The government is changing the rules during the game

The head of the coordinating Council of employers ' unions of Russia (unions) Oleg Eremeev told "Gazeta" about the prospects of pension reform in Russia. The government does not know what to do with pension money that was collected by Vnesheconombank, the expert believes.– Oleg V. Pension Fund once again sent out to the citizens of the information letter about the state of their savings component, and from 1 October the Russians – for the third time – will have the opportunity to choose a company to manage these funds. But, as in previous years, no serious explanatory work about the essence of the pension reform is not carried out, although the money is being allocated to this every year. Does this mean that we can face with the same results – saving running VEB by more than 90% of pension savings?– And what are the prerequisites to a sudden increase in the number of citizens who applied to private management companies, if everything is working against this? Moreover, that was not conducted information campaign.In 2005, the FIU refused to invest in pension letterheads envelopes statements on the transfer of savings in the criminal code. The Foundation motivates its decision by the fact that very few Russians have turned to private owners and even less used forms sent.The state accumulated in the VEB enormous financial resources and, it seems, doesn't know what to do with them. The rate of growth of pension savings exceed available market assets. And the terms of investment are much more conservative than the conditions for private UK. So after a few years of assets that are allowed to the web, would just physically be missed. Now considering the idea to give funds to those who refused to make a choice in favor of one or another of the criminal code, from the private Bank in UK. And to expand the list of tools for investment accumulation means.That is, we come in the end to where I began: the liberation of the state from making promises and the necessity of investing the savings of the private sector. But don't reach the main, perhaps, the goal of pension reform is depriving people of the right choice.By the way, now the chamber of accounts shall audit work of the Bank in the capacity of control of the company, and in three months we'll get the results.– How real is the threat of permanent deficit of the budget of the FIU? What consequences this may have for the pension system?– The deficit of the pension Fund, according to the Foundation, in 2006 will reach 268 billion. By 2008 it can grow up to 657 billion. Distributive pension system from the beginning was doomed to financial collapse, because Russia's population is aging rapidly. The number of working-age population decreases, and pensioners getting bigger. Contributions are not enough to content the old. Thus was launched the cumulative mechanism: every man lays on his or her old age. Transition period is inevitable here. But the lack of an information campaign, an exception to the cumulative system of citizens born in 1966 and older, reducing the UST without a parallel modernization of insurance funds has caused doubts as to whether the temporary lack of FIU.The government began to change the rules during the game and actually turned off the chosen course. And it's disastrous when conducting social transformation. Hasty increase of pensions after the monetization of benefits and further the government's promise of doubling finished off the budget of the FIU.Practice in Europe, where the population is aging rapidly, shows that perhaps now we will be forced, as they increase the age of retirement, while for Russia it is not the most optimal way. It would be more effective working to bring under public pension schemes and to provide them with the opportunity and conditions to save for your retirement. The state should provide every citizen a basic pension.As regards the introduction of the unified social tax, it was originally a vicious step. Money that previously were listed for each individual employee and was spent on insurance only his social risks has become more difficult to control. Social extra-budgetary funds has acquired non-contributory expenditure, the funds are distributed throughout the system. Therefore, both the employers and the trade unions are in favour of a return to insurance contributions to extra-budgetary funds.– How are the budgets of other social funds?– Government policy on the budgets of the social funds in General raises many questions.When planning the financial performance of the social insurance Fund (SIF) for 2005 was initially projected a deficit of 14.8 billion rubles. Now the management of the FSS States that in the Fund over a number of years there was a steady surplus. One information contradicts the other.What is transparency? Neither the employers, at the expense of deductions that form the SIF budget nor the trade unions do not represent the real picture. I'm afraid it is not quite and the government. How else to interpret his initiative to reallocate 16 billion rubles next year from the social insurance Fund to the Federal Fund of compulsory medical insurance (medical insurance Fund)? If the amount is just being transferred from one facility to another, the economic validity of insurance tariffs raises serious doubts.– What assessment can be given to government decisions on the disposition of the stabilization Fund? Should they send a portion of the oil money to remove social problems?– Part of the oil money is already set aside for these purposes. In 2005, funds from the stabilization Fund to Finance the Pension Fund deficit. But the problem goes beyond the question: "How to spend fallen on us money?". I would put it more broadly: "What changes need to be taken, until a favourable conjuncture?".



Похожие статьи

Ваше имя
Ваша почта
Город, область
Рассылка комментариев





Ввести код: