Extra time to fix bugs. You are 40, and it seems that life has already been lived. No, you still have a whole 25 years before retirement. Did something not work out the way you wanted? Use the "imposed" active time to achieve important goals. Shake up your life, beat the dust of meaninglessness out of it!
Active longevity to all of us!
Last week, the government announced plans to raise the retirement age to 65 for men and 63 for women. The change in pension legislation will begin in 2019 and will be phased in: it is expected to reach the retirement age specified in the bill in 2028 for men and in 2034 for women.
Why do representatives of the economic bloc of the government believe that only the elderly can help our economy recover?
Andrey Neverov, Member of the Council of the Association of Non-Governmental Pension Funds:
— Proponents of raising the retirement age seized on the positive statistics of increasing the average life expectancy in the country. Like, people began to live longer, so let them work longer and sit less on the neck of the Pension Fund. But statistics are a tricky thing. In this case, it is done by women, who are the majority in Russia. And the average life expectancy of men, although it has increased, is still small - in 2017 it reached 66.5 years. That is, on a well-deserved rest, men manage to live only 6.5 years. This is small and unfair. Especially considering the fact that the so-called “age of survival” calculated by the state in retirement is 19.5 years. Our men do not realize it anyway, and if the age is raised even more, “survival” will be very short.
“Why should I work legally, pay contributions to the Pension Fund or make pension savings? Maybe I won’t live to see retirement at all,” some men begin to think. And such decadent moods do not benefit our economy at all.
Drawing: / Andrey Dorofeev
Another argument advanced by age-raising lobbyists is the example of Western countries where people retire at 65. But why then do not compare the living standards of our and Western pensioners? They are diametrically opposed! Westerners have the means and opportunities to maintain their health by the age of 65, and accumulate a good pension, and thanks to this, have time to travel the world at that very “survival age”. For our average pensioner, a well-deserved rest is a period of survival, which they are trying to reduce even more.
In my opinion, it is possible to start raising the retirement age only when a stabilization base for this has been created in the country. When people will be able to make real savings for old age, when the quality of medicine will become higher. Don't forget about the labor market either. If pensioners take jobs, young people will not be able to come there. And if older people who have not reached the new retirement age threshold do not find application for their skills (and the problem of employment is already acute for those who are over 50), they will generally be left without a livelihood. What threatens not to reduce the number of poor people in the country, but to increase them sharply. People understand all this very well, so they do not massively support the idea of raising the retirement age.
Yuri Boldyrev: Russians will pay for raising the retirement age
Economist Yuri Boldyrev noted this sad moment about the so-called pension reform: in fact, the citizens of Russia 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 the money be spent on?
Putin said that decent sums will be spent on pension reform - 500 billion rubles. That is, less than for 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 was like an amount that would be very difficult to find, Putin just like that and stated that "you need to find the sum." They will find it in the pockets of citizens, Boldyrev believes.
We are talking about spending here, but what are the costs for? For example, the government would decide to lower 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 add the retirement age - that's all. People will not receive any bonuses, no additional costs 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 will not work?
Economist Boldyrev considers absurd the president's words that allegedly the pension reform is unprofitable for the government, but only beneficial for the population. These words are exclusively needed to justify a clear scam on a large scale.
Indeed, in fact, Kudrin said 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 can be reduced by a maximum of a quarter - no more.
But the state, in addition to direct profit, will save a lot of money at least on the fact that many people will not live to retirement age, but will pay contributions until the last.
And for some reason this moment is not particularly discussed, although it is relevant in the framework of the new realities. Indeed, in 47 regions of Russia, indeed, men live on average 65 years, that is, a considerable part of them will never be able to receive a pension, which must be honestly admitted.
Sergey 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, according to Kurginyan, pension reform is the most brazen way to take money from Russians.
There are various schemes that the government used in the 2000s, but, as a rule, they were not so overt, and thus both the president and the government are doing everything to destabilize the situation. Why do they need this, asks Kurginyan.
Putin is no longer the guarantor of stability?
It is worth noting that earlier Kurginyan supported Vladimir Putin, although he has a negative attitude towards Medvedev. Now, it seems, he has a negative attitude towards Putin as well. After all, the priorities of Kurgyan were to maintain social stability more or less.
It was not a full support for the authorities, but rather a critical support for the authorities for maintaining some kind of social peace for quite a long time. Now this is not 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 remained at work. % of citizens. Where will the rest, that is, the majority, go now?
Loss of adequacy
Kurgiyan characterizes the members of the government as people who have lost their adequacy. Because in reality, for the sake of maintaining social stability, it was worth taking some measures to maintain the retirement age in the old format. After all, this is a consensus, why was it to be violated?
The PF deficit has recently been 100-200 billion rubles. Is this sufficient reason to carry out pension reform? This is not such a critical mark, to put it bluntly. And for the stabilization of the pension fund there is the National Wealth Fund, where more than 5 trillion rubles!
