Pension reform. Arithmetic for the government
16 June 2018, the government of D.A. Medvedev introduced a bill to the State Duma, providing for raising the retirement age by 8 years (to 63 years) for women and by 5 years (to 65) for men. The Prime Minister assured that thanks to the reform, the pension will grow annually by 1 thousand rubles per year (1). Not surprisingly, the government’s decision turned out to be extremely unpopular: according to the Levada Center, 89-90% of the population has a negative attitude towards the upcoming reform.
May decrees
To bring clarity to the government’s actions, first of all, you need to look at a few paragraphs of the May decrees of V.V. Putin's (2):
As it is easy to guess, the government is trying to solve several points of the May presidential decrees by one reform. On the one hand, the growth of pension payments exceeding inflation has already been guaranteed - therefore, one of the tasks set has been completed. On the other hand, an increase in the number of officially working people in the country's economy should increase labor productivity, and, accordingly, lead to an increase in GDP. In turn, GDP growth should have a positive impact on real incomes and a reduction in the poverty level of the population of the Russian Federation. Raising the retirement age will also reduce the deficit in the FIU, thereby reducing the burden on the country's budget. The money saved by the government will be able to invest in development, again, improving the economy and the state of affairs in the country. Of course, it is worth considering that the Pension Fund revenues by about 40% consist of intergovernmental transfer, i.e. 3,28 trillion rubles was allocated by the state in 2018 for pension payments (3). According to the forecast, the federal budget revenues in 2018 will reach 16,529 billion rubles (4), therefore, the inter-budget transfer to the Pension Fund will be 19,8% of all expenses.
It should be noted that, according to Rosstat, the average pension for 2017 was equal to 13.304 rubles, and for 2018 (as of January-April) - 13.337 rubles. (5). Those. growth was 33 rub., or 0,248%. Against this background, the increase in pensions on 1.000 rubles. per month will give a reason to report to the government about the approximate growth of the average pension by 7,5%, which exceeds inflationary expectations and at the same time means a real increase in the incomes of pensioners.
Going nowhere
Probably, you have already traced the predictability of the government of D. A. Medvedev: with one stroke of the pen he solves many problems and then can move on to other, equally important goals. Unfortunately, government actions are strictly reactive and do not completely anticipate the development of events. In this context, reactive thinking or action can be viewed as synonymous with short-term economic development. Proactive thinking (or actions), in turn, carries a certain idea and goal of further development, given future changes in general.
The terms long-term and short-term development have been introduced by Alfred Marshall (6). These concepts have cardinal qualitative differences: short-term implies the possibility of changing a small number of existing instruments of economic policy, all other things being equal. In this case, the immediate impact of changes in factors on the market is analyzed directly. Long-term, however, takes into account the change in all economic factors and their impact on the market. However, there is no clear time interval.
The presidential decree in May - an increase in life expectancy on average to 78 years (by 2024) - formed the basis of today's pension reform. These data correlate with the data of the high forecast of Rosstat, published (modified) still 11 February 2013 of the year (7). Based on Rosstat’s optimistic forecasts, the government slyly hints that the retirement age will not change until the 2030 year. But what will happen after 2030, when life expectancy will rise again? The government will be forced to again solve an absolutely identical problem: the bar of retirement age will have to be raised again. This is a vivid example of short-term or reactive thinking, because the root of the problem of the Pension Fund’s insurance system will remain unresolved.
The reason lies in the principles of building part of the pension system. The pension system of the Russian Federation consists of two parts: the funded (invested part) and the insurance part. The insurance part is based on the principle of redistribution of funds between generations - the principle of Pay-As-You-Go, also known as the principle of solidarity. Due to the natural increase in the life expectancy of the population and low birth rate (8), the average age of the population increases from year to year. In other words, the rate of increase in life expectancy is higher than the rate of increase in population. Consequently, the load on the insurance part of the FIU increases. Because of this, the government is forced to allocate more and more funds to maintain the fund and, accordingly, less money is left for the development of education, medicine, infrastructure and other areas.
The fiscal burden on a country's budget is always a factor slowing down development. Therefore, questions immediately arise not only about the structure of the fund and its performance, but about the system as a whole, showing its inefficiency and representing a burden for the budget. And in the conditions of sanctions the economy does not get any easier from this.
