About pension and about freedom

A non -economic view of reform from Professor NIU HSE Alexander Lukin

Simple arithmetic

The main argument of the supporters of the reform is to reduce revenues to the Pension Fund due to an increase in the number of pensioners per employee. Opponents of reforms usually express their arguments. Firstly, this ratio in Russia is not so critical. Today we have approximately 2.4 working for one pensioner. In many countries, this indicator is even lower: in France and Singapore-2.2, in Belarus, Malta, Japan and Sri Lanka-2.3 workers. Secondly, in Russia, the average life expectancy is about 10 years shorter than in developed countries, that is, as a result of reform, many will not survive until retirement.

All these arguments are true. Let's try to approach the question from the other side. Why, in fact, in the country so rich in natural resources, which, according to the Constitution, should be used and protected as the basis of the life and activities of its peoples, pensions should be paid exclusively at the expense of pension deductions? For example, in the loved one by our "liberal" economists in Europe, this is not always the case. In the Norway rich in natural resources, there are two pension funds, one of which (the Global Foundation) is formed on the basis of overproducts of the oil industry, rather than pension contributions. It can be used to cover a pension deficit, as well as other forms of budget deficit. In Saudi Arabia, there is no social insurance and analogue of our pension fund with its ineffective costs and a sudden millionaire leader, and the budget is fully responsible for pension payments and all other very high social benefits.

In Russia, since 2005, the pension fund’s deficit is also partially covered at the expense of the budget, however, not on a systematic institutionalized basis, but for plugging holes. Carrying out the reform indicates that the government considers the Norwegian situation to be abnormal, not wants to spend budget money on retirement. But the budget in Russia is planned, therefore, there is money, but they will be spent on other cases, which the government considers more important. What are these things?

Is there money?

First of all: you should immediately abandon the argument that budget money is simply not enough.

Pensions on a Russian budget scale are not so large. According to various estimates, due to the reforms in their original form, the budget until 2024 will save from 600 to 800 billion rubles.

So, Alfa-Bank experts gave the figure of 800 billion, while 700 billion should be raised by pensions, and the savings actually will amount to about 100 billion. According to various government members, Putin’s softening will cost about 500 billion rubles. This means that the savings will probably be about 300 billion. In any case, we are talking about hundreds of billions over 6 years.

Is it a lot or little? You can understand this by comparing pension payments with budget costs. For example, for the next three years, the government plans to allocate 5.5 trillion rubles for so -called national projects. These include, for example, the development of a digital economy (415 billion rubles), support for non -resource exports (271.5 billion rubles), and assistance to small and medium -sized businesses (136 billion rubles). Only for the national project for road construction is allocated 1.5 trillion rubles. And this is not to mention military spending (2.77 trillion rubles per year), an unknown amount of expenses of the article on “national security”, subsidies to various regions, etc. Only the Moscow budget allocated 557.7 billion rubles for the development of transport infrastructure in one 2018.

It is clear that some 100-150 billion per year of growth due to pension reform is a drop in the sea. Simply, according to the government, there is no opportunity to take money from other articles. The First Deputy Prime Minister Anton Siluanov says so: the pension fund “should be self-sufficient”, budget funds themselves (including the funds of the National Welfare Fund, which today has about 3.5 trillion rubles and is an analogue of the Global Norwegian Foundation) should be allocated for other purposes. Obviously, the problem is not the impossibility of the budget to cover pension expenses, but that other goals are presented to the government more important. And this is even despite the wave of protests and the results of recent elections that clearly indicate the dissatisfaction of the population.

What is the reason for such perseverance? It seems that it does not demonstrate the strength, but the weakness of the country's leadership. The costs of defense, safety, the construction of roads and even for very vague goals of creating a digital economy are supported by influential lobbyists who earn a lot of money on their implementation. You can’t take the money from the military, because enemies are around. You can not take them from law enforcement officers because they protect from the enemies of internal. For the same reasons, it is impossible to increase the retirement age to them, retired 20 years earlier than the rest. You can not cut the builders of roads, oil monopolies and in general solid people and companies, because they earn money on this and can defend their interests, including sharing those who make decisions. It is impossible to introduce a progressive tax, because it will also affect the people of solid ones. Luxury cannot be applied with an additional tax. But to pick up from the most defenseless, whose interests no one represented, is possible. Theoretically, the interests of the common people, including pensioners, must protect representative bodies, but since they are actually appointed in Russia, their members are not in response to pensioners, but to the powers of this world, therefore, decisions are made by the relevant ones.

Moreover, the role of the so -called "liberals" in the government is very convenient. In conditions of a strict vertical of power, their “liberalism” has nothing to do with freedom or economic development: it objectively helps the oligarchic power (and what it protects) to maintain financial stability, that is, to strengthen it. The “liberal” trend relieves the desire of the oligarchs and security forces to give everything out and is out, replenishes the budget by reducing social programs and taxing additional devices of the most defenseless and productive segments of the population. From this point of view, their ideal should not be F. Hayek, but S. Niyazov, who canceled the pensions in general and banned ballet and training at universities for more than two years to reduce unnecessary expenses. Here is the true "liberal" from the post -Soviet authoritarianism!

