There is no consensus in government
29 September it became known that the Minister of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation Maxim Topilin at an expanded meeting of the Committee for Social Policy of the Council of the Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation said that in 2015, the issue of raising the retirement age would not be discussed. “It seems to me that this will not be the subject of the budget and 2017 of the year. From the budget point of view, from the point of view of the decisions that need to be made this year, there is no such governmental decision. I think it will not be there, ”said M. Topilin (quoted in: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2820742). The difficult financial situation in the country, according to Topilin, explains the readiness of the social block of the Russian government to agree with the financial block on the issue of pension indexation. However, the very discussion of the issue of raising pensions at a high level suggests that, sooner or later, this project can really become a reality. Actually, the Minister of Labor spoke about this. Shortly before Topilin’s speech, on September 23, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov spoke in the State Duma of the Russian Federation, who said that the budget was not only a way of social support, but also a tool to ensure the conditions for a new economic growth. Accordingly, in the current situation it is necessary to reduce consumption, restrain the growth of wages and pensions, raise the retirement age for citizens of the Russian Federation. High budget costs amid the price of a barrel of oil in 50 dollars in 2016-2018. will ensure the deficit of the federal budget of Russia in 8 trillion. rub. This year, the budget deficit has already exceeded 2,6 trillion. rub. Costs exceed revenues not only in the state budget, but also in the budget of the Pension Fund of Russia. Thus, at present, the expenditures of the PFR amount to 7,2 trillion. rubles, and revenues - 6,8 trillion. rub. Thus, we see the Pension Fund 400 billion deficit.
Photo: Zamir Usmanov / Russian Look
According to Anton Siluanov, the issue of raising the retirement age in the Russian Federation should be considered immediately. Otherwise, you will have to increase the tax burden on the business. The increase in insurance premiums from 22% to 26%, provided for in the Russian Federation from 2018, is currently impossible to implement in the current economic situation. Therefore, raising the retirement age can be an alternative to not raising insurance premiums. Defending the need to raise the retirement age, Siluanov argues that early retirement in modern conditions creates obstacles to the development of the economy. In a few years, the number of pensioners will be larger than the number of working Russians. If 120 workers are currently providing retirees to 100, then in the foreseeable future, the situation may change in the direction of opposite numbers. By 2017, the RF Reserve Fund may shrink from 4,7 trillion. rub. to 500 billion rubles, resulting in the need to take funds from the National Wealth Fund, which will end in 2018 g. In the case of raising the retirement age will be saved from 620 billion to 1,3 trillion. rub. for three years. Also, the Ministry of Finance proposes to stop paying pensions to working pensioners whose salary is more than 500 thousand rubles a year (per month it is about 40 thousand rubles). Economic Development Minister Alexei Ulyukayev is not so categorical and, although he is also convinced of the correctness of raising the retirement age, doubts the need for the immediate introduction of this measure. According to TASS, the Minister of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation, Maxim Topilin, believes that the necessary prerequisites for raising the retirement age will be formed when the average life expectancy of Russian citizens increases. According to the Minister, by 2020, the expected average life expectancy in the country will increase to 75 years, in which case there will be objective prerequisites for raising the retirement age. While the average life expectancy in the country is 71 a year, there can be no talk about raising the retirement age. Back in April 2015, the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin also stressed that the idea of raising the retirement age requires extremely serious study. In the current situation, in the opinion of the head of state, a country cannot raise the retirement age and only in the future, and even then, subject to serious public consultation, can we return to discussing this topic.
