Under public pressure, Putin has softened pension reform in Russia - 1BiTv.com

Under public pressure, Putin has softened pension reform in Russia

Under public pressure, Putin has softened pension reform in Russia

The Russian president in a televised address reported minor changes in the planned pension reform.


In connection with the reform of the pension system of the Russian Federation, a wave of rallies swept the country. The personal rating of Vladimir Putin has decreased.

After that, the President appealed to the citizens of Russia and announced a softening in the pension reform.
We give the full text of this appeal.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin:
Dear citizens of Russia! Dear friends.
On June 16, 2018, the Government submitted a bill to the State Duma on changes in the pension system. On July 19, it was adopted by the country's parliament in the first reading. Its main, main task is to ensure the stability and financial stability of the pension system for many years to come. This means not only the preservation, but also the growth of incomes, pensions of current and future pensioners.

To achieve these goals, the bill, along with other measures, provides for a gradual increase in the retirement age. I understand how important these issues are for millions of people, for each person. Therefore, I appeal to you directly to describe in detail all the aspects of changes proposed by the Government, to indicate my position and to share with you my proposals that I consider to be of principle.

First of all, let me remind you that the discussion about the need to raise the retirement age did not start suddenly, not today. This was discussed both in the Soviet period and in the 1990s. But decisions were not made, for one reason or another were postponed.

At the beginning of the 2000s, both members of the Government of Russia and many representatives of the expert community again began to raise the question of pension reform and raising the retirement age.

Objective prerequisites for this existed. It was obvious that at the turn of the 2020s we will inevitably face serious demographic problems. What are they caused by?

Every 25-27 years into adulthood, when it is possible to create families, to raise and raise children, we have a much smaller number of citizens who could and should have. This is the result of the heaviest demographic losses during the Great Patriotic War. And this is not only direct losses, but millions that were not born in the war years.

The period when the next small generation entered into adulthood came in the middle of the 90s of the last century. But it was at this time that the country was faced with a severe economic, social crisis, with its catastrophic consequences. This led to a second powerful demographic strike. Even fewer children were born than expected. The demographic collapse of the late 1990s was comparable with the 1943 and 1944 military years.

And now it is this, an extremely small generation born in the 90's, is entering the working age. In connection with this, the burden on the pension system is also increasing, because it is built mainly on a solidary principle. That is, the pension contributions of people working today, go to payments to current retirees, the generation of our parents. And they, in turn, while they were working, sent contributions to pay pensions to the generation of our grandfathers.

The conclusion is clear, the able-bodied population is being reduced - the opportunities for paying and indexing pensions are automatically reduced. So, changes are necessary.

But then, in the 2000s, I was against them. I spoke about this at closed meetings, and publicly. For example, in 2005, on one of the "Straight Lines", he bluntly said that until the end of my presidential term, such changes would not happen.

In 2008, when I left the post of President of Russia, the basic provisions of the pension system were fully preserved. And now I believe that at that time, such a position was economically sound, and from a social point of view it was absolutely justified and just. I am convinced that raising the retirement age in the early and middle of the 2000s was categorically impossible.

I will remind you how the country lived at that time. This is not yet a strong economy, with very modest indicators of gross domestic product and extremely low wages. This is a high level of unemployment and inflation. Nearly a quarter of the country's citizens were below the poverty line. Life expectancy hardly exceeded 65 years.

If, in those socio-economic conditions, we began to raise the retirement age, and at this cost, as we now plan, to increase pensions, then why would this result? Many families, especially in small towns and rural areas, would lose their main and sometimes the only source of income. With a high level of unemployment and work would not exist, and you could not retire on pension. And all the possible increase in pensions would simply be "eaten" by high inflation, and in the end the number of poor would become even greater.

It was necessary first to overcome the consequences of the shocks of the 90s, to ensure economic growth and solve the most acute social problems.

What has changed over the years? We did not waste time in vain. We - we all, citizens, power, country - have worked.

As soon as we managed to generate the necessary financial resources, we sent them to social development, to save our people. Started the implementation of long-term demographic measures, including the maternity capital program. And this gave good results, partially compensating for the demographic failures of the past decades. We have overcome serious difficulties in the economy and since 2016 have once again reached a stable economic growth. Now the unemployment rate in Russia is the lowest since 1991.

