Emergency conversation about tomorrow-3. That we must decide for ourselves

In our current Constitution from the very beginning (i.e. since 1993), there is a completely mysterious, fleeing from the time of the USSR, Article 7, stating that “the Russian Federation is a social state whose policy is aimed at creating conditions that ensure a decent life and free development of a person. The Russian Federation is protected in the Russian Federation, the guaranteed minimum wage is established, state support for the family, motherhood, paternity and childhood, disabled people and elderly citizens are established, the system of social services is developing, state pensions, manuals and other guarantees of social protection are established. ”

It would seem wonderful: for everything good and against everything bad. What it turns into reality - well, for example, into the minimum wage, the same “minimum wage”, from 01.01.2015, is as much as 5965 rubles/month. (Five thousand nine hundred and sixty -five - exactly like that!) And about the state. The support of the family, motherhood and paternity is a separate song that even reached the European Court of Human Rights (the case of Captain Markin, who insisted on the right to take leave to care for the child), and there are a lot of things about other “guarantees of social protection”.

Why am I? And to the fact that the entire 7th article of the Constitution is therefore so crooked and executed that here the state did not climb into its garden. It was not my job.

I clearly understand what will be expressed to me now. And he is ready to listen a lot, but only on condition that my arguments will be listened and heard - even if many do not agree with them. But with them, and not with my disagreed opponents. Agreed? Then let's start.

So, we all decided together (I really hope for it) that we are similar to people, and therefore we consider it our duty to show solidarity with those who cannot help for ourselves: with disabilities, old people, orphan children (maybe with someone-how to agree). And for the sake of this, they are ready for this, in order to ensure their life, that is, to introduce the tax mandatory for everyone. “Well, I already hear,” the tax means the state! ”

This does not mean anything yet! Let me explain the example: there is such a wonderful corporation called the Air Force. The one that slanders. And which everyone knows, even very far from politics - wonderful programs “Life on Earth”, “Living Planet”, “Invisible Life of Plants” and “Planet Earth” at least once, but probably many watched. In general, the Air Force are two etheric and three cable/satellite/digital television channels in the UK, 14 national digital radio stations, several Internet sites , about 40 magazines , including a round-the-clock news channel- BBC News , BBC World News , and so on.

All this is public. Having no relation to the state, strictly speaking, financially, the BBC financially exists for a special collection, which is paid by all residents of the country who has a TV at home, as well as any device that allows you to view the video signal in real time, including a mobile phone-that is, all British citizens are really. In the organizational plan, the Air Force operates in accordance with the Charter, constantly (once every 10 years) reviewed, but unchanged in one respect: the Air Force is at the head of the Air Force, which resolves all the main issues, including the appointment of corporation management. And the state - no matter how much he wanted it! - It cannot take and remove the funded part of the pension (crossed out) of the Air Force funds for any other necessary. And it also cannot order the Air Force for the same reasons.

Now remember - just what was it! -What did our government (i.e. the state) with the funded part of the pension for 2014-2015? Took to the "Crimean"? That's the same!

And therefore, I think that it would be better if we have this voluntarily taken on the “tax of solidarity” in favor of those who cannot help themselves, not to give the state, but to control themselves - so that in any case, under any government, he will not remain for those who will not live without these funds. This is our fold in their favor. Public Council, hired management, reporting to him and us - and no channels of the “leakage” to the budget.

At the same time, everything is clear with disabled people and orphans. But with pensions, everything is not so simple. Because they become pensioners not because of an accident, but after a long life filled with ordinary, normal activity. And, let me notice, after a significant part of life, when we did it ourselves - better or worse - with our problems. Therefore, this is not quite the same case in its origin that the case of disabled people and orphans.

Yes, all the older generations (and I am among them) will already accumulate anything for old age. Because all our lives, the state, through taxes, has seized our earnings on a forced manner in order to feed the “current” pensioners. It turned out and it turns out to be worse and worse. For many reasons. But one of them can not be done even to the best, professional and honest government: the country's population is aging, the number of pensioners has almost equalized with the number of workers. And the prospects are even more intense: working, young, most active generations simply will not be able to provide themselves and their children normally, and also the elderly. This is not only our specific problem-it is in all few or less developed countries.

And it needs to be decided to decide. It is to decide. Declaring Deadline. And after him? And after this: everyone who, say, will remain in the previous position, and we will need to agree that we all together in solidarity help them - we will take off their retirement. And with those who are younger, to solve once and for all: for the already worked out years-the proportional part of the previous (i.e., current) pension, and decide for yourself all the time after Deadline. No more money is forcibly collecting anywhere. I emphasize - forcibly! And voluntarily-let everyone decide and invest them where, when and how much he wants: in any pension fund for a personal, never-nicema-not-and-in-law account-please! On a deposit in the bank - yes for God's sake! In a stocking under the mattress? Your money is to decide. At least drink it, at least put in the children - so that they have kept in old age. Although in a share or real estate - living on income from them in old age is your business, you decide. To everyone. On one's own. Both to risk their choice, and to be responsible for him to everyone.

Learn to swim in the water, not on the shore.

And so slowly, as mine and in general, all the older generations will leave for natural reasons, there will be a system in which everyone provides his old age, according to their choice.

I know what they will tell me. But in addition to technical details (and there are many of them and they need to discuss them), I am ready to answer only one thing, the most important accusation: that, they say, this is a cruel system. No, not cruel. Just honest. And cruel-this is the one in which a loafer and a man who really worked all his life, begin to receive almost equally in old age, and even beggarly money, because there are few young people. And what I am writing about is just honest. And, mind you, everyone decides - by the way, no one takes the opportunity to invest in pension funds from anyone. Those who are not prone to risk. And ready for a smaller, but guaranteed pension. But to solve it to everyone.

And the state has almost nothing to do with it. Only despite the fact that it will monitor compliance with the rules that we will agree on. And here the authorities, which, by definition of the temptation to encroach on this money (because there will be no opportunity to take it), here power will become what, first of all, it should be - an impartial arbitrator in controversial situations.

And this is far from the only circle of problems that we can solve ourselves and in which the state does not need to climb. That is, we should not allow him there.

Remembering firmly: everyone needs to learn to swim - at least in order not to be afraid of water; You can learn to swim only in water, and not on the shore. And that everyone who promises to pour water when we learn to swim is to lie.