In Russia, they are actively looking for effective levers for managing the pension system. The principles laid down in the USSR, due to the demographic crisis, cease to work, and the innovations of the 2000s turned out to be ineffective. Officials hope to increase the retirement age, and economists with calculations argue that this radical and painful step for society will not bring tangible results.
Principle of solidarity
Based on the principles of solidarity of generations pension system (PS) of the Soviet state, where the retirement age for retirement was the lowest in the world, due to a number of objective reasons, it has exhausted its capabilities. The need to reform this complex structure was also dictated by the process of transition of the Russian Federation to a market economy.
The first step of "new Russia" to a modern vision pension provision was made in 1995: the then government approved the updated concept of PS (No. 790) for future generations. The prerogatives remained noble:
- guaranteed constitutional right to receive pensions;
- PS financial stability;
- sustainable development of the system on the foundation of budget financing and insurance;
- the retirement age remained unchanged: men 60 years old, women 55.
The principle of solidarity of generations has also been preserved.
Level system
The Concept provided for the future construction of the substation, which established three levels of the state pension system:
- The first level is the basic pension, which in the future should replace the social one.
- The second is labor (insurance), the size of which proportionally depended on the duration of insurance, the amount of contributions of each individual person and his earnings.
- The third level of the software system is non-state pensions.
The concept provided for two types of non-state pensions: additional professional pension systems of specific organizations, territories and sectors of the economy, as well as personal pension insurance for citizens who have accumulated funds in pension funds or insurance companies.
The latest reform 2013-2015
Before the approval of the next pension reform, everyone understood that the reduction of the retirement age would not happen soon. On the contrary, the question is about its phased increase. In general, the basic postulates of the system remained the same. The document is distinguished by a new formula for calculating pensions, where the priorities are:
- employee experience;
- amount of earnings;
- retirement age.
Citizens born in 1967 and younger are given the right to decide for themselves whether to accumulate pension funds further, or return to the insurance part. Self-employed people will have to increase insurance payments to the general level of pension payments. Changes in early retirement benefits are expected. Most likely, they will feel changes in PS working pensioners. The minimum length of service, estimated by the number of years of payment of insurance premiums, will be gradually increased to 15 years.
Expect increase
Statements by relevant ministers, President V.V. Putin and deputies suggest that retirement, the age of which we have the most sparing, will be increased. The process will take place in stages, but not painlessly.
The Ministry of Finance claims that you can not raise the retirement age, but for this you will have to significantly reduce the standard of living of the elderly (due to low pensions) and increase taxes, and this is noticeable. The first option is unacceptable and inhumane for a country that claims to be a world power, the second is not approved by the president.Vladimir Vladimirovich is categorically against increasing the tax burden for non-oil businesses (which is logical against the backdrop of the embargo and the global crisis). Most countries have cut this Gordian Knot by extending their retirement periods, and Russia does not seem to be able to avoid this.
Will a later retirement solve the problem?
It is planned to increase the age at which older people can rest from production and organizational problems, but there is no clear signal and comprehensive information. Presumably, it will gradually rise to 65 years for both sexes.
In 2016 alone, according to theoretical calculations, the national budget will save 70 billion rubles (more than a billion dollars) if the age of retirement of men and women increases by 1 year. Within the country, the amount is not serious.
This is also indicated by Oksana Dmitrieva, deputy chairman of the State Duma Budget Committee. According to the calculations of the saved resources, it is not enough to cover the deficit of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (PFR). If all the bureaucrats go through the new initiatives, then in 2016 retirement will shift for a year: a woman's age for the right to receive a pension will be 56 years old, men - 61 years old.
Savings in this age group for the year will amount to 60-70 billion rubles. More significant savings are expected only after 10 years, when the age of women for retirement benefits is 65 years. In 2015, the expected deficit of PFR funds will be at the level of 623 billion rubles, respectively, the resources saved will theoretically cover only 10-12% of the budget deficit. In practice, these amounts can be halved: some people will retire due to disability, others will not be able to stay at that age at work, let alone find a new job, respectively, they will have to pay unemployment benefits. As a result, Oksana Dmitrieva argues, of the theoretical 70 billion rubles, about 30 billion rubles of savings will remain, which is not significant for the federal budget or for the FIU.
Reasonable Alternative
According to experts of the State Duma Committee, the abolition of funded pensions will be more productive. This step will give an increase in the FIU from 300 to 400 billion annually. And if you transfer to an insurance pension funds allocated to its funded part and accumulated in a non-state PF and VEB (Vnesheconombank), the amount will increase to 2 trillion rubles! That is, the problem of pensions will disappear altogether.
The statistical fact that the Russian Federation is characterized by a sad tendency to reduce the difference between the average life expectancy of men and their retirement on a well-deserved rest did not escape the deputies. Unfortunately, such statistics are disappointing. Therefore, increasing the retirement age is not demographically justified. By the way, for women, this difference, on the contrary, is large - 20.89 years. Discussions on these issues are ongoing.
