Ivan Dubasov: Not every noodles are equally useless

Ivan Dubasov

The note of Usovskin " Dance around pensions or noodles on the ears " gave rise to a desire to speak out. Since not everyone in it, as the chief of yogurts say, is equally useful.

In fact, some points raise questions. So, for example, it is not clear why it is necessary to “disperse the Pension Fund” with its employees and buildings, if he really does the same as the old Soviet intercourse, that is, he keeps the registration of pensioners and the accrual of pensions, the matter is far from automatic.

As for the search for cases when "the value of real estate would fall more than the cost of life" - there are more than enough: on a country's scale, this took place in the latest history of Japan and, it seems, under the current situation in the United States. And even more of such situations take place in all kinds of local cutting - when real estate on this street, in this city or region, suddenly abruptly loses the price and liquidity. Moreover, this happens for quite objective reasons and is not accompanied by consumer deflation. Of course, there are real estate investment tools that can insure from such local risks of depreciation - but this is a separate conversation.

What is the right of the right is the reminder that the pension mechanism taken by itself is the distribution mechanism, and the total number of life blessings shared between pensioners and non -administrations, it does not increase. Yes, pension savings are only the accumulation of rights to a share in these benefits, but not the benefits themselves. Perhaps this moment is deliberately hiding supporters of accumulative pensions, but this does not make them a pointless venture. It’s just that in the current society of a universal claim to understand all things you can not do without some crawl-unless, of course, you want to achieve some real result.

To explain what's what, you will have to go a few from afar. As you know, there are different types of redistribution of money for public purposes. Once the money was collected, referring to their specific targeted use: let's say, there were polonyany (for the redemption of prisoners), Yama and other target fees in Rus'. All this was spent by name - without getting into the common boiler. And people trusted the authorities to administer these payments to a large extent precisely because they knew what they would be spent on. Then the authorities improved financial administration skills and learned all the fees (sharply reducing the number of their species) to put into one large boiler, and then paint the expenses based on this total mass of funds. The state budget has appeared.

But the ideal could not be achieved. At least two problems arose. Firstly, some types of expenses are so stable in outsiders that there is no chance to finance them in some decent way. It is for this reason that in many successful countries the roads are funded mainly through the target fee included in the cost of gasoline. And for nothing else this money, no matter how much it is, it is simply impossible to spend it technically (i.e. legislatively). This is also fair: you go more - you pay more for the roads, but we are not talking about that now.

Secondly, the exact opposite situation is possible-some of the expenses for the efforts of parliamentarians who accept the annual budget can be inflated until they are completely absorbed by state financials-simply due to the populist aspirations of the people's chosen ones. Say, this is one of the reasons for the Church of the Church from the state - in order not to subject the deputies to tempt the state budget as a sacrifice to their public piety.

Now take a look from this bell tower at pension matters. If we assume that our Duma deputies gained freedom of action, ceasing to be the office of the executive branch (which many oppositionists passionately dream of), and pensions are funded exclusively by the budget (which Usyskin passes passionately), it cannot be excluded that they will begin to immediately increase and increase the share of pension costs in the budget - and they will not be able to stop along this path.

Why? Yes, because the pensioner is becoming an increasingly influential voter. There are more and more of them. They have very simply formalized, homogeneous interests that do not require a particularly complex reflection for understanding - two. They live today - three. It is quite difficult for them to manipulate through the line of subordination, as doctors and teachers - these can be scared and threatened with dismissal, etc.: See the mass participation of school teachers in the falsifications of the results of the latest elections.

What happens? The fact that the budget of "democratic Russia" risks becoming mainly to the pension budget. With all due respect to labor veterans, the main goal of the state should not be the creation of the most comfortable living conditions for people yesterday - otherwise those who will become such tomorrow will get little at all.

And then a cumulative pension comes to the rescue. In fact, this mechanism almost excludes the participation of parliamentarians in the current functioning - if they can discuss something, then these are really complex and not bright issues for public speaking, such as a percentage of deductions from the wage fund or pension investment conditions for certain categories of wise men. That is, it was precisely what caused Usskin, in his own words, a feeling of Mukhodov.

Yes, in a sense - Muhlezh. But the state will not die.

See also: Lev Usyskin Dance around Pensions or Lapsha on the Ears