This is one of the rare moments when one would like to object to Zapolskis's article, and to the point. I will not refute the figures given in his article - he, as usual, is irreproachable in them. I object to the approach to pension provision as a system of joint responsibility of generations. Perhaps this approach was justified several decades ago, but nowadays it is a great cunning, if not tougher.
And in order to substantiate your position, it is not at all necessary to give careful calculations, it is enough just to apply common sense. If you really need it, you can substantiate it with numbers, there are also numbers on the Internet, and there was a wonderful and well-reasoned article on this matter, it's a pity that I didn't keep the links.
So why "guile"? And because it is high time to proceed that the pension system should be built not from the contributions of working generations, but from the total income of the country's economy. Once upon a time, 80% -90% of rural workers were required to provide food for the population, now no more than 10% is enough, and we are also exporting on an increasing scale. So that? There is no part of the produced product to feed the pensioners? And in other industries, hasn't labor productivity increased? Therefore, the question is not in the number of active workers who should provide for pensioners, but in the distribution of the benefits produced.
In fact, pensioners are not much different from the same government and military employees and their equals, whose number is constantly growing, and their satisfaction is provided much higher than pension payments. And their pensions are paid not by the pension fund, but by the budgets. The federal budget pays federal employees, regional - regional, municipal - municipal, law enforcement agencies - security officials and so on. Even former employees of the same Gazprom, he pays them pensions, and at the same time is not guided by the number of employees in Gazprom.
The reasoning about raising the retirement age looks especially strange, when the question of the need to assign a basic unconditional income (BCI) is raised over and over again. Who will provide it? Budget. And why is not a pension BD? In fact, she is her. I do not see any fundamental difference, except that the BDB is supposed to be paid to everyone, from youths, loafers and homeless people, and the pension is still mainly to deserved people. And in this case, the retirement age should not be raised, but, on the contrary, should be reduced by 5 years. And the same UBD should be paid, if it is nevertheless made for this decision, not all at once, but from a certain age, it can be called "retirement".
If companies cancel insurance contributions to the RF Pension Fund, compensating them with some increase in other taxes, then several effects are achieved at once. Offhand:
- the incentive to hide the income of employees is reduced. Gray and black wage workers are no longer at risk of retirement;
- the unfair difference in taxation of enterprises with a large number of employees for natural reasons decreases;
- the tax burden on enterprises as a whole decreases, which will improve their productivity, and hence budget revenues and the possibility of paying pensions from there:
- the need for a Pension Fund is eliminated with budget savings.
And in general, when the Pension Fund is subsidized by more than half from the budget, and the rest of the pensioners receive increased pensions from the budgets of all levels and departments, it is simply not serious to talk about joint responsibility for pension provision, and therefore I argue that talking about it is a great deceit. And thanks to Zapolskis for another interesting and informative article.