By the way, recently Russians were granted the right to determine for themselves when to go on a well-deserved rest: the later, the greater the pension will be provided. Over time, this alternative and well-thought-out initiative will partially cover the PFR deficit.
Retirement age with neighbors
In Belarus, pension periods are similar to Russian: 55 and 60 years (for women and, accordingly, men). In connection with the upcoming elections, talks about changing the deadlines are not openly conducted, but are anticipated. Perhaps the authorities want to unify this issue with Russia, respectively, await the completion of the pension reform. The retirement age of servicemen and security forces from 45 years is planned to be increased to 50 (that is, to increase the length of service from 20 to 25 years) or not to count the time spent in educational institutions.
In other CIS and Baltic states, it has long been promoted. So, the retirement age for all in Moldova and Azerbaijan has been increased by 2 years, by 3 years - in Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. In Latvia, it is 62 years for both sexes.In Armenia and Estonia, the age at which an old-age pension for men can be established is 63 years. By 2016, the same criterion will be set for women in Estonia (a similar decision has already been made in Armenia).
Objective reality
Foreign colleagues and officials constantly indicate that in the Russian Federation and neighboring Belarus there is the lowest minimum age for retirement in the world. However, reputable scientists on the basis of calculations and studies reasonably prove that each nation (state) has its own pension threshold, due to the genetic characteristics of peoples and living conditions.
For a long time, the authorities and management have proposed raising the retirement age in order to optimize the economic burden of the pension system. However, neither biological features, nor the state of health of persons of older age groups, nor socio-economic factors give grounds for raising the retirement age.
Population aging
In Russia, as in most of the rest of the world, the population is aging. The proportion of older people is increasing, the working age is decreasing. If in 1985 the population over 65 was 10%, in 2007 it was about 15%. In addition, “children” of the post-war demographic boom are already massively retiring. According to experts, it is necessary to talk about the need to shift the pension threshold when the ratio of workers and pensioners is 1: 2, and it is expected no earlier than in 20-25 years. Now this ratio is 1: 1.6, which allows the working population to feed pensioners.
Is retirement age low?
Objectively - no! Our life expectancy is shorter than in other developed countries, in which the retirement age is higher, and this is due not to the genetic characteristics of people, but to the prevailing conditions. The low quality of life of Russians was noted in the report of the General Conference of Trade Unions, the UN and other organizations. In particular, it states that according to forecasts in Russia, the purchasing power of pensions can reach the level of a happy 1990 (under favorable conditions) by the end of 2015. But the economic crisis will surely shift these calculations.
The issue of retirement age is closely related to the issue of maintaining general and professional ability to work, creating new jobs in the labor market for people of pre-retirement age, and reducing unemployment. In the second half of the 20th century, the Minister of Health of the USSR, E. M. Chazov, wrote that 80% of people can work at the age giving the right to retire, but only ⅓ in the same workplace, and ⅔ in part-time work or housework. These calculations are relevant now.
Priority - Work Ability
One of the priorities should be the question of how to keep working capacity. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Japan, Iceland, Switzerland and Ireland are the leaders among countries whose population continues to be able to work after reaching retirement age. The lowest rates in the "rating" of the working ability of the population are in Belgium, Italy, Germany and Spain.
Even if you do not take into account such a sad circumstance that some citizens will not live to retirement age, because even now in Russia half of men do not live up to this point, then the next problem is employment difficulties. After all, it’s already difficult to get a job in the pre-retirement age, as some employers evaluate the persons hired, primarily by age qualification although this does not always correspond to a real assessment of their professionalism.
Foreign experience
The question naturally arises of the source of income for this category of citizens. Raising the retirement age, the state should take measures to ensure the employment of persons of pre-retirement age.The experience of New Zealand can be used on this issue. The balanced economic policy of this state made it possible to raise the employment level of the population over 60 over the course of 9 years, from 33% to 64% for men, and from 16% to 42% for women, and as a result, it was relatively painless to raise the retirement age to 65 years.
In Belarus and the Russian Federation, the retirement age is differentiated by gender. For women, it is set 5 years lower than for men. In most developed countries, this indicator is the same. Politicians and specialists in the field of social security law are increasingly proposing to establish the same retirement age. They argue their proposals with the fact that in Japan, Germany, the USA, Canada, Latvia, Estonia and some other countries, the retirement age is not differentiated by gender, and also that the life expectancy of women in most countries is 6-12 years longer than gentlemen have, and they are retired longer than men, that is, their well-deserved rest is longer.
There should not be differences in age, based on the principle of equal rights of insured persons in pension insurance. But, given that the main burden on raising children and housekeeping falls on women, according to gerontologists, it is advisable to maintain a lower retirement age for them.
