The old peasants who pay the public grain have no pension, is it really "no money after paying the money"?
Title: The old peasant pays public grain, but he has no pension? Have you ever heard the irony behind this?
Description: After decades of paying public grain, the old farmers did not enjoy the pension treatment they deserved. What kind of story is hidden behind this seemingly ironic phenomenon? Let's unravel the mystery of the old farmer's pension together!
Hello everyone, dear readers! Today I would like to bring you a rather ironic and embarrassing topic: Old peasants pay public grain but have no pension! This seemingly absurd phenomenon makes us wonder: Could it be that they "have no money after they have paid the money"? Now please follow me to uncover this poignant mystery!
First of all, let's understand the background of the old peasants who paid the public grain. In the rural areas of the mainland, in order to ensure national food security and the peasants' livelihood, the system of "paying public grain" has been implemented. According to the regulations, farmers need to hand over part of their grain to the state to supply the state's public welfare undertakings. This system ensured the country's grain reserves to a certain extent and promoted the development of the rural economy.
However, to the bewilderment and regret of the old peasants, the public grain they handed over did not bring due pension benefits. This phenomenon has aroused widespread attention and discussion, and people have questioned one after another: Is the contribution of the old peasants neglected, and is the actual situation really as we see?
First of all, we need to make one thing clear: the original intention of the old peasants to pay the public grain is out of contribution and support for the country. For the sake of the country's food security, they have paid their own efforts and hard work without hesitation. However, due to historical reasons and institutional restrictions, the old peasants did not enjoy the due pension treatment at that time. This also led to the lack of livelihood and financial hardship in old age.
Second, we cannot ignore that after the reform and opening up, the mainland's rural old-age security system has gradually improved. The government has successively introduced a series of pension insurance policies aimed at providing better benefits and security for the elderly. However, because the old farmers are not included in the current pension insurance system when they pay the public grain, they are unable to enjoy these benefits.
In the face of this seemingly ironic phenomenon, we should face up to the historical reasons and institutional shortcomings. Although the old peasants paid the public grain, they did not enjoy the pension treatment at that time, not because they "paid the money and had no money". On the contrary, it is the old peasants out of dedication to the country that has contributed to the gradual improvement of today's rural old-age security system.
At present, the government is also aware of the urgency of the problem of pension for old farmers, and has begun to improve and compensate for it. By intensifying efforts to include old farmers in the current pension insurance system, it is believed that they can provide them with better pension benefits and improve their life in their later years.
To sum up, it is not an ironic phenomenon that the old peasants do not enjoy the pension treatment after paying the public grain. There were historical reasons and institutional restrictions behind it, which led to the inability of old farmers to enjoy old-age security at that time. However, we should note that the current government has begun to take steps to correct this injustice. It is believed that in the near future, the problem of old-age care for old farmers will be better solved.