Professor Xiamen University suggested receiving a pension according to the number of children, and should the "supernatural guerrillas" send pennants?

Professor Xiamen University suggested receiving a pension according to the number of children, and should the "supernatural guerrillas" send pennants?

Qiao Zhifeng

Professors at Xiamen University suggested receiving pensions according to the number of children: encouraging fertility from a pension perspective.

Zhao Yanjing, a professor at Xiamen University, proposed that according to the current model, it is not related to how many children you get after retirement and how many children you raise. "This also means that if you don't have children, the future is actually largely supported by the pension paid by other people's children." If everyone is unwilling to procreate, the pension system will become a 'passive water', and as the average life expectancy of people is getting longer and longer, and the next generation of people is getting fewer and fewer, the proportion of population dependency is out of balance, and the burden of the next generation will become heavier and heavier. ”

Zhao Yanjing thus put forward a direction of ideas and suggestions - when designing the pension system, it should be linked to the fertility situation, such as those who do not have children, they can only receive the most basic pension after retirement, and if they have a child, the pension standard is multiplied by a coefficient accordingly, and so on, and so on, and the grading is set. Some questions have suggested that the essence of this proposal is to punish those who do not have children, but from another point of view, it can actually be seen as a reward for the family that has children. (21 Finance)

Just a few days ago, economist Ren Zeping put forward the proposal of "the central bank prints 2 trillion yuan more, and uses 10 years to give birth to 50 million more children": establish a fertility encouragement fund as soon as possible, the central bank prints 2 trillion yuan more, and uses 10 years to give birth to 50 million more children in society, solve the problem of population aging and low birth, make the future more vibrant, and do not increase the burden of the people, enterprises and localities, we believe that only this method is the most pragmatic and effective feasible now.

As soon as the strange talk came out, it immediately caused an uproar, and the voices of doubt were endless. Subsequently, Ren Zeping's Weibo and WeChat public accounts were both banned.

People have always compared "expert professors", there are already "experts" who have greatly fired a lot and attracted a lot of eyeballs, and the "professor" group can certainly not lag behind.

With all due respect, whether it is an "expert" or a "professor", its argument is very superficial, and even suspected of being "anti-XX".

Encouraging fertility is indeed a very urgent issue at present, but the ways and methods of encouraging fertility must conform to human nature and the rule of law, and be scientific and reasonable.

Having or not having children is the freedom of the individual, others have no right to interfere, and we must respect the choices of others, which is the proper meaning of modern civilization. The measures to encourage childbearing should also be fair and just, and should not intentionally or unintentionally harm the interests of some groups of people for some seemingly grandiose interests.

What's more, some people do not deliberately not have children, but are unable to have children due to special reasons such as physical reasons. They have been beaten into the "alternative" for this reason, and their vital interests have been damaged, and they are really like a fake "lying gun".

Experts suggest that "the central bank prints 2 trillion yuan more", the essence of which can be regarded as a secondary distribution of income. Rewarding some people and allocating more money to some people is essentially fining another part of the people and making them unfairly treated. Tilting the balance of distribution in favor of those who have children, some people take more money, which means that others take less money in distribution, and must also bear the harm and pressure of inflation.

The professor was even more ruthless, directly poking at the pension, linking the fertility situation with the pension. What is the legal basis for taking more pensions if you have more children, and if you don't have children or have fewer children, you will get less pensions? Are people who don't have children or have fewer children not even deserve to be old-age?

Once upon a time, having more children and having more children was to pay "social support fees". Now, if we do not have children or fewer children according to the theories taught by experts, we will be treated differently and inferior in terms of economic treatment and income distribution. Is the turn a bit steep? It's not that I don't understand, this society is changing fast.

Of course, once the experts and professors come out, there are also some groups that will be elated and celebrate. That is, the "supernatural guerrilla" played in the sketch, hiding in Tibet for many years, and now it can finally raise its eyebrows; before it was impossible to see the light, now it is finally turned over and sung. I suggest that they should collectively beat gongs and drums to send pennants to experts and professors, and then ask in person: Please, who will you get the money you are talking about? Or should I report the train tickets that came first?