Pokojninska reforma: Za dolgoročno vzdržnost sistema

V 21. epizodi vladnega GOVSI podkasta je voditeljica Petra Bezjak Cirman gostila državnega sekretarja na Ministrstvu za delo, družino, socialne zadeve in enake možnosti Igorja Feketijo, glavnega pogajalca pri pripravi pokojninske reforme. Reforma, ki se uvaja postopno od leta 2026 naprej, odgovarja na ključne demografske izzive in krepi dolgoročno vzdržnost pokojninskega sistema.

Glavni poudarki reforme so višji odmerni odstotek (70 odstotkov namesto 63,5 odstotka), postopno zviševanje upokojitvene starosti (s 60 oziroma 65 na 62 oziroma 67 let do leta 2035), postopno daljšanje referenčnega obdobja z odštetjem petih najmanj ugodnih let, kar bo večini prineslo višje pokojnine. Reforma prinaša tudi uvedbo zimskega dodatka za vse upokojence, ki bo do leta 2030 znašal 250 evrov.

Posebna pozornost je namenjena tudi ranljivim skupinam – invalidskim upokojencem, vdovam ter tistim, ki se upokojujejo po težkih poklicih. Reforma uvaja višjo najnižjo invalidsko pokojnino, izboljšan način odmere ter poenostavitve pri poklicni rehabilitaciji.

Državni sekretar Feketija je izpostavil pomen socialnega dialoga in široke vključenosti deležnikov: »Pomembno je, da se pogovarjamo – z mladimi, starejšimi, delodajalci, sindikati. Tako zagotovimo, da bodo spremembe pravične in sprejete z zaupanjem.«

Vabljeni k poslušanju podkasta in ogledu na YouTube kanalu vlade.

[ENGLISH VERSION]

Securing the Future: Pension Reform for a Sustainable Tomorrow

Key elements of the reform include an increase in the accrual rate (from 63.5 percent to 70 percent) and a gradual rise in the retirement age (from 60 and 65 to 62 and 67 by 2035). Pensions will be calculated based on 40 years of earnings, excluding the five least favorable years. All these changes are expected to increase pension amounts for most retirees. Reform also introduces a winter supplement for all retirees, rising to €250 annually by 2030.

Special attention is being given to vulnerable groups — including disabled pensioners, widows, and those retiring from physically demanding jobs. The reform raises the minimum disability pension, improves benefit calculation methods, and simplifies vocational rehabilitation procedures.

Feketija emphasized the importance of social dialogue and broad stakeholder involvement: »It’s crucial to talk — with young people, the elderly, employers, and unions. That’s how we ensure the reform is fair and trusted.«

Tune in to the podcast on your favorite platform and have a listen or watch the discussion on the official YouTube channel of the Slovenian government.

Transcript

Vladni podkast GOVSI

Voditeljica Petra Bezjak Cirman: Spoštovane gledalke in gledalci, poslušalke in poslušalci. Dobrodošli v 21. epizodi podkasta GOVSI, ki ga za vas pripravljamo na Uradu Vlade RS za komuniciranje. Z vami sem Petra Bezjak Cirman, moj današnji gost pa je državni sekretar na ministrstvu za delo, družino, socialne zadeve in enake možnosti Igor Feketija. Pozdravljen.

Gost Igor Feketija: Pozdravljena. 

Voditeljica: Ob ministru Luki Mescu si bil zadnjega pol leta glavni nosilec in pogajalec vsebin pokojninske reforme, o kateri ste s socialnimi partnerji v začetku meseca aprila dosegli dogovor. Ta predvideva, kako se bomo po novem upokojevali, in bo tudi rdeča nit današnjega podkasta. Igor, ker se poznava že nekaj časa, predlagam, da se tikava.

Gost: Velja. 

Voditeljica: Kako bi na kratko opisal glavne cilje pokojninske reforme in zakaj je bila ta nujna?

