What will be the pension? This issue worries the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens. Because there is a high probability that you will have to live, or rather, survive, on the very pennies that the state is still throwing at the elderly. This is evidenced by a survey conducted by one of the job portals. 32 thousand respondents from all districts of Russia were interviewed.
According to the data obtained, after reaching retirement age, 28% of respondents will work and live on a salary, 24% expect to receive a state pension, 14% plan to live on savings, 4% hope for the generosity of non-state pension funds. And another 7% of respondents rely on other sources of income (for example, renting out real estate, dividends
For comparison: in 2009 more than 30% of citizens planned to live on their own savings, while only 7% expected to receive a state pension. And not because they were more adventurous and hardworking. Simply, the following years have shown the illusory hope that one can earn a decent old age.
A poll last year showed that more than 60% of working citizens of the country do not have any savings, and what the rest managed to postpone, in the event of a sudden loss of income, will be enough for about six months. And another wake-up call: almost 60% of the respondents said that they do not have enough money until their next paycheck. That is, people simply do not have the ability to save even small amounts. And there are no prospects for a radical improvement in this situation. In addition, with the current unemployment and low salaries, elderly people do not have to rely on the support of children, who themselves can barely make ends meet, or on the fact that they themselves will get a part-time job.
Therefore, even in prosperous Moscow, every fourth respondent understands that only a pension will shine for him. And just as many hope that they will have enough strength and health to work even after reaching retirement age. At the same time, Muscovites consider a pension of 50,000 rubles to be acceptable.
In “zamkadya” the situation is different. So, in Kirov only 35% of respondents rely on a pension, in Volgograd – 32%. In Kirov, by the way, and the lowest expectations: the townspeople consider a pension worth 39,000 rubles.
Among the cities with the highest percentage of those willing to live on personal savings, Perm is in the lead (20%). 40% are ready to work in retirement there, and 19% count on retirement as the main source of income. Samara has similar indicators.
The results of the survey caused a heated discussion on the network. People, as they say, sore. Many are outraged by the average indicators:
“Is the average pension in the country? It’s like someone eats meat (a minority), and someone eats cabbage (a majority), but on average everyone eats cabbage rolls ”; “The point is not in the absolute size of the pension, in comparison of its size, for example, with the deputy’s! The very accounting of wages and pensions in Russia is incomprehensible. “
Users pay attention to the fact that decent pensions are impossible without decent salaries:
“The minimum wage of 13 thousand was good for the year 2000”; “Pensions and wages should be such that, after paying all taxes and obligations, entering a store, you can buy everything you need and then not think about what to live on tomorrow and until your next pension or salary”; “The pension (including the desired one) should be expressed as a percentage of the salary, not in an absolute amount. World practice – 40% of the salary ”.
The survey also revealed that citizens understand that their wishes will remain unfulfilled:
“People have voiced these figures only because they understand that you can’t even dream of more, you can’t wait”; “They may well make pensions of 45 thousand, but we will have to give up the army and navy. But then, soon, pensions will be paid in yuan, cents, yen … “
– The state does not care at all what people think between the “correct” voting in the elections and the moment when they start to protest. Including their opinion on the size of pensions, – considers political scientist Mikhail Delyagin…
“Moreover, our officials are convinced that the minimum size of labor should not be such that one can live on it. Their attitude to the size of pensions is the same. And this despite the fact that there are more than a trillion rubles left in 2020 unused funds from the federal budget. These balances are helping to raise the pensions of millions of retirees. But when I spoke about this, the responsible persons sincerely did not understand what I was talking about and, most importantly, why do this. After all, although pensioners are dissatisfied, this dissatisfaction is quiet and polite, and does not create any problems for the state. So why change anything?
Look at the EU countries. Most people who actively participate in protests turn out to be nice, well-mannered people in person. But the state does not understand when it is politely asked for something. They pay attention to citizens only when they begin to demand something resolutely and loudly. We have the same.
“SP”: – And if the pension system were solidary, it would allow to increase pension payments?
– It would depend on what part of the funds would be used to pay pensions. The funded part is now frozen. We are talking about over 700 billion rubles. If these funds are used for payments, then the size of pensions will, of course, increase. But what will happen next?
However, it should be recognized that the solidarity system is the cheapest and most effective. The cheapest – because there is a minimal administrative superstructure. The pension fund is not regulated by the state. Therefore, money is often spent there on anything.
Agree, it’s not normal that in conditions when there is allegedly no money to raise pensions, the head of the Pension Fund plans to spend a billion on overhauls! This could be understood if employees were forced to work in some kind of huts.
Under the solidarity system, firstly, much less administrative staff would be required, which is certainly beneficial.
Second, the system would be more transparent. And now the stock market is falling – panic: there is no money. The stock market is growing – there is a lot of money, but it is used ineffectively.