Observing the diligence with which this pension reform is being pushed, it can be assumed that the logic described in the May Decrees section reflects the current state of affairs with a high probability. There is also another hypothesis: the government of D. A. Medvedev realizes that V.V. Putin is on his last term on the president’s site, and in 2024, when the retirement age has not yet been completed, he (the government) will not have to report to the current president for his actions.
It is also necessary to note one very important detail: in fact, there is no gradual increase in the retirement age.
The table (see above) provides official data (9) on how the increase will occur. As can be seen, citizens born in a certain year are immediately given a new retirement age. Moreover, the bill №4372п-ПХNUMX of 12 June 16 “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation on the Purpose and Payment of Pensions” in the 2018 Annex to the Federal Law “On Insurance Pensions” will increase the 6 retirement age year, and for women in 2023 (2026).
I wonder how the government will explain the different periods of raising the retirement age to the country's population?
Implications of reform
We will be based on open data from Rosstat. At the end of the pension reform, the government will save approximately 2,3 trillion rubles. Thus, it will significantly slow down the growth of intergovernmental transfer, which will be 3,28 trillion in 2018 year. But at the end of 2034, another 14,5-16 million people will enter the labor market. Considering that the number of economically employed population in Russia after the crisis from 2009 to 2017 (11) grew by only 2,73 million people (12) (an increase of about 0,43% per year), it will be difficult to imagine that a breakthrough in the market will occur in the following years, and all 14 million people will be employed. To keep unemployment at the level of 2017 of the year (5,21%), each year approximately 935-940 of thousands of jobs should appear in the economy (growth of 1,03% per year).
As can be seen, the growth of the economically employed population, incorporated in the reform, is almost X times more than the growth between the years 2,4-2009. According to preliminary estimates, with the growth of the labor market by 2017% per year, unemployment can gradually increase to 0,5 — 12,3%. As is already becoming clear, the government has created for itself insurmountable obstacles to reducing poverty in 13,3 times.
Saving the Pension Fund
Unfortunately, the government did not solve the main reason for the inefficiency of the pension system at all. It has only postponed the problem for the next 15-20 years in the hope that there will be a solution in the future. The attempts to reform the Pension Fund had sound grain when it was decided to create a funded part of the pension. The implementation of this plan was obviously impossible because of the shortage and huge interbudgetary transfers to the FIU. But is there any other solution in this situation?
1. Reducing the deficit FIU
If we exclude the intergovernmental transfer to the Pension Fund of Russia, its hole in 2017 a year would be about 3,49 trillion rubles. The receipts of insurance premiums for 2017 for the year amounted to only 4,48 trillion rubles, and this is despite the fact that 72,142 million people were economically employed in the market. With an average salary in 31.475 rubles per month of receipt of insurance contributions to the Pension Fund should have been 5,995 trillion. Where are the remaining 1,5 trillion rubles?
For sufficiently well-off people, preferential rates are provided to the PFR: if the income does not exceed 796.000 rubles (about 66.350 rubles per month), the rate of contributions to the pension fund will be 22%. For income over a reduced rate is provided, which is only 10%. The social insurance fund is similarly arranged: the bar is set at the level of 718.000 rubles. With large income contributions are not charged at all. The abolition of these benefits will allow 1,5 trillion rubles to be saved at the same time on intergovernmental transfer, which will be about 9% of all federal budget expenditures.
Instead of the announcement of a “soft” increase in the retirement age, it would be sufficient to announce a soft increase in the rate of contributions to the pension fund to 27% by the end of 2034. With an average salary in 35.000 rubles in 2034 (13) and keeping the number of employees at the level of 2017, 8,18 trillion rubles would be received by the FIU. Of course, this measure may reduce the profitability of the business, respectively, and VAT charges, but 16 has been years enough to thoroughly prepare the business for these changes.