Kurginyan believes that the consequences for the government can be very different, including the most negative, especially during the years of this very reform. Kurginyan also noted that the authorities proved that they are indifferent to the people. Kurginyan's movement "The Essence of Time" collected 1 million signatures of Russians and took them to the State Duma. In the State Duma, this was not only ignored, but also representatives of the party in power called the opponents of the pension reform "demagogues" and "talkers."
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 in public, but when he speaks out, interesting moments are immediately outlined. The fact is that recently Medvedev appointed himself responsible for the economic development of Russia, which, of course, can hardly be considered something positive.
Since he took up this business, now he indicates the priority tasks of Russia. And although his words are as vague as possible, we still note some points and perspectives.
About support and development
To seriously hear about how Medvedev plans to develop innovations in Russia is not even funny, many people remember 2008 very well and how these innovations ended. Actually, the treasury spent a lot of money, for some reason cut the Russian Academy of Sciences, but Rosnano and Skolkovo appeared, that is, unprofitable structures where many former government officials work.
The support of our private companies is the support of the richest citizens of Russia, such as Vekselberg, Deripaska and so on. They are losing from the sanctions, so they need help. And help well.
The government allocated $1 billion to Vekselburg, that is, a very decent amount. And such measures will be continued, as Medvedev hinted at. 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: whom 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 stability in this case also means income growth, as evidenced by real facts, since the richest in Russia only get richer during the years of sanctions. And there are no losses and cannot be, since the government "does not abandon its own."
Since the authorities have chosen 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 is definitely not in the interests of voters, because 75% of Russians are against pension reform, and neither Medvedev, nor Putin, nor any other top official is willing to take this moment into account at all.
Putin-Siluanov: You deceived me with the pension reform, and you will pay for it
How to understand the president's words that the reform brought only 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 proceeded from the fact that there will be a positive financial result within a few years from these measures. 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 government's previously proposed plan was to "save" more than $3 trillion between 2019 and 2024 by raising the retirement age. rubles. These funds were to be used for increased indexation of pensions in order to increase its size to 20,000 rubles a 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 amount of "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 said: 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 will initially amount to about 100 billion rubles a year.
Note that the financing of presidential amendments will require an additional 0.5 trillion. rubles for six years - not news. Earlier this figure was mentioned by both Siluanov and Deputy Prime Minister Tatyana Golikova. The news is different - that the budget as a result of the reform will remain unprofitable.
If so - why was it necessary to fence the garden? Why was it necessary to push through the toughest version of raising the retirement age? Bring down the ratings of United Russia, put the bill to a fire vote in the second and third readings, if only to quickly remove the irritant, which has already come back to haunt the crushing defeat of three Kremlin candidates at once in the gubernatorial elections? Finally, why risk the rating of Putin himself, who, according to VTsIOM, fell from 84% to 63.7% in just 9 months of this year - that is, by a staggering 20%?!
In fact, the presidential amendments - 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, a three-year reduction in the length of service giving the right to early retirement (up to 37 years for women and up to 42 years for men) - were a forced concession to the Kremlin. Since 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 the financing of the pension reform actually look like?
Let me remind you the main principle of the pension insurance system: it must be autonomous and self-financing, - says Doctor of Economics, independent expert on social policy Andrey Gudkov. - But our insurance rate is underestimated, 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 these, 28% was paid by the employer, another 1% was taken from the employee. And now the tariff is only 22% - and nothing more.
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 not be less than 40% of the average earnings. Of course, there are different ways of understanding 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 about 34% of the average salary, and this is much less than in Soviet times. Let me remind you when our pension system was just emerging - in 1932-1933, with Stalin- it was about 50%. That is, an old-age pensioner should have received half the salary. And almost all the post-war years, the Soviet government supported this position.
In recent 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 ratio reached 41%. But this went on for less than a year.
So what we're talking about now is that by raising the retirement age to 65 for men and 60 for women, and raising the replacement rate to 40%, our government will have to slightly increase the funding of the social insurance fund. For those same 500 billion rubles.
I emphasize: this happens only because of the low tariff. If the tariff were like in 2011 - 26% - half a trillion rubles would not be needed. Moreover, the government would be able to eliminate the deficit of the Pension Fund. According to the draft PFR budget for 2018, it is 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 is doing to increase pensions is the least possible.
"SP": - Why Putin will not raise the insurance rate again?
This mystery is great. Government economists assure that the increase in the tariff means an increase in the burden on business, which the business allegedly cannot bear. In fact, now the share of wages in the cost of production is about 30%. And the increase in the insurance rate will increase this share by literally one percent. That, under the condition of automation, a decrease 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. An increase in the insurance tariff and insurance payments will expand the sales market for Russian products. Pensioners, even with an increase in pensions, remain a low-income segment of the population that buys relatively cheap products. Basically - 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 added, he will not run for imported apples, but simply buy two kilograms of Stavropol ones.
For comparison, the increase in VAT does not have such an effect. On the contrary, this measure, although replenishing the federal budget, restrains the growth of consumption.
