Why should we advocate "lowering the height limit" before increasing the "linked occupancy rate"? Isn't this adjustment method different? In fact, this is easier to understand, mainly for two reasons:
1. A new round encourages young people to pay social security for a long time.
In recent years, because young people attach great importance to social security, many people are now concerned about the annual pension increase. If we blindly "lower the height limit", young people will fall into a misunderstanding, that is, even if they pay social security 15 years, they will have special policies after retirement. Although they can't catch up with retired workers with strong old-age insurance, they are humble and quite cost-effective.
Once this logical thinking is unshakable, it is difficult to correct it. As a result, young people refuse to pay social security for a long time, resulting in a particularly large pension gap and entering a vicious circle. Then there will be a shortage of funds, the pension system will collapse, and no one will receive pension insurance.
2. The voice of resisting "lowering the height limit" is getting louder and louder, increasing the "linked share" and fulfilling the previous agreement.
Since some provinces and regions introduced the current policy of "lowering the height limit" in recent years, the voice of resistance has been rising. The main reason is that the current policy of "lowering the height limit" violated the contract after paying social security at that time. Every year when pensions rise, we must follow the standard of overpayment and long-term overpayment. If it is because of the implementation of the current policy of "lowering the height limit" and reducing any adjustment credit line, it is slightly unfair to retired workers with high endowment insurance premiums.
On the premise of "lowering the height limit", that is, it will not arouse young people's willingness to pay, but also make retired workers with relatively long social security payment years feel chilling, then the relevant policy of "abandoning armor and delaying troops" will certainly not be easily extended for a long time. As the saying goes, "people are not as good as heaven" and "lowering the height limit" is considerate of people's feelings, but in the long run it will be a disaster. Therefore, under the premise of rising pensions this year, it is understandable to tilt towards retired workers who have paid social security for a long time.
The increase in pensions in recent years has really increased the difference reasonably?
Frankly speaking, no. In this year's promotion, "linked adjustment share" is more likely to enlarge the difference of endowment insurance. Why do you say that? There are two main reasons:
1. As long as some provinces and autonomous regions implement the current policy of "lowering the ceiling", for example, pensions will increase in 2020, only some provinces and autonomous regions such as Tianjin, Beijing and Liaoning have decided to moderately tilt retired workers with relatively low pension insurance premiums when adjusting the budget quota, while other provinces and autonomous regions have not implemented this current policy of "lowering the ceiling".
2. The scope is not enough and the benefit is narrow. Although the purpose is skewed, there are very few retired workers who can enjoy special policies, and the adjustment amount is not high. For example, in Liaoning Province, the current policy is to lower the height limit: after adjusting the old-age insurance, retired employees who are dissatisfied with the old-age insurance premium of 2,500 yuan will pay more 1 yuan. In other words, retired employees who only pay social security 15 do not enjoy this current policy, so the beneficiaries may be affected.
I firmly believe that the ideas of friends here are very bright, that is, the policy of "lowering the height limit" in recent years has not effectively improved the difference in pension insurance benefits. This year's promotion of "linked adjustment share" is also a unified current policy in the country, and the popularization of beneficiaries naturally magnifies the differences between pension benefits.
More importantly, the average pension increase this year is 4%. On the premise of adjusting the overall proportion and increasing the linked share, it means that the budget quota is optimized and the skew adjustment is weakened, which immediately leads to serious polarization of pension increase and may widen the gap again. Therefore, this year's "lifting the hook to adjust the share" is more likely to amplify the difference in pension insurance.
What do you think of this matter? We warmly welcome exchanges and comments.