Gost: Glavni cilj je pripraviti naš sistem pokojninskega invalidskega zavarovanja na demografski prehod. Do dolgoročnih napovedi lahko upravičeno zadržani, ampak demografske so pa tiste, ki najbrž držijo: če imamo določeno število ljudi, ki so danes stari tri leta, potem ne moremo imeti bistveno več ljudi, ki bodo čez 20 let stari 23 let. To drži. 

In te projekcije kažejo, da se bomo v povprečju starali. Da bo delež tistih, ki so starejši od 65 let, v celotni populaciji s približno 20 odstoktov zrasel na več kot 30 odstoktov okrog leta 2055 in to bo pomenilo tudi določene spremembe za naš sistem pokojninskega zavarovanja. Torej, pripraviti ta sistem na demografski prehod je bil glavni vidik, ki smo ga imeli v mislih, zraven pa seveda, da bi poskušali poskrbeti v čim večji meri, da bodo tudi pokojnine dostojne. Da bodo dovolj visoke, da bi omogočale normalno življenje. Kolikor je v teh danih okvirih to možno v tem procesu pa tudi mogoče poskušati ta sistem nekoliko poenostaviti, v vsakem primeru pa povečati zaupanje vanj.

Verjamem, da zaupanje že danes obstaja. Mogoče smo zaznali, da med mlajšo generacijo nekoliko manj, ampak verjetno tudi zaradi omejene poučenosti o tem. Tako da bi mogoče lahko bil tretji cilj torej, narediti ga nekoliko bolj preglednega in povečati zaupanje vanj.

Voditeljica: Tudi jaz sicer nisem mlajša generacija, se pa prištevam med tiste nepoučene, tako da bo tudi zame tole ura učenja o pokojninah. Omenil si dolgoživo družbo, staranje prebivalstva in pa seveda dolgoročna stabilnost pokojninskega sistema. Kako torej reforma odgovarja na vse te izzive časa?

Gost: Pri vprašanju demografije je v bistvu dilema precej preprosta. Trenutno imamo 1,55 aktivnega ki delajo in plačujejo prispevke za ena upokojenca. Vseeno mogoče ni odveč poudariti, da imamo pretočni sistem pokojninskega zavarovanja, kar pomeni, da tisti, ki plačujejo prispevke, nikjer ne varčujejo za svojo starost. Ti prispevki se sproti namenjajo za pokojnine tistih, ki so zdaj upokojeni.

Torej, zelo pomembno: razmerje med številom tistih, ki delajo, torej, so aktivni zavarovanci in plačujejo prispevke na eni strani, in številom upokojenih na drugi strani. To razmerje je danes, kot sem rekel, približno 1,55 delavcev na enega upokojenca. Če se postopoma staramo, bo to razmerje vedno slabše, kar pomeni vedno večje breme na vsakega zaposlenega.

In edini način, da to razmerje spremenimo, je, da se upokojujemo nekoliko starejši. To ni nič novega. Pred dobrimi desetimi leti so ženske v pokoj hodile stare v povprečju 58, let in pol, danes so stare v povprečju 61 let pa osem mesecev, ko se upokojijo. In moški pred desetimi, dvanajstimi leti 61 let in danes 62 let pa devet mesecev. Torej se postopoma vedno kasneje upokojujemo. 

Tudi živimo dlje. Že danes ženske v povprečju  prejemajo pokojnino 25 let.

Torej, ni res, da gremo v pokoj samo še umret. Četrt stoletja je povprečna ženska trenutno v pokoju in moški približno 18 let, tako da to je en način, kako odgovoriti na ta na vidik demografskega prehoda.

Voditeljica: Ali nam gre na roke, da imamo milijon aktivnih zaposlenih, pa hkrati okrog 640 tisoč upokojencev.

Gost: Ja, približno tako je zdaj to razmerje zato 1,55 aktivnih na enega upokojenca. Pred dvanajstimi leti je bilo to razmerje že slabše, 1,38 približno in izboljšalo se je ravno na račun tega, da smo povečali dejansko upokojitveno starost s tistih 58,5 za ženske, pa z 61 za moške na zdajšnjih 61,8 in 62,9. Je pa res, da smo po dejanski upokojitveni starosti še vedno čisto na repu držav OECD, skupaj z Luksemburgom, Kolumbijo in mogoče še kakšno državo. Gremo najbolj zgodaj penzijo. Kar je super, čudovito je iti prej v penzijo, prej uživat starost, dokler si to lahko privoščimo.