"SP": - Is it possible to say that the president and the Cabinet of Ministers make such decisions because they play 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, there are political implications. And now the only way out for Putin - to return the rating, to strengthen his authority - is a really fast and noticeable increase in the well-being of pensioners. That is, the increase in pensions at a rate higher than inflation.
In addition, we have resumed economic growth. And soon, workers who have been losing in real wages since 2013 will demand an increase. As a result, the average salary in the country will jump - at least, this can be expected. And along with it, the pension should also rise in order to reach the bar 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 on raising the retirement age. And now you will still fulfill my decision of 2009 that the rate of the insurance rate to the Pension Fund should be 26%. Because otherwise we will not keep pensions on par with 40% of the average salary.”
If so, this is to be welcomed.
Siluanov: We will create a new funded pension system. Will the 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 past, as you know, was frozen.
This paragraph means that people need to be involved in this scheme, because the government wants to earn money in this way, since Siluanov foresees in advance the possibility of investing funds from the pension capital of citizens.
Why was the old storage system “frozen”?
Before Siluanov's new project, there was an old storage system. There is no particular difference. The meaning of both projects is that the Russians should save up for their own retirement, and the solidarity system that was still in the USSR should be slowly abandoned.
However, here's the bad luck - the state constantly climbed into the funded system, helping banks, Gazprom and other similar institutions. And what is the outcome? Just freezing.
Of course, freezing is a word that supposedly suggests that they can reconsider this decision and return all the savings. However, this will never happen, since the money is withdrawn. And it's not just introducing a new system. They also want to raise money.
Is it worth believing? Will citizens have a choice?
Siluanov declares that nothing bad will happen 100% with the new accumulation system. He notes that although such persons as Chubais and others will get into it, in reality no one will freeze the system.
After all, it is clear that people who take money from Russians from there will spend it efficiently: they will invest it, but they will get 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 give up individual pension capital in writing, will simply be transferred there without asking. Therefore, it is worth considering such a moment in advance and not giving extra money to a structure that may disappear in a few years.
Golikova, after the appearance of such information on the network, immediately began to say that not everything had been decided yet; that there will always be a choice. However, there is no special faith in Golikova, especially since we always take into account the previous experience. Mistakes in Russia are never taken into account. Take the same Rosnano. The first five-year plan is unprofitable. They promised to check everything, correct the situation and make Rosnano an effective company. The second five-year plan was just as unprofitable for the state. And so on.
Why do Russians' pension savings disappear?
The pension savings of Russian citizens is a sore point for the Russian government, which regularly "reforms" the pension so that it is less beneficial for ordinary citizens, but beneficial for the elite.
Let's consider separate factors why pension savings disappear and whether it is possible to fix it at all within the framework of the current system.
Non-state pension funds
NPFs are now the most unprofitable area in terms of pension provision. In fact, every year the largest participants in NPFs 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 so 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 inefficient investment of funds, that is, the money of future and current pensioners is disposed of as if it were their personal capital. They are simply invested and, apparently, they do not particularly worry 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 NPFs.
Savings system and pension fund
With the accumulative system, everything is clear: the state, when there is not enough money, always cuts the social sphere or a sphere close to it. Since the money of the accumulative 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.
That is why these funds were frozen. Considering that a new funded system - known as individual pension capital - is now being prepared, one 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 deficit. The state has more than 100 thousand employees and it is not clear for what reason palaces are being rebuilt for pension funds, the maintenance of which, according to the head of the Pension Fund, takes “only” 1 billion rubles.
The conclusion in connection with these facts is obvious: the system is inefficient. Unfortunately, instead of taking an example from the effective systems of other countries, we in Russia will talk about a “special way” so that we can make good use of budget funds and carry out dubious reforms almost every year. By the way, these same reforms led to an increase in the retirement age in the long run.
The President signed the Federal Law “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation on the Issues of Appointment 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 Part of Expanding the List of Budget Revenues of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation”, “On Ratification of the Convention on Minimum Social Security Standards (Convention No. 102)”, “On 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 ruthlessly dragged through the predatory law, the president signed
The Federation Council by an overwhelming majority of votes approved changes to the package of documents on pension legislation, which was previously hastily adopted by the State Duma of the Russian Federation. The documents were also hastily received for signing by the president, and he approved them immediately.
Coincidentally, the consideration and final approval of this painful issue fell on October 3rd. On this day 25 years ago between supporters of the President Boris Yeltsin and the Supreme Council began a confrontation. A state of emergency was declared in Moscow, tanks were brought in, and the White House was shelled. More than 150 people were killed in the armed clashes that began. The opposition was defeated, on December 12, 1993, a new Constitution was adopted, and the country followed the socio-economic course that was determined by President Yeltsin and his government.
Apparently, some senators also remembered this when discussing the law, or rather a package of laws, on the so-called pension reform, but the majority were not embarrassed by this coincidence.
Senator from the Irkutsk region Vyacheslav Markhaev noted that this initiative of the government caused mass protests, which, unfortunately, went unnoticed. According to him, this norm contradicts the Constitution of the country: 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 shell of caring for the people, laws staged by the government are stamped. 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 the tax deductions of 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 last faith of the people in their future. This step is a consequence of all previous policies. Having destroyed production, agriculture, the country and the people were left with only shopping centers, bank robbers and an army of security guards and policemen. Then what will be taken away: the last - education and medicine? Will the state now solve all problems at the expense of those from whom it can be taken away? - 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.
“It is necessary to raise the economy from its knees, and not deceive 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 is now worse than in 1941?”
The senator stressed that the only source of power in the country is the people, and "the people live poorly."
Senator from 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 still an attempt to break through the knee, to raise the retirement age, to say that “you work as much as you can to 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, young people age,” he said, adding that there are a huge number of complaints against the law.
At the same time, the Speaker of the House Valentina Matvienko I noticed that the senators are no longer considering a draft law, but the law itself.
“We are adopting a law that has been amended and adjusted to take into account the President's amendments... It (the law - ed.) is completely different from the version that the Accounts Chamber issued an opinion on,” she stressed.
However, not all senators were satisfied even with this version of the law. Senator from the Oryol region Vasily Ikonnikov noted that, despite the amendments made for 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.
“We 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 residue of social injustice remained in the minds of the majority of people, which gave rise to distrust in the authorities and delayed protest,” he said.
He drew attention to the accumulated discontent among the population caused by the decline in living standards, which became the result of the financial and economic policy of the government.
“We see that an explosive mechanism is being laid for stability in Russian society, the trigger of which may be overseas. In the context of the use by the United States and its allies of the methods of hybrid war against Russia, the factor of dissatisfaction with the population of the social course being pursued can 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 the development of the economy.
However, the majority of members of the chamber came out in support of changes in pension legislation. The President had the last word. He put his signature under 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 funding for the reform was not raised, as it was assumed that the initiative would give a positive economic result. However, the adjustment of the bill determined an increase in expenses, which, on the contrary, will require the attraction of additional state funds.
According to the Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation 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 in order to implement the reform as planned.
Writer Bushin: there is nothing surprising in the pension reform. The authorities have 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 his principles after the collapse of the USSR, said that in reality the 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 headed by Yakovlev was to convince people that communism is worse than fascism.
Social rights abolition process
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 the revision of the results of privatization is something unacceptable, which proved that he is fundamentally not much different from his predecessor. In fact, relative stability for citizens was only due to the surviving 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 leftists (some publicists even call them “pink”) and rightists, that is, it was a centrist party, which really included people of different views.
But since 2015, there are no “leftists” there anymore. 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 they took away social rights as cynically as possible, and now they are veiled and a little slower. But the outcome is always the same.
It's a retreat before the west
Bushin believes that the main problem of modern Russia is its complete dependence on the West. Even sanctions will not convince the leadership to abandon this dependence. The reason is banal: the Russian elite keeps their savings in the countries that work against Russia.
Therefore, under the current system, Russia will never give any special answers to the West, which can be recognized with great regret. Our head of the banks is Nabiullina, who regularly visits the US and who is praised at the IMF for her "effective work", which led to what Nabiullina herself admits - the Russian economy is at the bottom.
United Russia amended the pension reform
Since most of the 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 Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the SR intend to apply to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation 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 to raise the retirement age in our country. 332 deputies voted for this decision, 83 voted against, there were no abstentions. According to 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 "for" 330 belong to deputies from United Russia. Natalya Poklonskaya again distinguished herself by refusing to support the bill. Earlier, the ex-prosecutor of Crimea had already been subjected to party sanctions for such a “trick” and lost her post as head of the Duma commission for monitoring the reliability of information about the incomes 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" who voted against the pension reform.
For the 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 it. The vast majority of citizens stay at home on Election Day. But if you ignore elections, the authorities ignore you.
“We have adopted Convention 102, the minimum will already be 40% of the salary with which a person leaves,” he said.
“I'm still not used to the fact that I have no money. Because I was earning very, very decent money and spending even more,” recalls retired Zoya Latypova.
Although she is in her 70s, 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 keep benefits, tying them to age (60/55 years for men and women), but not to the status of a pensioner.
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 (KPRF, LDPR, A Just Russia) opposed.
“These people are not fired from the enterprise. This agreement is secured by the agreement of State Unitary Enterprise Mostransavto. These drivers are valuable to us because they have a lot of experience,” said Alexander Pyatibratov, Deputy Director for Road Safety of the State Unitary Enterprise Mostransavto.
“This is an extremely important decision that people have been waiting for a very long time. We do not need to mislead a huge number of people now. Today, the decision has affected 46.5 million people, and we need to talk about it,” the politician called, reacting to criticism of the law by the opposition.
But the main thing is that the state takes under the protection of people of pre-retirement age. From now on, they cannot be fired without explanation or just as unreasonably not hired. This is a criminal offence.