Of course, we still have a lot to do. Including in the field of health, in other areas that determine the quality and life expectancy of a person. But the indisputable fact is that due to the complex of measures taken by the state and, most importantly, the more responsible attitude of people towards their health, today the growth rate of life expectancy in Russia is one of the highest in the world. Over the past 15 years, life expectancy has increased by almost 8 years (7.8 years).

I know that we are not very used to trusting statistics. We draw conclusions, as a rule, from what we ourselves see in real life, around ourselves. Someone really lives a long life, and someone from our relatives, friends, unfortunately, leaves very early. But here we are talking about an objective assessment of the growth rates of life expectancy in Russia, confirmed by experts of the United Nations.

We set ourselves the goal of reaching the end of the next decade and a life expectancy of more than 80 years. And we will do everything to ensure that people in our country live long, healthy.

Dear friends.

All that I just said is an objective but still rather dry analysis of the situation. Which, of course, is important. But it is equally important to feel and consider that the proposed changes are based on vital interests, plans of hundreds of thousands, millions of people. Someone is already thinking of going on a well-deserved rest, devoting more time to the family, children, grandchildren. Someone plans to continue to work and expects to retire as an additional help. And he has the right, of course. And suddenly such prospects are being alienated.

Naturally, all this is perceived by many people painfully. I understand this well and share this concern. But let's see what options we have.

Accept the low incomes of pensioners and wait until the pension system "crashes" and finally falls apart? To shift unpopular, but necessary decisions to the shoulders of the next generation or, realizing that it is waiting for the country in 15-20 years, given the real situation, to act?

I repeat, changes in the pension system, especially those related to raising the age of retirement, worry, disturb people. And it is natural that all political forces, first of all, of course, opposition, will use this situation for self-promotion and strengthening their positions. This is the inevitable cost of the political process in any democratic society. Nevertheless, I asked the Government to study seriously and use all the constructive proposals sounded, including from the opposition, in the most serious way.

As for the current, functioning government, the easiest, simplest thing for it today is not to change anything at all. Now, despite the known difficulties, the Russian economy feels confident. The budget has the resources to replenish the Pension Fund. We, at least the next 7-10 years, will be able to continue indexing pensions on time.

But in fact we know that gradually there will come a time when for the indexation of pensions the state will not have enough money. And then the regular payment of pensions can become a problem, as it already was in the 90's.

Look, back in 2005 the ratio of working citizens, for whom contributions to the Pension Fund are regularly paid, and citizens receiving an old-age insurance pension, we had almost 1.7 to one. And in 2019 it will be already 1.2 to one. That is, practically one to one. And if we do not take any measures, then we will not be able to save the income of the pension system. So, the incomes of today's and future pensioners. On the contrary, they will inevitably depreciate, decrease relative to the level of salaries.

And where to reduce them? Pensions and so today are rather modest, incommensurable to the contribution that the older generations made to the development of the country. We are in great debt to them.

The proposed changes in the pension system will make it possible not only to maintain the income level of pensioners, but the main thing is to ensure their steady, outstripping growth.

Already in 2019, the indexation of old-age pensions will be about 7 percent, which is twice the predicted inflation at the end of 2018. In general, in the next six years we will be able to increase annually the old-age pension for non-working pensioners by an average of 1 thousand rubles. As a result, it will give an opportunity in 2024 to reach the average level of pensions for unemployed pensioners of 20 thousand rubles a month. (Now, let me remind you, this is 14 thousand 144 rubles). Later, already beyond the horizon of 2024, changes in the pension system will allow to form a solid basis for a stable annual increase in insurance pensions above inflation.

I draw your attention to the mechanism of annual increase in pensions should be laid in the bill on changes in the pension system. This should be done already for his second reading in the State Duma.

Dear friends.

Naturally, the question arises whether the government considered any other options, other reserves to ensure the sustainability of the pension system without raising the retirement age. Of course yes. Of course, considered.

On my instructions, the Government up to the present time carried out this work. All possible alternative scenarios were carefully studied and calculated. It turned out that, in fact, they do not solve anything radically. At best, just patching holes. Or worse, they have devastating consequences for the country's economy as a whole.

Well, look, seems to be an effective, seemingly fair measure - the introduction of a progressive scale of income tax. According to the estimates of the Ministry of Finance, the application of an increased tax rate, for example, 20 percent to high incomes, can give, and it is not certain, about 75-120 billion rubles a year. These funds, at best, will last for six days. Because the daily, I want to emphasize this, the daily need for paying pensions in Russia is 20 billion rubles.

Another option is to sell part of the state property, for example, as some suggest, all the buildings of the Pension Fund, including its regional offices. Of course, I agree, they are too swing with their apartments. People are annoyed. And I also support this. It is estimated that the total value of these facilities is 120 billion rubles. But even if we sell them all, and send the money for retirement, we will be able to pay them also for about six days. This is also not an option.

Or, it is proposed to impose additional taxes on oil and gas companies, fuel and energy complex. I can tell you, all that we can collect in this way is enough to pay a maximum of a couple of months. Moreover, we will pay pensions, the whole pension system of the country to a very vulnerable position, depending on the price drop in the world hydrocarbon markets.

Perhaps, more actively use the funds of reserve funds, which are replenished by income from oil and gas? Yes, you can for a while and this. And if tomorrow, as I have already said, the prices for these goods will fall, which is quite possible and has already happened more than once, what then? Reserves will be exhausted instantly, for several months. People's lives, their pensions, incomes for years ahead can not and should not depend on the price of oil, which changes every day.

Perhaps we should continue to increase the funding of the Pension Fund? At the expense of the federal budget to cover its deficit? Already said that for this while there are resources. They really are. But look, what kind of picture does the whole thing develop here.

In the current year for these purposes we allocate from the budget 3.3 trillion rubles, of which 1.8 trillion rubles directly to ensure the payment of insurance pensions. Assuming that we want to achieve our goal, to reach the average pension of 20 thousand rubles, without changing anything, the deficit of the Pension Fund would increase by one and a half times, to 5 trillion rubles. For comparison, this is more than all the costs of national defense and national security.

Having chosen such a decision, sooner or later we will destroy our finances, we will have to get into debt or print unsecured money, with all the ensuing consequences: hyperinflation and growing poverty. Without resources, we can not ensure reliable security of the country. We will not be able to solve the most urgent problems: to develop education and health care, to support families with children, to build roads and infrastructure, and to improve the quality of life of people. We will be doomed to an economic, technological backwardness from other states.

Therefore, our inaction now or the adoption of temporary "cosmetic" measures would be irresponsible and dishonest in relation to both the country and our children.

I repeat, over the years I have been very cautious, and sometimes even with disbelief, treated any proposals for changing the pension system. At times very sharply reacted to these ideas. However, the current trends in the field of demographic development and the labor market, an objective analysis of the situation, show that one can not drag on. But our decisions must be fair, balanced, necessarily taking into account the interests of people.

In this regard, I propose a number of measures that will make it possible to mitigate the decisions as much as possible.


Further. We must provide for the right to early retirement for large mothers. That is, if a woman has three children, then she will be able to retire three years ahead of schedule. If four children - four years earlier. And for women who have 5 or more children, everything should remain as now, they will be able to retire at 50 years old.

The second. As already mentioned, the retirement age is supposed to be increased gradually. So that people can adapt to the new life situation, build their plans. But I understand very well what will be most difficult for those who are the first to face an increase in the retirement age. Very soon. And we must take this into account.

In this regard, I propose for citizens, who were to retire under the old legislation in the next two years, to establish a special privilege - the right to issue a pension six months before the new retirement age. For example, a person who, according to a new retirement age, will have to retire in January 2020, will be able to do so in July 2019. That is, I repeat, six months earlier.

Third. What cares and even, would say, scares people of pre-retirement age? They are afraid to face the risk of losing their jobs. With what can remain without a pension, and without a salary. After all, after 50 work is really hard to find.

In this regard, we must provide additional guarantees that will protect the interests of older citizens in the labor market. Therefore, for the transition period, I propose to consider the pre-retirement age five years before the onset of the retirement period. I repeat, a whole package of measures is needed here. So, I consider it necessary to establish for the employers administrative and even criminal responsibility for the dismissal of workers of pre-retirement age, as well as for refusing to employ citizens because of their age. Corresponding changes in legislation should be made simultaneously with the adoption of the bill on raising the retirement age.

Naturally, it would be wrong and unfair to be guided here only by administrative measures. Therefore, I instruct the Government to offer real incentives for business, that employers would be interested in accepting and retaining pre-retirement citizens at work.

What I would like to add here. Older people, as a rule, have a good professional experience. These are, as a rule, reliable, disciplined employees. They are able to bring great benefits to their enterprises and companies. At the same time, it is important that they, as well as younger workers, if they wish, can undergo the necessary retraining, acquire new skills, improve their qualifications.

In this regard, I instruct the Government to approve a special program for advanced citizens for citizens of pre-retirement age. It should earn as early as possible and be financed from the federal budget.

And if a person of pre-retirement age decided to resign himself, voluntarily and until he found a new job, then in this case we also need to strengthen his social guarantees. In this regard, it is proposed to increase the maximum unemployment benefit for citizens of pre-retirement age more than twice - from 4 thousand 900 rubles, as now, to 11 thousand 280 rubles from January 1, 2019 - and set the period of such payment in one year.

And, finally, it is also necessary to fix the duty of the employer to provide employees of pre-retirement age 2 days per year for free medical examinations with salaries.

The fourth. When making changes, you can not act on a template. What is called, just chohom. We must take into account the special conditions of life and work of people.

We have already provided for the preservation of benefits for miners, workers in hot shops, chemical industries, Chernobyl victims, and a number of other categories.

I think that it is necessary to maintain the current conditions for the appointment of pensions for indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North.

We must support the residents of the village. It has already been repeatedly discussed and even decided on the need for a 25 percent premium to a fixed payment of an insurance pension for unemployed pensioners living in the countryside. At least 30 years of experience in agriculture. But the entry of this decision into force was postponed. I propose to begin these payments as early as January 1, 2019.

Fifth. I think that those who started working early should have the opportunity to retire not only in terms of age, but also taking into account the earned experience.

Now the bill states that the length of service that gives the right to early retirement is 40 years for women and 45 years for men. I propose to reduce the length of service for three years, giving the right to early retirement. For women under 37 years, and for men up to 42.

The sixth. I consider it essential to preserve all the federal benefits that exist as of December 31, 2018 for the transition period, until the reforms in the pension system are completed. I mean the benefits of taxes on real estate and land.

Yes, these privileges were traditionally granted only with retirement. But in this case, when changes are needed in the pension system, and people are counting on these benefits, we must make an exception for them, grant benefits not in connection with retirement, but at reaching the corresponding age. That is, as before, benefits can be used by women at the age of 55 and men from 60 years. Thus, even before retirement, they will no longer pay tax for their house, apartment, garden plot.

I know that representatives of the party "United Russia" in the regional legislative assemblies and the leaders of the subjects of the Federation have taken the initiative to preserve all the existing regional benefits. These are very important things for people. Such as free travel on public transport, utilities benefits, major repairs and gasification, benefits for the purchase of medicines and a number of others. I certainly support this approach. And I expect that all the necessary decisions will be taken in the regions even before the new law on pensions comes into force.

Dear friends.

As you know, many experts now believe that we have been too slow to solve the issues that are being discussed today. I do not think so. We just were not ready for this. But it is really impossible to postpone further. It would be irresponsible and could lead to serious consequences in the economy and social sphere, most negatively affect the fate of millions of people, because, now it is already clear, the state will eventually have to do it sooner or later. But the later, the more severe these decisions will be. Without any transition period, without preserving a number of benefits and those mitigating mechanisms that we can use today.

In the long term, if we are now hesitant, this could jeopardize the stability of society, and hence the security of the country.

We must develop. They must overcome poverty, provide a decent life for the people of the older generation, both today's and future retirees.

The proposals, which were discussed today, will be formalized as amendments and brought into the State Duma as soon as possible.

Dear friends.

I have very objectively, in detail and absolutely sincerely reported to you about the current state and proposals for the sustainable development of the pension system in our country. I would like to emphasize once again that we have to take a difficult, difficult but necessary decision.

I ask you to treat this with understanding.

29.08.2018 09:33:48
(Automatic translation)


Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin

Vladimir Putin was born on October 7, 1952 in Leningrad. "I am from a simple family, and I have lived this life for a very long time, practically my entire adult life.



13.09.2018 12:26:15

Dead rat in the soup

In a Chinese restaurant, a pregnant woman almost ate a rat
13.09.2018 08:00:18

The world's largest exporter of dairy products bears the first annual losses

The New Zealand company Fonterra for the first time incurred annual losses due to rising costs and large non-recurring expenses
13.09.2018 07:43:19

Who killed the biggest birds in the world?

Prehistoric people are suspected of destroying the largest birds that ever lived
11.09.2018 11:34:06

In India, a tiger-eater appeared

The Supreme Court of India rejected an appeal for the rescue of an ogre
11.09.2018 11:09:15

DHL Express was the first to launch an online payment service

DHL Express in Russia launched an online payment service for express delivery services


Advertisement