Some of stories pension system in Russia
The modern pension system of Russia is rooted in the Soviet era. It was then that the pensions were introduced for workers and employees, and then collective farmers. The retirement age in 60 years for men and in 55 years for women was established in the Soviet Union in 1932. Such an early retirement was due, in the first place, to the extremely low average life expectancy in the USSR for 1930's. (The low life expectancy of the population of the USSR in the 1930s was maintained due to the high infant mortality). However, as the life expectancy of the Soviet population increased, the retirement age in the Soviet Union did not rise. In 1956, the law “On State Pensions” was passed; in 1964, the Law “On pensions and benefits to members of collective farms”. Men and women were entitled to retirement when working 25 and 20 years of work experience, respectively. At the same time, those workers who worked in difficult or harmful industries, as well as in the conditions of the Far North, in socially significant areas of activity, were entitled to an earlier retirement. When assigning the size of the pension, the average salary for 12 in the last months of work or for 5 continuous years from the last 10 years before applying for a pension was taken into account. However, the total amount of salary for a person’s working life did not determine the amount of the pension. There was a minimum and maximum pension, which largely contributed to the relative equation of the quality of life of Soviet pensioners.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Soviet pension system remained almost unchanged in Russia, especially with regard to the age at which citizens were allowed to have a well-deserved rest. The Russian pension system inherited three categories of labor pensions accepted in the USSR: by old age, by disability, on the occasion of the loss of the breadwinner, and a fourth category of pension insurance was allocated - for years of service, which assumed special conditions for certain groups of citizens who worked in specific conditions or for certain positions. The fundamental difference between the Russian pension system and the Soviet system was the transition from budget subsidies to earmarked contributions from employers and employees. Thus, the practice of social insurance was introduced in post-Soviet Russia. In accordance with the pension legislation, the provision of pensions was extended to all groups of the country’s population, including non-Russian citizens and those who did not have any work experience, which relied on social pension. In addition, the pension rights of all categories of the employed population - from workers to clergymen - were unified. The right to receive a full pension was established for all Russian pensioners. Thus, in post-Soviet Russia, all citizens over a certain age were on state support, which led to a significant increase in the pension obligations of the Russian state. However, some problems of the Soviet pension system in the Russian pension legislation have not been resolved, which has led to the conservation and complication of the pension system of the Russian Federation. Moreover, separate pension systems for military personnel, law enforcement officials, the judiciary, and the prosecutor’s office were separated from the pension system. In addition to the sophisticated retirement system, numerous opportunities for early retirement contributed to lowering the real retirement age. Numerous groups of not old and able-bodied people turned out to be on the state pensions. Finally, the system of pension deductions was not worked out, since the insurance rate for employees was kept at a minimum level - 1% of salary. The main pension deductions for employees were made by the employer. At the same time, the establishment of the maximum amount of pension deprived Russian employees of an incentive to participate in the pension system.
The further development of the Russian pension system was affected by the economic crisis that befell Russia in the first half of the 1990s. The destruction of industry and agriculture led to the release of multimillion masses of able-bodied population, for which there were no jobs. Fearing a social catastrophe, the state went for the introduction of additional rights for early retirement, as a result of which the number of pensioners, including those of working age, increased. Naturally, the increase in the number of pensioners demanded the inflow of new financial resources to the Pension Fund of Russia, which ultimately caused an increase in the PFR debt and, as a result, the crisis of the pension system in the country worsened. 7 1995 of August The concept of pension reform was approved, in the implementation of which the government of the country saw a likely way to improve the efficiency of the pension system and remove it from the crisis. This Concept envisaged as the main objectives of pension reform in the Russian Federation: 1) achieving the financial stability of the domestic pension system; 2) the implementation of the rights of citizens of the Russian Federation to the pension; 3) development of pension provision on the basis of state pension insurance and budget financing; 4) optimizing the management of the pension system and adapting it to market economy conditions that were different from the Soviet ones; 5) rationalization and optimization of the conditions of granting and the size of pensions of citizens of the Russian Federation. In accordance with the Concept, the pension system in the Russian Federation was divided into three levels. The first level was represented by a so-called. basic or social pension. The right to receive it was granted to all citizens of the Russian Federation, regardless of the basis for granting a pension and seniority. The basic social pension is granted on a solid basis on the basis of the subsistence minimum for a pensioner, and only non-working pensioners are entitled to receive it. The second level is labor or insurance pension paid to working citizens of the country on the basis of the duration of social insurance and the size of paid contributions. The calculation of the labor pension was supposed to be carried out on the basis of the insurance experience and the amount of wages with which insurance premiums were paid. Finally, the third level was represented by a non-state pension, which consisted of both the professional pension systems of individual departments, industries or regions, and personal savings of citizens in insurance companies and pension funds. Thus, it is in the Concept 1995. for the first time, the idea was expressed about the development of a non-state pension system for citizens. However, already in 1997 A new concept of pension reform was introduced, based on the Chilean experience of retirement benefits. But as a result of the discussion of the concept, it was established that it did not take into account the specifics of the socio-economic development of modern Russia. After finalizing the concept of 20 in May, 1998. The retirement plan was approved. In accordance with this Program, at the heart of the labor pension were two components - conditional and accumulative. To the beginning of 2000-ies. The country's leadership refused to raise the retirement age, not wishing to risk the support of the population. However, in 2002 the country has returned to the discussion of pension reform, the implementation of which occurred in 2002-2008. In general, the pension policy of the Russian Federation in 2000-ies. was aimed at improving the lives of the population and preventing the fall in the living standards of elderly Russians, which was due to considerations of a social and political nature. The basic part of the pension was raised, and the pension system itself is actually oriented towards supporting modern, not future, pensioners. This was also explained by political calculation - pensioners have always been the most disciplined part of the Russian electorate, and the victory of one or another political force or candidate in the presidential and parliamentary elections depends on their support. As for the future pensioners, Russian officials still prefer not to talk about their pension coverage. It is also unknown at what age they will retire - whether the current age bracket will remain in 60 and 55 years, or the retirement age will be raised to 63 or even 65 years.
Pension in 65 years - a global trend
Proponents of raising the retirement age in a country usually refer to the experience of foreign countries, especially European countries, where the retirement age is indeed significantly higher than in the Russian Federation. Currently in Russia, men retire in 60 years, women in 55 years. This division is rooted in the Soviet past. In most countries of the world, including many post-Soviet states, the retirement age is now raised on average to 64-65 years. In the developed countries of Europe, the retirement age for men is usually equal to 65 years. At this age men in Austria, Belgium, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland retire. The same retirement age for men is set in Japan. In some European countries, the retirement age is “floating” and varies between 65 and 67 in Germany, 58 and 65 in Greece, 57 and 65 in Italy. As for women, in Great Britain, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Portugal, and France, the retirement age for men and women is equal. And in France, both men and women retire in 60 years, in the other listed countries - in 65 years. But this age mark is not the limit. So, in the US, the possibility of raising the retirement age from the current 65 to 69 years is being discussed. The Prime Minister of Sweden was in favor of raising the retirement age to 75 years (currently, the Swedes retire at the age of 61-67 years).
In April, 2015, the Minister of Finance Anton Siluanov, said that his department supported the idea of raising the retirement age for women - from 55 to 63 years, and for men - from 60 to 63 years. Thus, there will be not only a general increase in the retirement age, but also its equation for both sexes. The idea of raising the retirement age was also supported by the former Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation, Alexei Kudrin. As for foreign experts, they recommend raising the retirement age not even to 63, but to 65 years. The most radical variant of raising the retirement age is the introduction of this measure already in 2016, the second option is in 2017-2018, the third is after 2018. Among the main arguments in favor of raising the retirement age are most often the peculiarities of Russia's demographic development. In Russia, as in Europe, the population is rapidly aging. Already, 41 million 456 thousand people receiving pensions are registered with the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation. Of these, old-age pensions receive 34 million. 422 thousand people. Given the decline in the birth rate in the 1990-s, in the near future, the number of working-age population will only decrease, and the number of pensioners will increase. On the other hand, a significant part of Russian pensioners continue to work after retirement, since the size of the majority of pensions in the country does not allow them to remain on a relatively non-old and active person. After reaching the retirement age, in particular, the majority of workers in the fields of education, science and culture, and health care continue to work. That is, raising the retirement age for them will not be a serious problem - they already work. But, on the other hand, they are deprived of additional income in the form of a pension, respectively - the already not very good financial position of this category of population will worsen.