“We are ratifying Convention 102 of the International Labor Organization, which imposes Russia internationally recognized obligations under a number of social norms, including the rule 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 power. At the last elections in those regions where the turnout was slightly higher, the result changed dramatically. In Primorye, in the first round, the turnout was low, and the opposition candidate scored almost half as much as current governor. And in the second round the situation changed simply because people came. And in the Khabarovsk Territory - the same story. And in the Vladimir region.
“Today, the average pension is about 14 thousand rubles. And unless we raise pensions at a rate higher than inflation, then 46.5 million people will live very poorly,” the speaker warned immediately after the vote on the bill.
The presidential amendments have been hotly debated in the Duma Committee on Labor and Social Policy for the past month. The changes proposed by Vladimir Putin in August were finally supported by the majority of deputies, as shown by the last two readings. The bill passed by the Duma must now pass Council of the Federation and lie down on the president's table.
In the Sverdlovsk region, the 57-year-old ex-leader of the scandalous Yekaterinburg OCG Uralmash, a former deputy of the Yekaterinburg City Duma, Alexander Kukovyakin, was released from the Ivdel colony No. 62, a VEDOMOSTI Ural correspondent reports.
Proposals for finalizing the government bill came not only from State Duma deputies, but also from their regional counterparts, representatives of business, public organizations and trade unions.
The announcement of the pension reform provoked numerous protests across the country and a downgrade of United Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Moreover, even the "party of power" itself admitted that the decision to raise the retirement age had a negative impact on the rating of United Russia and its results in the elections on September 9, 2018 (according to the results of a single voting day, United Russia suffered several unexpected defeats at once in the gubernatorial elections ).
“And our task is to do everything to ensure that the pensions of our pensioners grow, grow quickly, and this 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 more than in previous readings.
All week they argued, persuaded and even protested in their own way. To the point of breaking the rules. Communists Valery Rashkin and Denis Parfyonov came to discuss changes in pension legislation not in suits, but in T-shirts. With the numbers 65 and 63 crossed out. This is the retirement age for men and women that was going to be set under 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 a specially created in the State Duma working group 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 the result."
On September 25, at the initiative of the president, the chamber adopted 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. The pre-retirement age is understood as “an age period of up to five years preceding the appointment of an old-age insurance pension to a person”.
“There was no organized movement as such 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 complaining on social networks. The government does not particularly react to this.
Deputy Makarov: I believe that the salary of a deputy is already very small, it cannot be reduced
Deputy Andrey Makarov not so long ago spoke about the reduction of 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 is there such a discussion at all? Because the members of A Just Russia proposed to equate the salary of a deputy to the average salary in Russia, that is, to pay them 35,000 rubles each.
The logic of the Socialist-Revolutionaries was that in this way the deputies would really start working for the good of the people, and thus the salaries of not only the deputies, but in general all citizens of Russia would begin to grow. However, the idea was immediately rejected.
Makarov's complaints
Makarov believes that now the deputies do not earn enough. Recall 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. It is rather a bonus for many deputies.
Let's also say that the deputies are provided with apartments, cars, assistants and many other benefits, for which they do not have to spend a penny. And all these really excellent conditions for life Makarov considers "insufficient".
I wonder what he wants? Immediately to pay a billion rubles or what? That is, the interests of the people's representatives are not entirely clear. Do they need to be as far away from the people as possible in order to work effectively?
"Fair" wages
Makarov, apparently, set a temporary goal - to receive 800 thousand as a salary. There have been talks about this for a long time. And there is no doubt that over time this increase will pass. The fact is that back in 2013, deputies received 160,000, and now 200,000 more. That is, they immediately add significant amounts to themselves, and not some trifle. But this year they added as much as 117 rubles to the minimum wage.
Mr. Shuvalov proposed to pay huge salaries to the 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 suit the deputies, of course, 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 obligations of the state to the population are still overstated
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 the pensions of Russians.
According to the Vedomosti newspaper, the authorities intend to improve "the main parameters of the distributive component of the pension system, taking into account demographic and economic conditions." As one of the sources of the publication explained, we can talk, among other things, about the abolition of the so-called "point system". Previously stated this Deputy Prime Minister Tatyana Golikova.
The argumentation of the officials given by the publication sounds wild. Since the current pension score is indexed to the rate of inflation, in the long run this will "inflate the pension obligations" of the state. That is, officials are afraid to overpay the population.
Another argument: the pension, calculated according to the "point" system, depends too much on the salary. And therefore, a public sector worker, who, according to officials, receives relatively little, is doomed to a low pension.
Lead "Vedomosti" and an alternative opinion. Instead of abandoning the "point" system, its shortcomings can, it turns out. fix: the procedure for calculating the cost of a pension point and its indexation can be prescribed additionally. Simply put, stop adjusting this figure in line with inflation.