Voditeljica: Imam eno od teh vprašanj: Kje smo mi na teh lestvicah? Kot kaže bolj na repu? Kako je z ostalimi evropskimi državami?

Gost: Čisto odvisno, ampak recimo nekatere, po katerih se konec koncev tudi zgledujemo -  danski in nizozemski sistem se pogosto postavljata za vzor, za zgled … Tam gre dejansko upokojitveno starost že proti 70 let in če bodo nadaljevali s tem trendom … Tudi imajo drugačen na nastavljeno, kako se sploh definira starost, ki je zahtevana za upokojitev, bo ta tendirala še čez. Torej, še kasneje kot pri sedemdesetih. Po njih se – kar se tega tiče – nismo želeli zgledovati. Ja, se je mogoče malo premaknilo tudi tu, kjer smo zdaj, s tega repa. Definitivno pa ne želimo siliti ljudi delat dlje, kolikor je treba.

Še posebej tistih, ki mogoče tega niso več zmožni, ker so zgodaj začeli, delali težke poklice, so zgarani in seveda nima nobenega smisla in kruto bi bilo jih siliti, da delajo dlje, kot je treba.

Voditeljica: Povedala sem že, da si bil med glavnimi pogajalci za te pokojninske spremembe. Poglejva zdaj, kaj so ob podpisu usklajenega dogovora na Ekonomsko-socialnem svetu povedali predstavniki vseh strani. Slišala bova predsednika vlade dr. Roberta Goloba, pristojnega ministra Luko Mesca, Lidijo Jerkič, predstavnico sindikatov, in pa predstavnika delodajalcev Marjana Trobiša. Poglejva zdaj.

Predsednik vlade: Danes smo vsi skupaj dokazali, ponovno dokazali, da je spoštljiv dialog med različnimi akterji tisti, ki pripelje do najboljših rešitev, predvsem pa do najbolj uravnoteženih. V tej vladi od prvega dne prisegamo na to, da je socialni dialog ključen, zato smo ga tudi ponovno obudili, in da ga moramo voditi v konstruktivnem in pa spoštljivem tonu. In jaz sem prepričan, da ravno današnji podpis dokazuje to v najboljši možni luči.

Minister Luka Mesec: Če so si reformo predstavljali tako, da mora proti njej protestirat 50.000 ljudi, kot je bilo to leta 1999, ali pa da mora zaradi nje pasti vlada, kot je leta 2012, ali pa da mora goreti mestu, kot je Pariz pred 2 letoma, ko so v Franciji sprejeli reformo - ne, to ni taka reforma.

Predstavnica sindikatov Lidija Jerkič: Sindikati smo na koncu, moram reči, da posebej v zvezi svobodnih sindikatov, s stisnjenimi zobmi pristali na to, da se ne povečujejo prispevne stopnje za delodajalce. Vemo, da delavci plačujejo še enkrat več v pokojninsko blagajno kot delodajalci. To je zdaj stvar kompromisa.

Predstavnik delodajalcev Marjan Trobiš: Če je na začetku bila misija nemogoče - ob prvih izhodiščih smo lahko v mesecih pogajanja ugotovili, da je možno najti konsenz. Konsenz, da ne obremenjujemo, ampak temu primerno na drugačen način razbremenimo.

Voditeljica: Si si oddahnil, ko ste dosegli dogovor? Kakšna so bila ta pogajanja?

Gost: Pogajanja so bila precej intenzivna. Ne rečem, na trenutke tudi naporna, ampak saj kaj drugega od pokojninske reforme  človek ne bi niti pričakoval. Oddahnil si še nisem, to je prvi korak, podpis tega dogovora. Naslednji korak je doseči soglasje na Ekonomsko-socialnem svetu, pa potem sprejem na vladi, pa potem še postopek v Državnem zboru. In upam, da se bo tam ta pot tudi zaključila.