No growth - no money

However, the inability of the current government to go against the ruling layer is only part of the problem. Another, more important part of it, is its inability to ensure the replenishment of the budget in the most obvious way: ensuring economic growth. After all, economic growth, for example, in China, gave such resources to the state that Beijing may well afford not to reduce, but to expand social programs. In the same way, at the stage of rapid growth, the social programs of the country of post -war Europe expanded.

The reason here is the same: providing growth requires not only budget infusions through the implementation of national projects, but first of all, improving the investment climate. This requires political measures: an independent court (at least for economic matters), a real fight against monopolism, the protection of small businesses from wings of the security forces, a consistent struggle against corruption at all levels. The country's leadership cannot do all this, since this will require the dismantling of the built -up power system, where only those who mines and sell resources are valued and sell budget funds, as well as those who protect them. So you have to take the defenseless and increase business tax, causing dissatisfaction and inhibiting growth.

A vicious circle is created: measures that inhibit growth are taken to cover budget expenditures. This leads to a new reduction in the budget, and you need to take money from somewhere again.

So it will be until the disappointed defenseless people begin to actively express dissatisfaction, thereby exerting a greater pressure on the management than lobbyists and “liberal” theorists. And it seems that this process has already begun in a number of regions.

Why the economy?

But there is a more fundamental question. The question of why, in fact, there is economic development. This issue is not economic, it is related to values. In the modern world, it is believed that economic development should benefit the majority, create a new “quality of life”. However, in practice, a person is forced to work more so that the economy is working out. Or to make it better to live to someone else. Or not now, but in the future. The purpose of economic development-improving the quality of life of people now-is somehow forgotten. The correct operation of the economy turns into an end in itself, and unproductive layers (pensioners, people with disabilities, children) - into an annoying obstacle. Recently, A. Siluanov complained that "pension payments have ceased to be a payment related to the loss of a person of ability to work, and they actually began to play the role of social payment to achieve a certain age." Obviously, in his opinion, pensions should be paid only in the loss of disability, and not by age. I have not become a disabled person, you can still work - go and work hard for the good of Moloch, even though you are 90 years old. Why not Turkmenbashi?

In the USSR, the authorities demanded to work for wear for future generations, for the sake of communism. Today, economists say that it is necessary to work more, increase labor productivity in order for the economy to work as a clock, and then in the future it will be good and rich in the future. Often behind this are the obvious economic interests of the powers that be. And not only in Russia. Ideologists of raising the retirement age refer to their favorite West. But in many EU countries, for example, funds received from raising the retirement age, in fact, went to support the cheap labor of migrants and military adventures abroad. Today, a German, a Frenchman or Italian should wait for a pension for several years so that the government will study former Africans and Arabs and pay them a manual or that NATO aircraft bombed Libya. This policy eventually led to a serious crisis and a change of governments in a number of countries.

A good example here is Italy, a country of permanent budget deficit (in 2017-2.3% of GDP). In 2011, she took part in Libya's bombing, which led to the destabilization of this country and a huge influx of refugees, the maintenance of which last year only the government spent 4.2 billion euros.

By a strange coincidence, in the same 2011, a reform was also carried out in Italy, which increased the retirement age.

True, only 7 months and ... after 8 years (where they are up to our reformers!). But she also caused the strongest public discontent. As a result: in 2018, parties came to power in the country, which promised to simultaneously radically reduce migration and cancel pension reform.

Why should Russia copy this experience? Isn't it better to immediately deal with the real interests of your own citizens?

True freedom does not begin in society, which orientates a person to constantly earn a living, even if this life is in abundance or even in wealth. The Buninsky gentleman from San Francisco was not free, or rather, he did not manage to take advantage of his freedom. And many Russians as a result of the “liberal reform” will not have time to use it without even knowing the level of prosperity.

“The kingdom of freedom begins in reality only where the work stops, dictated by the need and external expediency, therefore, by the nature of things, it lies on the other side of the sphere of material production ... On the other side of it begins the development of human forces, which is an end in excellence, the true kingdom of freedom, which, however, can blossom only in this kingdom of necessity, as in its basis. The reduction in the working day is the main condition, ”wrote Karl Marx in“ Capital ”. Show the true power of power, limit at least slightly greedy instincts of your elite, return to people at least a little freedom, at least relax, study grandchildren, read, go to theaters, museums and temples in old age! Otherwise, they can try to take it themselves and even in a much larger volume.

Alexander Lukin , Head of the Department of International Relations of the NIU Higher School of Economics, Doctor of House, Professor - especially for "New"