Most likely, in Moscow, sooner or later they will come to this option. Why change the whole 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 realized it - an employee of the secretariat, Golikova, said that the issue of revising the system for calculating insurance pensions until 2024 would not be touched upon. However, one thing is clear from the published insider: the authorities are ready to endlessly “improve” pension legislation. Infringing on citizens in everything they can. The explanation for this, obviously, lies in the ideological plane - liberal ideas still dominate the financial and economic bloc of the government.
The consequence of such throwing will be a total loss of confidence in the pension system as such. Young people, instead of working hard in the hope of improving their retirement "conditions", 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 the ignorant.
As a result, the state will have to forget about "long" cheap money that could be successfully invested in the country's economy.
Removing 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 “point” principle forms a deep distrust of the pension system in general.
The ferment that we are seeing in connection with the increase in the retirement age, just says that the "points" system has not worked in full. People have experienced for themselves the blurring 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, not verifiable.
"SP": - The government, when deciding on a "point" system, referred to the economic downturn, 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 a "point" 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 article in Vedomosti is an authorized leak, signaling that the government has addressed this systemic problem.
"SP": - In favor of which there may be a rejection of the "point" system or its change?
What I said is a diagnosis. People are irritated. When there was money, not points, it was clearer to them.
But how to carry out treatment - is not yet clear. I don't think the government is aware of this either. It is only clear that the pension coefficient must be transparent, understandable, and verifiable. And each person should feel the connection between the results of his labor activity and his future pension.
"SP": - Arguments of officials are alarming. Like, indexation will lead to inflated pension obligations of the state.
It sounds like words from the looking-glass world, because the point of raising the retirement age is that indexation always exceeds inflation.
"SP": - Most people do not delve into the details, but reasonably 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 adult education and economic incentives for employers in order to maintain employment at “pre-retirement” ages. Because criminalizing the dismissal of the elderly will only lead to their dismissal long before that age. For example - according to the results of recertification.
Prospects for indexing pensions "SP" explained Deputy Director of the Institute for Social Analysis and Forecasting of the RANEPA Yuri Gorlin.
- "Vedomosti" refers to the "Main Directions of the Government's Activities". But it is about further improvement of the distributive insurance pension system. It does not follow at all from the change in the formula for calculating pensions. The pension formula is just one of the elements.
In order to make the insurance system harmonious, it is necessary to continue the theme of "early-term", "bad guys". We need to raise the requirements for experience. The minimum experience of 15 years, which will be valid by 2025, is not enough.
There is also the problem of the 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. Especially - against the background of raising the retirement age, when the population is agitated. It's even risky to some 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 a fixed part of pensions. Simply - in rubles. This was done on purpose in order to guarantee the size and indexation of pensions by raising the retirement age.
"SP": - Six years will fly by - we will not notice. What will happen next?
For the next period - after 2025 - the same law contains norms for indexing pensions, which are actually directly borrowed from the period up to 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 incorporated in it is such that pensions will never grow faster than wages. Although it is said all the time that the task is to increase the replacement rate from its current level of 34 percent to 40 or even 50. But this will definitely not happen.
Purely formally, the "point" 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 score is determined annually. So if you want, you can even reduce the size of the pension.
In general, talk about the abolition of the "point" system has been going on for a long time. But compared to the sharp increase in the retirement age, these things are technical. I think we will come across more than one innovation in the pension area. 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 to some extent soften the pension reform, which can hardly be denied, however, in principle, these amendments do not solve the issues of pension reform, that is, all criticisms against this government initiative remain in full.
Putin, as is known, said before his “softening” that he would take into account the opinion of all social groups when making a decision and that this should be done very carefully. But the output turned out to be something not entirely “cautious”.
Whose opinion did Putin take into account?
Indeed, prior to his speech, Putin promised to seriously consider the possibility of easing the pension reform. As a result, he offered women to 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 continue. And what is the "goodness"? That is, they will leave pensioners with some crumbs, but they will take away 5 years - for both men and women.
It is doubtful that this is a consequence of the fact that the president listened 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 in no way affects the rich in a bad way. That is, it is probably implemented precisely in their interests. The logic here is as follows: if the pension reform had not been carried out, then additional funds would have to be found 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 kinds of tax breaks and benefits that are used more often in Russia only in relation to the richest citizens.
As you can see, the authorities did not go to the point of “offending” rich citizens, but decided to cope 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 more mitigation of the pension reform, then there will be no money for pensions
The head of the Accounts Chamber, Alexei Kudrin, said that if the authorities once again compromise with the people, then there will be no money for pensions. According to Kudrin, even the "generous" mitigation of Putin's pension is not good, because it will have to spend additional money and the government will receive less profit than originally calculated.
It is worth saying that Kudrin can be understood here, because he was the first among Russian politicians who proposed raising the retirement age for women to 63 years, and for men to 65. He spoke out in favor of this at the beginning of this year.
No money left?
It seems that "there is no money" will soon become a kind of slogan of the current government. Because the top officials like to repeat it 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 it true or not? This is true. The PF deficit is 250 billion rubles. And Volodin even stated that if the entire PF is constantly in short supply, then the abolition of pensions is also possible. By the way, Kudrin is also hinting at this now.