2. Introduction of progressive personal income tax rate
In the light of discussions of raising the income tax to 15% for all citizens of Russia (14), the most effective decision will be to introduce a progressive taxation scale. Currently, the tax scale in Russia is regressive. An example of at least are benefits in insurance deductions depending on income. Keeping the minimum rate of 13% and creating steps up to 25% for the rich will have a significant effect on tax revenues. Consider the following two examples:
1) rate increase to 15% for all:
2) increase in the personal income tax rate to 15% for the 9 group and to 25% for the richest group:
Elementary calculations based on 2017 data of the year indicate that the simplest progressive tax is much more effective than a flat taxation scale (by 750 billion rubles), it would increase the inflow to the federal budget from 3,1 to 5,8 trillion rubles. It is possible that opponents of the progressive scale of taxation, who receive the highest salary, will note that the business will go into the shadows, and the situation will only get worse. But this assumption (precisely assumption) should be considered primarily by professionals from the Federal Tax Service. It is their assessment and capabilities that should be fundamental for making a decision on the introduction of a progressive scale.
Based on these data, the state will receive additional 5,2 trillion rubles when eliminating benefits for insurance pension and social contributions, as well as introducing a progressive taxation scale. This amount, a component of 31,5% of federal spending in 2018, will make it possible to fully cover the deficit of the PFR. Moreover, free funds in the amount of about 2 trillions of rubles can be used to go to the real cumulative system. Most importantly, these two steps will minimize the burden on the main part (about 80%) of the country's population and will not reduce their purchasing power.
The accumulation system will allow the population to create their personal accounts, to which real, rather than calculating, accounts will be charged, as is the case with the insurance system, deductions. Any resident, based on the paid contributions to the Pension Fund, will be able to accurately calculate his future pension and, most importantly, the money will belong to him.
Consider an example of a cumulative fund with average profitability in 4% per year with the duration of the 22 life of the year:
We will use the pension insurance pension calculator with the same work experience and income. It turns out that pension payments will be only 20202,26 rubles. per month.
The positive aspects of the savings fund can be listed in the following paragraphs:
- independent crediting of the state through investments in government bonds;
- indirect financing of the development of the country through state lending;
- infrastructure investments;
- reducing or eliminating the burden on the country's budget (an autonomous fund that does not require transfers);
- An impressive increase in investment: the need to attract foreign capital will drop to almost zero.
Conclusion Opinion of the author
So, as is already becoming apparent, the ability to continue to pay pensions in full exists. You do not need to increase the VAT and retirement age, which ultimately will adversely affect the welfare of the population, especially the first 8 groups of workers. I believe that there are completely different tools and ways out of this situation, probably even more elegant and imperceptible solutions for the market than those proposed in the article. In the end, the task of the welfare state is to create economic and social justice, and consequently, the redistribution of wealth and their proper use.
Unfortunately, our government does not give clear explanations of its actions and often just goes on the most obvious way, which, in my view, is extremely inefficient.
Sources of
1. TASS: http://tass.ru/ekonomika/5290613.
2. TASS: http://tass.ru/politika/5182019.
3. РБК: https://www.rbc.ru/economics/25/04/2018/5adf956b9a7947f359a8cea8.
4. TASS: http://tass.ru/info/4679765.
5. Federal State Statistics Service: http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/population/urov/doc3-1-1.htm.
6. Marshall Alfred. Principles of economic science. Book V, Chapter 5.
7. Federal State Statistics Service: http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/population/demo/progn7.htm.
8. Federal State Statistics Service: http://www.gks.ru/bgd/regl/b11_13/IssWWW.exe/Stg/d1/04-06.htm.
9. TASS: http://tass.ru/ekonomika/5290863.
10. The text of the bill №4372п-ПХNUMX from 12 June 16 of the year: https://static.consultant.ru/obj/file/doc/fz_2018.pdf.
11. At this time there was the largest increase in the number of people employed in the labor market.
12. Federal State Statistics Service: http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/wages/labour_force/#.
13. It is based on a pessimistic scenario in which wages do not rise to 2034.
14. РБК: https://www.vedomosti.ru/economics/articles/2018/03/22/754520-povishenie-podohodnogo-naloga.
15 and 17. Federal State Statistics Service: http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/wages/labour_force/#.
16 and 18. Federal State Statistics Service: www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/population/trud/.
