Dt as investment on st? Maybe once upon a time, you might say, before the industrial revolution, when there were no state pensions, children could be considered for insurance for material deprivation born in the century. But somewhere today, when social security from the cradle to the grave connected the modern social state with its pension!
But be careful, don’t be mistaken! The first (non)functioning of our modern pension system shows the connection with children more than contractually.
The pension system in our country (before and after 1989) works on the so-called pilot principle.
As part of the post-austerity reforms of the late 1990s, the so-called insurance was enacted, which is the same as a tax deducted from the general budget, from which pensions are paid. In this way, the salary is insured according to the salary, not according to the risk even in the future income, the insurance principle is therefore suppressed and it is more likely just a tax.
So how does the income system work?
First, how it doesn’t work: The pension system ended this year after the first quarter with a deficit of 10.6 billion crowns. This does not mean that the state does not have an income to pay, but that the selected insurance company will not cover it and other sources of financing must be used. The deficit is about one billion yuan a year ago and roughly 6.5 billion yuan two years ago, i.e. in the Covid years. Income from insurance is growing every year, but the data is growing faster, due to the shrinking of the population, new pensions, legal valorization and non-systemic contributions.
And how could it work? In order for the pilot system to work, each family must pay pensions to their parents (if they are of pensionable age and collect the pension) and raise two children as a substitute for themselves, in order to secure pensions for themselves in the future. Because not every time I have children, and not every time I live in families, instead of those who don’t have children, other families should raise at least one or those children. These children will consequently finance the pensions for these childless foreigners as well. And since we all have a solid year for a pension, we should be so solidly responsible not only for the paid pension for the current pensioners, but also for the costs of raising those children who will, when they grow up, finance the pensions for us (and we will grow old). Here, a simple definition of family policy in a nutshell!
it happens today that I can get my pension anywhere and not rely on luck. It is this good advice that addresses the problem of inequality. Families with children and those without children are not the same! Families that invest in their own children (and thus in the new generation, will secure them with the future incomes of their cohabitants) have very limited, if any, means for giving disputes to st. Does anyone from the responsible politicians realize that it is families with children who come under the most pressure in this way? Always the strategy to raise children and then to be a hundred are inextricably linked in our lives.
The most recent is the whole system of recovery in raising the retirement age, and whether we like it or not in the shortening of the time when you enjoy your pension. It is the result of a short-sighted strategy, the problems are apparent, but the new part is. How does it make sense to extend the retirement age if the economy is not able to create enough jobs for seniors on the one hand and for young graduates on the other? As a result, the elderly take the place of young people at work, but they are missing where they are most needed: at the in-laws! The state was fooling around about the compatibility of work and family, but instead of motivating and supporting a functioning multigenerational family from all sides, it kept the ancestors working until they were 70 and instead offered them to young mothers in daycare. Where did the comrades make a mistake?