Due to the 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. Everything looks reasonable from the outside, but if you delve into the problem, it becomes immediately clear that something is wrong here.
There is money!
We take a 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 bail out this year. Consequently, this is “extra money” that could be used to ensure that there was no deficit in the PF.
In fact, not even the entire surplus needs to be spent, but only a part of it, and not even half, but by the end of the year, probably only about 10%, which is not so much.
But in addition to the funds in the budget, there is also the National Welfare Fund. And he - attention - is needed solely to support the pension system. However, this does not happen in practice.
There are now more than 5 trillion rubles in the National Welfare Fund, which means that there are enough funds to cover the PF deficit for more than one year. Therefore, the problem is something else, which Kudrin does not talk about.
Let's say for him: the state, following liberal guidelines, simply refuses social obligations. It's a slow process, but everyone notices. Reduced schools, free services and so on. Now it's just the turn of retirement.
Nobody needs old people, if they are three times professionals
The Dozhd TV channel shared some interesting information from its sources, "close to the presidential administration." We are talking about the next renewal of the governor's corps. The negative results for the ruling party in the recent elections of regional leaders are cited as the reason. According to an unnamed Kremlin official (who shared with Dozhd), four governors will be fired first. In the foreseeable future, the heads of Altai, Kursk, Rostov and Lipetsk regions should resign.
"The term of office of these governors will expire in the near future - they are aged and their low popularity has long been shown by sociology," Dozhd quoted a Kremlin insider as saying.
Head of Altai Alexander Berdnikov- 65 years old.
Governor of the Kursk region Alexander Mikhailov- 67 years old.
Head of the Lipetsk region Oleg Korolev- 66 years old.
Vasily Golubev heading 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 Sergei Kirienko- auth.) and indeed dismiss 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 elderly workers.
If someone says that the example is incorrect, we ask: why, in fact? It seems to be quite a life situation, the piquancy of which is added by the fact that top officials appear in it, urging just not to drive away under-pensioners.
It is possible that these governors, like all older people, do not have the charisma and energy that, as a rule, younger and more aggressive politicians have. At the same time, some heads of regions aged 60+ still retained a “Soviet” culture and a broader view than the current victims of the Unified State Examination, who are claiming seats in high offices. Therefore, it is far from certain that immature appointees will perform their duties better.
Take from the indicated four the Rostov governor, who is younger than the new retirement age. Against the background of his colleagues, Vasily Golubev looks quite worthy and has not been seen in reputational scandals. There aren’t enough stars from the sky, but it doesn’t do outright stupid things, which, by the way, the unsinkable does from time to time Prime Minister Medvedev, "glorified" by zero ppm, the translation of arrows and many other strange initiatives.
So, for his 8 years of government, Vasily Golubev did not drop the regional industry. Of course, we can talk about actual marking time, but isn't stagnation in the economy typical of the entire country?
If we take agriculture, then the gross grain harvest in the Rostov region, on the contrary, under Golubev began to be distinguished by 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 passed without serious problems, apart from the fact that Serafimovich Street in the very center of the city had not been reconstructed before the opening of the World Cup. Imagine what would happen if, during this world event, the Moscow Arbat looked like after the bombing. They say they got really angry at the top, putting the blame on the governor. Like, "hit the face in the dirt" in front of foreigners. But the eternally optimistic local officials reported that "life at the World Cup does not end, we'll finish it later."
In fact, if you look at it, the Rostov administration did not have enough guest workers from Central Asia, while on the streets adjacent to Serafimovich, scourges, outcasts and homeless people whiled away the time in huge numbers. And all the “Tajiks” who had local business at their disposal were laying tiles on the Left Bank next to the new stadium day and night. This is exactly the case when contractors categorically did not want to pay decent wages to workers from the region.
Another possible minus of Golubev, for sure, is the demographic problem. The population of the Rostov region has been steadily declining over the past eight years, despite the fertile land and warm climate.
This is due to the higher mortality in the Rostov region compared to the birth rate and, as a result, to a low life expectancy, which, as is known, correlates with poverty. The average salary in the region is 29.8 thousand rubles, while the average salary in Russia is almost 40 thousand. But poor regions in the country - every third, and even second.
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 an environment that is formed from above.
It is curious how ordinary Rostovites reacted to the news about the possible departure of Golubev.
“The main thing is to be local, those who come in large numbers get sick, snatch a piece and bring down.”
“Will the new governor be better than the old one? The question remains open. As practice shows, the new one begins to kink with even greater enthusiasm. Look, in Bataysk the head was changed and the fare immediately went up by three rubles. 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 on the ground live better. However, in this case, Moscow is guided not by poor demographics and poverty in the Rostov region, but by how it loses the future elections to the opposition.
“We see that the “older” governors faced problems, the “young” ones coped with the task successfully, so it makes sense to continue the course of renewal,” Dozhd quoted another Kremlin source as saying. As they say, what is not an example to follow.
