Human rights and social well-being: Society: News: Hankyoreh

[논쟁-국민연금 개혁] Chan-Sup Nam

Financial calculations, social changes can not reflect
If the premium rate is set for a long period of 70 years
Even if we manage the pension fund well, it is inevitable to exhaust money.
"As the same calculation method,
Uncertainty about national pension, repetition

Rapid aging, tax backup
Even if the premium is 30%, GDP is 7.5%
41% of the elderly,
Aging can not afford society as a whole
Germany is already supported by the Treasury

The debate about the national pension is hot. National pension reform is a high-order equation that is not easy to solve. The Hankyoreh has a 'controversial chapter & # 39; designed to contribute to more productive discussions. Professor Min Chan-sup, professor of the Dong-A University of Social Welfare Committee, has written a question about the calculation method of the national pension for 70 years.

This year, the fourth result of the national pension-financial calculation was released. Like the first and third results, & # 39; fund thepletion & # 39; the public opinion. Why do you get the result of & # 39; funding is empty & # 39; every time you make a financial calculation? The reason is also related to the technique of financial calculation.
First, national pension finances are very long, 70 years. We can not reflect the quality of society at all, given our long-term plans. Important qualitative changes such as regime change, economic crisis, introduction of a new system are not possible to quantify. How does the result of this estimate relate to the 70-year trajectory of Korean society since 1948?
The quality model of the national pension does not reflect the quality change of society. The assumption is that the current premium rate (9%), the replacement ratio (40% in 2028) and other system content remain the same for 70 years. In such a situation, the basic structure of the tax calculation is that the figure of 70 years is estimated by changing numerical values, such as economic growth, real interest, wages and price.
It is rather difficult to find out that the national pension fund is not being exhausted by such a financial calculation. This is because the macroeconomic variables that move the economy change, assuming that the national pension has not changed for 70 years. This result is not related to the behavior of the national pension.
What if the current national pension fund model is applied to a company called & # 39; Samsung & # 39; Assuming that the current production and management methods and operating profit margin remain the same for 70 years and it is estimated that economic growth, wages and interest rates will change, it is likely that Samsung will disappear within the estimation period. No one will believe this estimate. This is because it is not logical that Samsung remains silent for 70 years.
If the result of the estimate of & # 39; disappear from Samsung & # 39; However, "returning Samsung products is what we have bought so far and do new purchases", if the Samsung employees are not cut, this will be a burden for future generations & # 39; What if we say that the result came true? "
Financial calculations are only estimates, no proof of the future. It is an exaggeration to say that the estimation result is a fact. An example of over-exploitation is the claim that the national pension premium will be 30% after the fund has been depleted. This figure applies to financial calculations. The premium percentage of 30%, however, is the assumption that the income range that falls under the current national pension premium (income ceiling 4.68 million per month) remains the same for 70 years. It will be 40 years later that the money is being depleted by the current budgetary estimates. Will we then only impose premiums on the same range as we do now? It will not.
In addition, the 30% premium is 7.5% based on GDP at the time of exhaustion of the fund and 9.4% of GDP in 2088. The elderly population at the time of the fund's exhaustion is 41%. Can you believe that this society can not afford 7.5% to 9.4% of GDP for this population?
So why is 7.5% of GDP not a rate of 9.4% and a premium of 30%? This is probably because the National Pension believes that it should only work as a premium. But is not it an unsustainable idea in our society before the unprecedented aging of the world? Aging is not a problem of the national pension, but a problem of our society as a whole. This requires taxation. If the tax is withheld from a higher income than the premium in the old-age pension scheme, the premium rate is lower than 30%.
Germany already supports a quarter of its premiums in the national treasury. We can and must. There must be a proper discussion forum for the reform of the national pension system, including these measures. Anxiety marketing, proven to be exhausted from the fund, which is only an estimate, is now boring.
Nam Chan-sup professor, Dong-A University (social welfare) · President social welfare

Nam Chanseop Donga University Professor (Social Welfare Studies)

Nam Chanseop Donga University Professor (Social Welfare Studies)

Source link

Leave a Reply