Before retirement in 65 can not live
Opponents of raising the retirement age cite the following arguments. First, in the Russian Federation - the average life expectancy of the population is extremely low compared with the countries of Europe and even many Asian countries. 20 January 2012, Vladimir Putin said that the average life expectancy in Russia exceeds 70 years. However, according to scientists, this is a very small indicator for a developed country. So, in the neighborhood with Russia there are such countries as Bangladesh and the DPRK, the Marshall Islands and Kyrgyzstan. At the same time, in the developed countries of the world we see completely different figures for the life expectancy of the population. Thus, in Japan, the life expectancy of the population is 84, in Australia - 83, in France, Spain, Iceland, Canada, Norway, Israel, Luxembourg - 82, Germany, the Netherlands, Great Britain, Ireland, Portugal - 81, Belgium , Chile, Denmark - 80 years, in the USA and Cuba - 79 years, in Croatia and the Czech Republic - 78 years, in Poland, Uruguay, Estonia - 77 years. It is remarkable that Russia is overtaken by third world countries in this indicator. Venezuela, Vietnam, Oman, Tunisia and even on the Cook Islands live 76 years, in Ecuador, Belize, Paraguay - 75 years, Cape Verde, Mauritius and Honduras - 74, Nicaragua, Grenada and Samoa - 73, and Cambodia - 72 of the year. Thus, the average Russian at retirement in 65 years only about 5-6 years will be able to live in the status of a pensioner, unlike the same German who will live in retirement 16 years, or an Australian who will live on retired 18 years. But this is - if we take the average life expectancy of the population. Meanwhile, it is necessary to take into account the extremely significant differences between the life expectancy of men and women in modern Russia.
The average Russian man lives to 63 years, and the woman to 75 years. That is, women on average live 12 longer. After 55 years, the real “pestilence” of Russian men begins, and death is getting younger every year - the number of men dying from cardiovascular diseases before the age of 55 and even before 50 years grows. In most developed countries of the world, women also live longer on average, but the difference in life expectancy is not so great - it usually reaches 4-5 years. So, in Australia, women live on average 85 years. And men - 81 year, in Italy - 80 and 85, in Israel - 80 and 84, in Norway - 80 and 84. In the Middle East countries with high longevity, this difference is even smaller: in Kuwait, men live 78 years, and women - 79 years, in Bahrain - 76 and 78 years, UAE - 76 and 78 years. In terms of the average life expectancy of men, Russia misses even more countries ahead of itself than in terms of the total life expectancy for both sexes. Russian men live on average less than men of Uzbekistan and Bhutan, the Philippines and Nepal, Namibia and Kiribati, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu, Tajikistan and East Timor. Less than Russian men live only men in the underdeveloped countries of Tropical Africa, in which bloody wars continue and rage epidemics of dangerous diseases. Thus, the average life expectancy for men is less in Liberia (60 years), Kenya (59 years), Burkina Faso (57 years), Uganda (56 years), Angola and Chad (50 years), Sierra Leone and Lesotho 45 years). Naturally, with the average life expectancy of Russian men in 63, the idea of raising the retirement age for men to 63 and, especially, 65 years, looks like a frank mockery of the male population of the country. After all, a significant part of men simply will not live to retirement and die in the workplace. Moreover, the "male" work is traditionally more difficult and complex, involving physical labor, the presence of good health. Meanwhile, for women, raising the retirement age to equal with men looks much more justified. After all, women, retiring in 55 years, on average, live in the status of a pensioner 20 years - that is, a period comparable to retirement in a developed European country.
. Photo: http://newslav.ru/
Raising the retirement age will cause unemployment
The next argument against raising the retirement age is the impending mass unemployment of persons of older age groups in the event that the conceived idea of the Ministry of Finance is implemented. 3,25 is currently residing in the Russian Federation for millions of men between the ages of 60 and 65 years and 10,25 of millions of women between the ages of 55 and 65 years. That is, it is 13,5 million. Most of them, with the exception of the disabled and certain categories of pensioners, will have to be provided with jobs. Where to get jobs for such a large group of Russian citizens? The Ministry of Finance is unable to give an answer to this question. At least, it is clear that there are no such number of vacancies in the Russian Federation, and there will not be in the foreseeable future. Moreover, at present, the economic crisis in the country has led to the fact that the cuts have also affected a large number of young professionals with good qualifications and modern skills. Millions of people over the years and 25-45 were out of work. It turns out that the current "prepensioners" will have to compete with them for jobs. Unemployment benefit in the Russian Federation does not exceed 4,5 thousand rubles, after the first year of unemployment - no more than 850 rubles - absolutely non-subsistence money. It turns out that in case of raising the retirement age, millions of people will remain not only without pensions, but also unemployed. In fact, they will be left without livelihoods. This will lead to a real social catastrophe, the consequences of which for Russian society and the state will be difficult to predict.
Anna Ochkina, Director of the Center for Social Analysis at the Institute of Globalization and Social Movements, emphasizes that the proposals for raising the retirement age put forward by the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation call into question the competence of officials. After all, the Ministry of Finance makes the preservation of state funds dependent on raising the retirement age, while at the same time refusing to revise the Pension Fund of Russia. Meanwhile, without conducting this audit, which no one is talking about, it is impossible to know how much money there is at the disposal of the FIU. On the other hand, the proposal not to pay pensions to working pensioners looks no less strange. Most pensioners do not work from a good life, but because they cannot adequately retire. However, in the event of the termination of the payment of pensions, they can count all the pros and cons and choose dismissal from work. As a result, enterprises and institutions may lose their highly qualified and experienced specialists, who are still full of strength and could work further on condition that they retain pension payments. In addition, pensioners deserved their pensions by many years and often by very hard work. How can you deprive them of earned, earned money if they continue to work, even if they get a good job at their place of work? State Duma Deputy Alexander Chuev believes that raising the retirement age will create additional problems not only for older people before retirement age, but also for young professionals. Indeed, in this case, the category of women aged 55-65 years and men aged 60-65 years will remain at work in their posts and, accordingly, young professionals will not be able to find a job. That is, it will be necessary to create additional jobs for young people, which so far are also not taken into account by the state. Representatives of the Communist Party speak about raising the retirement age more specifically. So, the deputy chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Valery Rashkin proposed to return the confiscation of property to the Criminal Code, stressing that corrupt officials withdraw a trillion rubles from the budget of the Russian Federation every year (according to the Accounts Chamber). Using the idea of confiscation, according to Rashkin, the authorities would be able to abandon the concept of raising the retirement age. Chairman of the Federation Council’s Social Policy Committee Valery Ryazansky told Lente.ru that the financial benefit from raising the retirement age is minimal. In his opinion, the desire to appeal to the expenditure side of the budget is also erroneous. It is necessary not to reduce budget expenditures, including for social needs, but to increase its revenues. And it is difficult to disagree with this opinion of the politician. In the end, the economic block of the government exists to control the economic development of the country and to find opportunities to increase state revenues.
Pension reform requires further discussion.
Judging by the statements of Russian leaders and politicians, in the near future, the Minister of Finance of the country remains the main supporter of raising the retirement age. Neither the president nor the prime minister has yet supported the idea of an imminent increase in the retirement age. This indicates that in the coming year, the retirement age is unlikely to be raised. Another thing is that the question itself assumes that the population is beginning to be prepared for the possible introduction of this measure - not in 2016, so in 2018 or 2020. However, not only the financial and social consequences of this decision should be considered when discussing the possibility of its implementation in the near future. First of all, one should pay attention to the attitude of the Russian citizens themselves to the possibility of raising the retirement age to 63-65 years. According to a survey conducted by the research center of the popular Internet portal Superjob, an absolute majority of Russian citizens speak out against raising the retirement age. 81% of respondents strongly disapprove of the idea of increasing the retirement age. Only 8% consider it possible to increase the retirement age for both men and women. 2% of Russians agree with raising the retirement age for men and also 2% of respondents are in favor of raising the retirement age for women. 7% of respondents could not decide on their position on this issue (http://tass.ru/obschestvo/2288744). It is significant that the greatest number of opponents of the retirement age is currently counted among young Russians. In the 25-34 age category, 84% of respondents are opposed to raising the retirement age. As we see, public opinion is sharply negative regarding the idea of raising the retirement age. In the difficult foreign policy situation in which Russia currently finds itself due to an independent foreign and domestic policy, dissatisfaction of Russian society with an increase in the retirement age can be used by opposition and radical forces, including those political organizations that act on the guidance of our enemies country. For many Russian citizens, even those who are loyal to the existing government, raising the retirement age can be a factor contributing