In tudi potem si seveda ne bom oddahnil, ker bom spremljal, kaj se bo dogajalo z našim pokojninskim sistemom. Naslednjih pet, 10, 25 let bom napeto spremljal, če smo se odločali in računali pravilno.

Voditeljica: Ste se pa tudi, ne samo na Ekonomsko-socialnem svetu pogajali, predstavljali ste spremembe že ostalim javnostim – mladim, starejšim… Kakšen je bil sploh ta postopek sprejemanja?

Gost: Ja, v resnici še preden smo začeli s pogajanji, smo že v fazi priprave izhodišč se poskušali pogovoriti, s čim širšim krogom javnosti, ki so zainteresirane. S predstavniki mladih smo se večkrat pogovarjali o tem, bodisi samo z njimi bodisi v sklopu medgeneracijske koalicije, ki jo imajo mladi, pa z zvezo društev upokojencev Slovenije. Pogovarjali smo se z upokojenskimi društvi, s predstavniki invalidskih organizacij.

Pogajali smo se seveda tudi z Evropsko komisijo.  Nenazadnje je pokojninska reforma zapisana v Načrt za okrevanje in odpornost, torej, tam je zapisana kot zaveza, ki jo moramo izpolniti, da bi bili upravičeni do črpanja sredstev iz tega naslova Skratka, vse te informacije smo zbirali že pri pripravi samih izhodišč in med samimi pogajanji smo potem se dogovorili, da se pogajamo samo znotraj pogajalske skupine ESS, v javni razpravi pa potem nadaljujemo to čim širšo debato.

Voditeljica: Marsikdo je mislil, da vlada v zadnjem letu vladanja ne more sprejeti takšne reforme. Kaj meniš ti?

Gost: No, očitno gre s trdim in vztrajnim delom. Seveda bi si želel, da bi se vključili že prej, ampak glede na vse korake, ki jih je bilo treba opraviti … Že preden smo sploh izhodišča dokončno oblikovali, smo se kakšno leto pogajali tudi s predstavniki Evropske komisije.

A prav v okviru Načrta za okrevanje in odpornost in ta pogajanja so bila bistvena tudi z vidika tega, kar je minister Mesec v svoji izjavi povedal. Da ni bilo treba reforme nastaviti na ta način, da bi bila kruta, tako kot sta mogoče bili prejšnji dve.

Voditeljica: Kako pa gledaš na socialni dialog? V marsikateri vladi se je prekinil, pa se potem znova vzpostavil. Je bilo to ključno, da danes nimamo Pariza in na ulici ljudi?

Gost: Zagotovo. Saj že naše izkušnje kažejo, da je bilo v prejšnjih pokojninskih reformah tudi pri nas desetine, tisoče ljudi na Trgu republike pa še kje.  Tako da s tega vidika je bilo pomembno seveda doseči soglasje z obema stranema, zlasti kar se tega tiče, s sindikalno. Soglasje delodajalcev pa je bilo pomembno po mojem predvsem z vidika nadaljnjega procesa. Trdno sem prepričan, da brez soglasja delodajalcev ta reforma zagotovo ne bi bila sprejeta in uveljavljena. V resnici je vprašanje, če bi prišla sploh čez Državni zbor, kaj šele vse tisto, kar bomo morali še v nadaljevanju preživet.

Voditeljica: Torej, čestitke! Greva zdaj konkretno k reformi. Jaz sem že priznala, da se še ne spogledujem z upokojitvijo, zato mi marsikaj ni razumljivo, in prosim, da na zdaj malo bolj pojasniš te termine in spremembe. Za začetek, kaj pomeni, da je 40 let dela oziroma 40 let pokojninske dobe dovolj in kako se to povezuje s starostjo, do katere bomo morali delati?

Gost: Temeljni pogoj za upokojitev pri nas je starost 67 let. Dodali smo drugi pogoj za tiste, ki imajo 40 let pokojninske dobe, da se lahko upokojujejo prej. Trenutno pri 60 letih. Torej, starostni pogoj zdaj je še 65 let, če pa imaš 40 let pokojninske dobe, pa se lahko upokojiš pri 60.