May decrees
To bring clarity to the government’s actions, first of all, you need to look at a few paragraphs of the May decrees of V.V. Putin's (2):
- increasing life expectancy to 78 years (by 2030 - up to 80 years);
— ensuring sustainable growth in real incomes of citizens, as well as the growth of the level of pensions above the level of inflation;
— the entry of the Russian Federation into the top five largest economies in the world, ensuring economic growth rates above the world ones while maintaining macroeconomic stability, including inflation at a level not exceeding 4%;
— halving the level of poverty in the Russian Federation…
— ensuring sustainable growth in real incomes of citizens, as well as the growth of the level of pensions above the level of inflation;
— the entry of the Russian Federation into the top five largest economies in the world, ensuring economic growth rates above the world ones while maintaining macroeconomic stability, including inflation at a level not exceeding 4%;
— halving the level of poverty in the Russian Federation…
As it is easy to guess, the government is trying to solve several points of the May presidential decrees by one reform. On the one hand, the growth of pension payments exceeding inflation has already been guaranteed - therefore, one of the tasks set has been completed. On the other hand, an increase in the number of officially working people in the country's economy should increase labor productivity, and, accordingly, lead to an increase in GDP. In turn, GDP growth should have a positive impact on real incomes and a reduction in the poverty level of the population of the Russian Federation. Raising the retirement age will also reduce the deficit in the FIU, thereby reducing the burden on the country's budget. The money saved by the government will be able to invest in development, again, improving the economy and the state of affairs in the country. Of course, it is worth considering that the Pension Fund revenues by about 40% consist of intergovernmental transfer, i.e. 3,28 trillion rubles was allocated by the state in 2018 for pension payments (3). According to the forecast, the federal budget revenues in 2018 will reach 16,529 billion rubles (4), therefore, the inter-budget transfer to the Pension Fund will be 19,8% of all expenses.
It should be noted that, according to Rosstat, the average pension for 2017 was equal to 13.304 rubles, and for 2018 (as of January-April) - 13.337 rubles. (5). Those. growth was 33 rub., or 0,248%. Against this background, the increase in pensions on 1.000 rubles. per month will give a reason to report to the government about the approximate growth of the average pension by 7,5%, which exceeds inflationary expectations and at the same time means a real increase in the incomes of pensioners.
Going nowhere
Probably, you have already traced the predictability of the government of D. A. Medvedev: with one stroke of the pen he solves many problems and then can move on to other, equally important goals. Unfortunately, government actions are strictly reactive and do not completely anticipate the development of events. In this context, reactive thinking or action can be viewed as synonymous with short-term economic development. Proactive thinking (or actions), in turn, carries a certain idea and goal of further development, given future changes in general.
The terms long-term and short-term development have been introduced by Alfred Marshall (6). These concepts have cardinal qualitative differences: short-term implies the possibility of changing a small number of existing instruments of economic policy, all other things being equal. In this case, the immediate impact of changes in factors on the market is analyzed directly. Long-term, however, takes into account the change in all economic factors and their impact on the market. However, there is no clear time interval.
The presidential decree in May - an increase in life expectancy on average to 78 years (by 2024) - formed the basis of today's pension reform. These data correlate with the data of the high forecast of Rosstat, published (modified) still 11 February 2013 of the year (7). Based on Rosstat’s optimistic forecasts, the government slyly hints that the retirement age will not change until the 2030 year. But what will happen after 2030, when life expectancy will rise again? The government will be forced to again solve an absolutely identical problem: the bar of retirement age will have to be raised again. This is a vivid example of short-term or reactive thinking, because the root of the problem of the Pension Fund’s insurance system will remain unresolved.
The reason lies in the principles of building part of the pension system. The pension system of the Russian Federation consists of two parts: the funded (invested part) and the insurance part. The insurance part is based on the principle of redistribution of funds between generations - the principle of Pay-As-You-Go, also known as the principle of solidarity. Due to the natural increase in the life expectancy of the population and low birth rate (8), the average age of the population increases from year to year. In other words, the rate of increase in life expectancy is higher than the rate of increase in population. Consequently, the load on the insurance part of the FIU increases. Because of this, the government is forced to allocate more and more funds to maintain the fund and, accordingly, less money is left for the development of education, medicine, infrastructure and other areas.
