The failure of the "theory of payment" based on the principle of "overpayment and more gain"
One
See Picture 1.
This is the "overpayment, long-term payment and more" advocated by some people in the basic endowment insurance, and some people say that this is a "policy", and some people say that this is a "principle", in short, this is the "masterpiece" of the "payment theory" with the incentive mechanism of "paying more and getting more".
See Figure 2.
The "payment" of all those who "pay the theory" is said to be "individual contributions". This can be seen directly from the formula for calculating the pooled (basic) pension.
The "get" of all those who "pay theory" is to find a way to get the pooled (basic) pension and the "transitional pension" that is not stipulated in the law and the financial subsidy of the national government (for the basic pension insurance) by "individual contribution". For example, the formulation of a complex calculation of the "Average Contribution Index of Oneself". There is also the change of "working years" to "years of contribution" and the change of "pooled pension" to "basic pension".
All "payment theory" can make "deemed payments" that are "deemed to be" for individual contributions without individual contributions, such as the "deemed payment index table", in order to cover up the fact that there is no "overpayment".
Two
Saying that "paying more and getting more" is a "principle", then the other "pay" and "get" are "foils". However, due to the existence of personal account pensions, the "overpayment" of "individual contributions" will no longer exist, and all "contributions" have become a pretext and an excuse for "getting". Facts show that only a small number of people can "pay more and get more".
1. "Long pay more" is added to the "pay more and get more" incentive mechanism. However, the "long payment" of individual contributions is not the reason for "too much" in the basic endowment insurance, for example, the "long payment" of one penny paid by individuals every year.
2. "Less payment and less" exists, that is, when the "my average contribution index" of individual contributions is less than 1, it is "less" the overall (basic) pension, which refers to the majority of people, and their overall (basic) pension is plundered by people who can "my average contribution index" greater than 1, otherwise how can the minority "get more"? What's in "too much"? Don't "get" your own personal contributions!
In fact, it also shows that the "more" of a small number of people must be the "less" of many people.
3. There are also "non-payments" and "overpayments", for example, "deemed payment" without individual payment is "deemed" individual payment.
4. There are also "less payments and more gains", for example, the so-called "middle people", although the individual payment is "less" is not "less". In particular, it is manifested in the current "ten-year transition period" of "staff of organs and institutions".
5. "Overpayment and less" also exists, for example, "enterprise employees" have "paid more" than "staff of organs and institutions" for 22 years or are still "getting less", which should also be "long payment and more gain", but there is no "too much".
6. "No pay" also exists, but this is the same as the basic endowment insurance system, to ensure the basic life of the elderly is not tolerated, there should also be "get", should be "old and support". Because, this is explained from the point of view that "labor is the first need of human life". In addition, there is no individual payment during the "deemed payment period", and it cannot be explained that "no" is required.
Three
In addition to the above, I don't know what "pay" and what "get" the "pay" theory has.
In short, it is a logical mistake to "get" the overall (basic) pension in the basic endowment insurance with individual contributions, and it is also the failure of the "principle" of "paying more and getting more" in the basic endowment insurance of the social security system.
We should calculate that the pooled (basic) pension is fair and reasonable based on the individual "social pooling" situation, not the individual contribution of the "personal account".