To v resnici ne pomeni, da je 40 let dela čisto za vse dovolj. Tisti, ki so začeli zelo zgodaj, so v najslabšem primeru do upokojitve morali delati 42 let. Recimo, danes, nekdo, ki je začel delati z 18. leti starosti, mora delat do spodnjega starostnega pogoja, torej do 60 let. Ta pogoj 40 let je tisti, ki omogoča upokojitev pri 60, če imaš oddelanih 40 let.

Voditeljica: Zakaj ste se odločili, da je 40 let pokojninske dobe dovolj v primerjavi, recimo, s kakšno drugo državo?

Gost: Prej sem povedal, da je z vidika tega, da sistem preživi, da vzdrži demografski prehod, je cilj nekoliko povišati dejansko upokojitveno starost. Torej, če imamo zdaj zgornjo mejo 65 pa spodnjo 60, v resnici se pa upokojujejo ženske pri 61 let pa osem mesecev, pa moški pri 62 pa devet, je cilj premakniti to dejansko starost ob upokojitvi. In za dosego tega cilja obstajajo različni načini. Eden od njih bi seveda bil tudi zvišati zahtevano samo pokojninsko dobo, ampak smo ugotovili, da bi s tem verjetno največji meri vplivali ravno na tiste, ki so zgodaj začeli delati, in bi morali delati še dlje. In tega nismo želeli storiti. Zato smo šli po drugi poti s premikanjem starostnih meja in še posebej spodbudami za ostajanje v aktivnosti tudi po tem, ko nekdo že izpolni upokojitvene pogoje. 

Voditeljica: Te obstajajo že zdaj, a ne? 

Gost: Obstajajo že sedaj, obstajala bodo še naprej. Bodo pa za tiste, ki izpolnijo 40 let pokojninske dobe, nimajo pa še starostnega pogoja, močnejše že zdaj takoj z uveljavitvijo reforme. Torej, samo izbrali smo drugo orodje za cilj, vmesni cilj, to je zviševanje dejanske upokojitvene starosti. Obstajajo države,  in tudi v Sloveniji smo imeli močne pozive po tem, da upokojitveno starost in pokojninsko dobo vežemo na podaljševanje življenjskega pričakovanja: kolikor dlje živimo, toliko bolj bi se samodejno, po neki formuli zviševala starostna meja za upokojitev in pokojninska doba.

Tisti, ki predlagajo te stvari, jim je zadeva simpatično, ker se na ta način pokojninski sistem samodejno uravnava. Ni treba iti čez naporne politične procese in pogajanja vsakič, ko bi morali te me je majčkeno spremeniti. Prezrejo pa to,  da tak princip vnaša precej negotovosti v celoten sistem. Ker človek pet let pred upokojitvijo dejansko še ne bi vedel, kdaj bo čisto zares lahko šel v pokoj, ker lahko formula čez dve leti pokaže, da se mu je starostna meja ali pa pokojninska doba povečala in odmaknila.

In drugo, tiste države, ki so šle na ta sistem, se jim upokojitvena starost že pomika takoj proti 70-letom. Pri nas bi to bilo absolutno nesmiselno, glede na to, kakšno je naše življenjsko pričakovanje v dobrem zdravstvenem stanju, dobri kondiciji. Dejansko bi silili ljudi ostajati aktivni dlje, ampak bi bili večji del časa na bolniški. Torej, bolniško odsotni.

Iz teh razlogov se nismo odločili za to pot, ampak preprosto za dvig administrativni dvig starostnih meja in nekatere druge ukrepe na strani spodbud, da bi dosegli ta vmesni cilj zvišanja dejanske upokojitvene starosti.

Voditeljica: Poznavalci sistema pravijo, da je dobra postopnost uvajanja teh sprememb. Lahko malo razložiš, kako si bodo sledile. Se pravi, če me na ulici vprašajo, ali se naj letos upokojim ali še počakam dve leti ali tri, kaj bi odgovorila?