The fiscal burden on a country's budget is always a factor slowing down development. Therefore, questions immediately arise not only about the structure of the fund and its performance, but about the system as a whole, showing its inefficiency and representing a burden for the budget. And in the conditions of sanctions the economy does not get any easier from this.
Observing the diligence with which this pension reform is being pushed, it can be assumed that the logic described in the May Decrees section reflects the current state of affairs with a high probability. There is also another hypothesis: the government of D. A. Medvedev realizes that V.V. Putin is on his last term on the president’s site, and in 2024, when the retirement age has not yet been completed, he (the government) will not have to report to the current president for his actions.
It is also necessary to note one very important detail: in fact, there is no gradual increase in the retirement age.
The table (see above) provides official data (9) on how the increase will occur. As can be seen, citizens born in a certain year are immediately given a new retirement age. Moreover, the bill №4372п-ПХNUMX of 12 June 16 “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation on the Purpose and Payment of Pensions” in the 2018 Annex to the Federal Law “On Insurance Pensions” will increase the 6 retirement age year, and for women in 2023 (2026).
I wonder how the government will explain the different periods of raising the retirement age to the country's population?
Implications of reform
We will be based on open data from Rosstat. At the end of the pension reform, the government will save approximately 2,3 trillion rubles. Thus, it will significantly slow down the growth of intergovernmental transfer, which will be 3,28 trillion in 2018 year. But at the end of 2034, another 14,5-16 million people will enter the labor market. Considering that the number of economically employed population in Russia after the crisis from 2009 to 2017 (11) grew by only 2,73 million people (12) (an increase of about 0,43% per year), it will be difficult to imagine that a breakthrough in the market will occur in the following years, and all 14 million people will be employed. To keep unemployment at the level of 2017 of the year (5,21%), each year approximately 935-940 of thousands of jobs should appear in the economy (growth of 1,03% per year).
As can be seen, the growth of the economically employed population, incorporated in the reform, is almost X times more than the growth between the years 2,4-2009. According to preliminary estimates, with the growth of the labor market by 2017% per year, unemployment can gradually increase to 0,5 — 12,3%. As is already becoming clear, the government has created for itself insurmountable obstacles to reducing poverty in 13,3 times.
Saving the Pension Fund
Unfortunately, the government did not solve the main reason for the inefficiency of the pension system at all. It has only postponed the problem for the next 15-20 years in the hope that there will be a solution in the future. The attempts to reform the Pension Fund had sound grain when it was decided to create a funded part of the pension. The implementation of this plan was obviously impossible because of the shortage and huge interbudgetary transfers to the FIU. But is there any other solution in this situation?
1. Reducing the deficit FIU
If we exclude the intergovernmental transfer to the Pension Fund of Russia, its hole in 2017 a year would be about 3,49 trillion rubles. The receipts of insurance premiums for 2017 for the year amounted to only 4,48 trillion rubles, and this is despite the fact that 72,142 million people were economically employed in the market. With an average salary in 31.475 rubles per month of receipt of insurance contributions to the Pension Fund should have been 5,995 trillion. Where are the remaining 1,5 trillion rubles?
For sufficiently well-off people, preferential rates are provided to the PFR: if the income does not exceed 796.000 rubles (about 66.350 rubles per month), the rate of contributions to the pension fund will be 22%. For income over a reduced rate is provided, which is only 10%. The social insurance fund is similarly arranged: the bar is set at the level of 718.000 rubles. With large income contributions are not charged at all. The abolition of these benefits will allow 1,5 trillion rubles to be saved at the same time on intergovernmental transfer, which will be about 9% of all federal budget expenditures.
Instead of the announcement of a “soft” increase in the retirement age, it would be sufficient to announce a soft increase in the rate of contributions to the pension fund to 27% by the end of 2034. With an average salary in 35.000 rubles in 2034 (13) and keeping the number of employees at the level of 2017, 8,18 trillion rubles would be received by the FIU. Of course, this measure may reduce the profitability of the business, respectively, and VAT charges, but 16 has been years enough to thoroughly prepare the business for these changes.
2. Introduction of progressive personal income tax rate
In the light of discussions of raising the income tax to 15% for all citizens of Russia (14), the most effective decision will be to introduce a progressive taxation scale. Currently, the tax scale in Russia is regressive. An example of at least are benefits in insurance deductions depending on income. Keeping the minimum rate of 13% and creating steps up to 25% for the rich will have a significant effect on tax revenues. Consider the following two examples:
1) rate increase to 15% for all:
2) increase in the personal income tax rate to 15% for the 9 group and to 25% for the richest group:
Elementary calculations based on 2017 data of the year indicate that the simplest progressive tax is much more effective than a flat taxation scale (by 750 billion rubles), it would increase the inflow to the federal budget from 3,1 to 5,8 trillion rubles. It is possible that opponents of the progressive scale of taxation, who receive the highest salary, will note that the business will go into the shadows, and the situation will only get worse. But this assumption (precisely assumption) should be considered primarily by professionals from the Federal Tax Service. It is their assessment and capabilities that should be fundamental for making a decision on the introduction of a progressive scale.
Based on these data, the state will receive additional 5,2 trillion rubles when eliminating benefits for insurance pension and social contributions, as well as introducing a progressive taxation scale. This amount, a component of 31,5% of federal spending in 2018, will make it possible to fully cover the deficit of the PFR. Moreover, free funds in the amount of about 2 trillions of rubles can be used to go to the real cumulative system. Most importantly, these two steps will minimize the burden on the main part (about 80%) of the country's population and will not reduce their purchasing power.
The accumulation system will allow the population to create their personal accounts, to which real, rather than calculating, accounts will be charged, as is the case with the insurance system, deductions. Any resident, based on the paid contributions to the Pension Fund, will be able to accurately calculate his future pension and, most importantly, the money will belong to him.
Consider an example of a cumulative fund with average profitability in 4% per year with the duration of the 22 life of the year:
We will use the pension insurance pension calculator with the same work experience and income. It turns out that pension payments will be only 20202,26 rubles. per month.
The positive aspects of the savings fund can be listed in the following paragraphs:
- independent crediting of the state through investments in government bonds;
- indirect financing of the development of the country through state lending;
- infrastructure investments;
- reducing or eliminating the burden on the country's budget (an autonomous fund that does not require transfers);
- An impressive increase in investment: the need to attract foreign capital will drop to almost zero.
Conclusion Opinion of the author
So, as is already becoming apparent, the ability to continue to pay pensions in full exists. You do not need to increase the VAT and retirement age, which ultimately will adversely affect the welfare of the population, especially the first 8 groups of workers. I believe that there are completely different tools and ways out of this situation, probably even more elegant and imperceptible solutions for the market than those proposed in the article. In the end, the task of the welfare state is to create economic and social justice, and consequently, the redistribution of wealth and their proper use.
Unfortunately, our government does not give clear explanations of its actions and often just goes on the most obvious way, which, in my view, is extremely inefficient.
Sources of
1. TASS: http://tass.ru/ekonomika/5290613.
2. TASS: http://tass.ru/politika/5182019.
3. РБК: https://www.rbc.ru/economics/25/04/2018/5adf956b9a7947f359a8cea8.
4. TASS: http://tass.ru/info/4679765.
5. Federal State Statistics Service: http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/population/urov/doc3-1-1.htm.
6. Marshall Alfred. Principles of economic science. Book V, Chapter 5.
7. Federal State Statistics Service: http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/population/demo/progn7.htm.
8. Federal State Statistics Service: http://www.gks.ru/bgd/regl/b11_13/IssWWW.exe/Stg/d1/04-06.htm.
9. TASS: http://tass.ru/ekonomika/5290863.
10. The text of the bill №4372п-ПХNUMX from 12 June 16 of the year: https://static.consultant.ru/obj/file/doc/fz_2018.pdf.
11. At this time there was the largest increase in the number of people employed in the labor market.
12. Federal State Statistics Service: http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/wages/labour_force/#.
13. It is based on a pessimistic scenario in which wages do not rise to 2034.
14. РБК: https://www.vedomosti.ru/economics/articles/2018/03/22/754520-povishenie-podohodnogo-naloga.
15 and 17. Federal State Statistics Service: http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/wages/labour_force/#.
16 and 18. Federal State Statistics Service: www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/population/trud/.
Information