The content of this article comes from the Internet, if it is inconsistent with the actual situation or there is infringement, please contact to delete. This article is only published in today's headlines, please do not move.
On the occasion of the Spring Festival in 2023, a deep and fierce social security controversy quietly emerged, and various places held two sessions or announced new annual plans, including pension policies involving the majority of retirees. Social security experts have made predictions for the upcoming annual pension general increase of 4%, which has triggered strong calls from corporate retirees. They demand an additional 10%-20% increase on top of this general increase of 4%, especially for those with monthly pensions of less than 4,000 yuan, they demand an increase of 20%. The controversy highlighted the issue of unfair distribution of pensions and sparked widespread social discussion.
Social security experts, however, have raised objections. They insist that since 2016, public institution retirees and corporate retirees have enjoyed the same pension increase mechanism and should not add additional increases for corporate retirees alone. They argue that this approach is unfair and point out that the National Social Security Fund is not enough to support more increases for corporate retirees.
Corporate retirees disagreed, and rebutted it. They advocate not adopting a "dual-track system", believing that both public institutions and enterprise personnel have contributed to society and should not enjoy different treatment due to the nature of their work. In addition, they pointed out that employees of government agencies and institutions enjoy higher wages and welfare benefits during their employment, and their pensions after retirement are much higher than those of enterprise retirees, which has led to the widening gap between the rich and the poor after retirement. They believe that pension increases should be adjusted according to individual actual circumstances to better reflect the contributions and needs of different groups of people.
If the policy does increase the pension increase by 10%-20% for corporate retirees, three types of people will benefit. The first are retired workers who have worked hard for the country's manufacturing construction, but now have relatively low pension levels. Such a policy would be good news for them. Second, there are those retired workers who once sacrificed their personal interests for the reform of state-owned enterprises, who made a lot of efforts when they were young, but now they can only receive a meager pension, and life is very difficult, and an increase in pensions will be a kind of compensation for them. Finally, all corporate retirees will benefit from this policy because of their career instability, lower salaries and relatively low levels of pensions after retirement, a policy that will recognize their historical contribution.
However, if the policy still restricts the pension increase of retirees in public institutions, it will cause dissatisfaction. First of all, the leaders of organs and institutions usually promote their positions or ranks before retirement to increase the level of on-the-job salaries, so as to enjoy higher pensions after retirement. If the policy limits their pension rises, it will reduce their sense of superiority. Second, employees of some institutions enjoy relatively high salaries and benefits, they are relatively stable in their careers, and if the policy adds more increases to corporate retirees, these people may feel lost. Finally, some female employees of institutions and institutions can also receive generous pensions after retirement, which may cause social dissatisfaction.
To sum up, pension distribution policy has been a controversial topic. How to distribute pensions fairly and meet the needs of different groups of people is a problem that requires in-depth thinking and balance. The government needs to consider a combination of factors to ensure that the policy is fair and feasible to meet the reasonable expectations of the majority of retirees, while maintaining social stability and fairness. This requires all parties to work together and reach a consensus to achieve a better pension distribution system.
The above content and materials are derived from the Internet, and the author of this article does not intend to target or allude to any real country, political system, organization, race, individual. The above does not mean that the author of this article endorses the laws, rules, opinions, behaviors in the article and is responsible for the authenticity of the relevant information. The author of this article is not responsible for any issues arising above or related to any of the above, nor does it assume any direct or indirect legal liability.