to the emergence of not only a critical position, but also radical dissatisfaction with the government and the president of the country. In the context of inflation, rising unemployment, reducing the purchasing power of wages, talk about raising the retirement age is more likely to provoke public discontent. It is not by chance that even the United Russia party, whose leader is the immediate official head of the Minister of Finance, did not approve the idea of raising the retirement age. State Duma Deputy Andrei Isaev said that United Russia is against raising the retirement age for ordinary Russians and for raising it for officials. However, it is officials who are not going to retire early, preferring to finalize with a good salary and extensive job opportunities until the age limit for public service, or even longer. So, for high-ranking and even middle-ranking officials, raising the retirement age will not be such a problem as it is for millions of ordinary Russian workers and employees. Chairman of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation, Valentina Matvienko, is convinced of the need to raise the retirement age, but believes that this process should be carried out with maximum accuracy, preparing people for the ongoing changes in the sphere of labor relations.
At the same time, it is possible that due to the demographic problems that Russia will face in the foreseeable time, raising the retirement age will be a necessary step towards ensuring the efficiency of the Russian economy. Another thing is that this measure should not turn into a shock that can lead to a social catastrophe and an explosion of public discontent. Moreover, the criteria for raising or maintaining the retirement age for certain categories of citizens should be developed in detail. It is likely that for some categories of citizens, the retirement age can even be reduced - based on the specific needs of the state. In no case can you raise the retirement age without creating additional jobs in both the public and private sectors. Moreover, these places should be created not only for elderly people, given their opportunities, but also for young professionals who, in the event of raising the retirement age, are at risk of becoming unemployed due to job retention for experienced older employees. But the creation of new jobs requires increasing the intensity of the level of development of the country's economy, support from the state of medium and small businesses, the development of industry and agriculture, and stimulating education. Of course, in the context of the problem under consideration, the need to improve the demographic situation in the country is once again being actualized. The aging of the population and the increase in the number of pensioners relative to the able-bodied citizens of the country is due to insufficient birth rates. During the 1990-ies. Russia was experiencing a demographic crisis, the consequences of which will long be responding to all spheres of the life of Russian society - including when children of the current twenty years old - those born in the beginning - middle of 1990-s, enter into working age. Here we touch on another topic that is closely related to raising the retirement age. The fact is that many retirees are involved in raising and caring for their grandchildren. First of all, it concerns grandmothers, some of whom specifically retire to care for their grandchildren. If you raise the retirement age to 65 years - older women simply can not help children and grandchildren. In this case, the number of kindergartens and nurseries, day-care groups in secondary schools should be increased. At present, there is nothing of this kind; moreover, the placement of a child in kindergarten in many cities of the country is a serious problem that many parents cannot solve. That is, an indirect increase in the retirement age can also hit the family, family relations, and, consequently, the birth rate. Therefore, any measures of colossal social significance, including raising the retirement age, should be carried out in a complex of other social measures. With regard to the problem under consideration, this complex should include: 1) the creation of new jobs for young people and the elderly; 2) an increase in the number of kindergartens, nursery schools, day-care groups in schools and increasing the availability of pre-school educational institutions; 3) creating a flexible retirement system, which provides for both raising and lowering the retirement age, depending on whether a potential retiree belongs to a certain group of citizens; 4) increase the efficiency of the health care system in the country, primarily in the direction of increasing the life expectancy of the population. In no case can one raise the retirement age for those categories of citizens who are engaged in hard and labor-intensive work in industry, energy, transport, and agriculture. It is clear that solving these tasks will be very difficult for the country, but without it raising the retirement age will only lead to numerous social, humanitarian and political problems, the consequences of which for the state and its economy may be much more serious than the financial difficulties associated with payment of pensions to a large number of "young pensioners".