So it turns out that if the owner wants to fire his employee, he will do it, even if he has to expel a dedicated professional. Of course, Golubev, unlike other elderly people, will not be left without a piece of bread, after all, he will have enough earned capital for his old age. Moreover, the governor's pension is still due under the previous legislation.
But what about other under-pensioners, whose fate will be decided by the conditional "Vaino and Kiriyenko" standing over them? Apparently, go to the porch, if there is still room.
What are the pros and cons of the pension reform for the Russians?
A lot has been said about pension reform lately. Naturally, the positions are different. Those in power say that the pension reform for citizens is a blessing, 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, we emphasize that there really is such a division here, that for the bureaucracy the pension reform is a real benefit, which is why we attribute this to the pluses from their point of view.
Pros of reform from officials
Officials, especially the highest ones, say that there will be obvious advantages from the pension reform. For example, the main plus is the increase in the size of pensions. It is noteworthy that people like Valentina Matvienko say that the main goal of the pension reform is to increase the size of the pension. And everything else, including raising the retirement age, is an insignificant 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 the moment that now people will not be ashamed of pensions. After all, from the point of view of German Gref, women give birth at the age of 55. How can they be considered pensioners? They are ashamed, but they are still young!
For the sake of such “youth”, people allegedly want to give up their pensions. This is flawed logic in every sense, but officials see this as one fat plus. After all, the pension reform will bring the budget about 1 trillion rubles, and people - an increase in pensions. That means everyone is happy!
Cons 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 they have raised the retirement age to 65 years, that is, to the average life expectancy of men. This is nonsense, and what is interesting here is that Putin, back in 2015, said that it was impossible for men under 65 to increase their pension because of what would come out: after retirement - immediately into the coffin. Now, Putin has changed his position in just 3 years and believes that 65 years for men is the best option.
Further: the new retirement age is guaranteed unemployment, because employers do not want to hire older citizens for decent work, which is an undeniable fact. In the past - and many Russians remember this - a specific age was indicated in vacancies. There have rarely been values under 50 years of age.
Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev announced the actual start of pension reform. It is planned to raise the retirement age for men to 65 years, women to 63. The implementation of the law will begin in 2019. This article contains reviews on raising the retirement age from 2019, both specialists and ordinary citizens.
Opinion of the Prime Minister
According to Dmitry Medvedev, the proposed measures in the field of pension reform will not only increase pensions, but also balance the labor market, which is experiencing a shortage of workers.
“We already have record low unemployment and in the medium term we may even face a situation where we will not have enough labor resources,” the prime minister said. He acknowledged that "in a number of regions there are already not enough people."
In this regard, the head of government stressed that "the older generation - people with vast experience and often unique qualifications - can still do a lot."
Kudrin on raising the retirement age today
Raising the retirement age will save the Russian budget about 1 trillion rubles a year, part of which the authorities plan to use to increase pensions. This was stated by the head of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation Alexei Kudrin in an interview with the Russia 24 TV channel.
"This budget money - in the first years it will be more than a hundred billion rubles, then it will increase every year, by 2024 it will be about a trillion rubles a year, if we talk at current prices," Kudrin said.
Health to finalize up to 63 years is not enough
I am 47 years old, I live in a village and do not work as a technical engineer, Health, to finalize up to 63 years old and not only with all my peers with whom I will not communicate. At work, half of the working pensioners who are sitting on blood pressure monitors at the age of 57 and work because of small pensions, respectively, young people are sitting at home because their places are taken by working pensioners. Unemployment…. and not 8% in our country, as they tell us, it is 8% in Germany, and we care about Germany, like the moon. Whoever said that life expectancy has increased, sink to the ground or it is beneficial for someone to distort the mortality statistics for the president. It's all just in the ears of the government to each other. Leave at least what is now, to the majority and only to creak before it. They know perfectly well that diseases of the heart, joints have become younger, and cancer mows down every third.
Is a mockery!
The current age is quite optimal. 63 for women and 65 for men with a life expectancy of 78 and 67, respectively, is a mockery.
The government needs to think
I believe that the government should think about such moments as the physiological processes of a person of pre-retirement age (motor skills are no longer the same, the perception of information is also inhibited, not like in young people). If a person did the same monotonous work before retirement, then he will still be able to be useful at his job for some time after 55 and 60 years. the employee is higher, both physical and mental (brake and slow-witted people are not needed). Therefore, I believe that a person after 55 and 60 years, respectively, will stupidly sit without a job and wait for his "legal" retirement age (63 and 65 years) without a livelihood.
This is overkill!
First of all, it's not fair! If they raise it, then by the same number of years, but it’s very strange for women to be raised by 8 years, for men by 5. And secondly, if they raise every year, then many citizens will not be able to retire until the maximum age is reached, they and every year they will be a year younger than necessary, it is more correct to raise the age every 2 years. But 8 years is too much!
Everything written above is only a value judgment, the point of view of the author. The article was not created to offend or defame anyone.
Post navigation
148 Comments
Alexander
Vladislav