Gost: Absolutno se strinjam, da mora biti uvajanje sprememb postopno in na srečo si to lahko privoščimo. Kar zadeva bistvene parametre pokojninskega sistema, torej, upokojitvena starost, odmerni odstotek, referenčno obdobje, se nič ne spremeni še dve leti po začetku veljavnosti zakona. Torej, šele leta 2028 se začnejo spreminjati parametri in do končnih ciljnih let se spreminjajo postopoma, skozi osemletno prehodno obdobje.

To pomeni leta 2027 bosta še vedno starostni meji 60 in 65 let.

V letu 2028 se začneta dvigovat za tri mesece na leto, da bi leta 2035 dosegli spodnjo starost 62 in zgornjo 67. To dejansko nujno z vidika primerljivosti zavarovancev posameznih letih. Ne moremo si privoščiti tako velikih skokov in je tudi primerno in edino prav z vidika položaja posameznih ljudi, ki se bodo šele upokojili.

Torej, dveletno obdobje, ko se še nič ne spremeni, in potem osemletno prehodno obdobje, da spremembe sploh pridejo v veljavo.

Voditeljica: Omenil si že odmerni odstotek.  Zdaj imam eno vprašanje, povezano s tem, in sicer: na spletni strani gov.si/pokojninska, kamor vabimo vse, da pogledajo o najnovejših informacijah na področju sprememb pokojninske reforme piše: 'Za izboljšanje blaginje prihodnjih upokojencev. Z reformo zvišujemo odmerni odstotek, in sicer s 63,5 odstotka na 70 odstoktov'. Kaj to pomeni za nas laike, ki nismo poznavalci?

Gost: Pokojnina se izračuna tako, da se, ko nekdo izpolni pogoje za upokojitev, najprej izračuna povprečje plač, od katerih so bili plačani prispevki, in potem se to povprečje plač pomnoži s tako imenovanim odmernim odstotkom. Pri izračunu tega povprečja plač je pomembno (verjamem, da bova s tem nadaljevala) obdobje, v katerem se to povprečje računa. Trenutno se upošteva 24 najbolj ugodnih zaporednih let.

Naš predlog je, da se tudi to odmerno obdobje, torej, referenčno obdobje razširi na polnih 40 let z odštetjem pet najmanj ugodnih let in še nekaterimi dodatnimi izjemami.

To lahko pri nekaterih zavarovancih pomeni nižjo osnovo, nižje povprečje. Da bi vsaj kompenzirali ali še malo več kot kompenziral, to znižanje, zvišujemo tudi odmerni odstotek. Torej, če se pokojnina izračuna kot zmnožek povprečja in odmernega odstotka, višji odmerni odstotek pri ostalem nespremenjenem pomeni višjo pokojnino. Ker pa ostalo ni nespremenjeno …

Naši izračuni kažejo tako: pri veliki večini primerov bodo dejansko pokojnine na ta način izračunane višje, kot so po sedanjem sistemu. Tudi pri pogajanjih je bilo izhodišče, da ne moremo pričakovati, da bodo ljudje delali dlje in dobivali slabše pokojnine. To je bilo pač nesprejemljivo in to za obe strani v pogajanjih, zato takšen pristop.

Voditeljica: 40 let minus 5 najslabših let. Vemo, da na začetku kariere imamo slabšo plačo. Ali bomo na slabšem, recimo, tisti, kjer se bo upoštevala 40 let plač in minus pet.

Gost: To je najbolj odvisno od tega, kako je razporejena plača znotraj kariere nekoga znotraj teh 40 let. Pri tistih, ki imajo približno stabilno plačo čez celotno obdobje se to sploh ne bo poznalo, referenčno obdobje, in bodo samo čutili zvišanje odmernega odstotka za približno 10 procentov. Pri tistih, ki jim je pokojnina odmerjena od najnižje osnove, kar pomeni, da je to izračunano povprečje nižje od približno tri četrtine povprečne plače v državi: tudi pri teh referenčno obdobje ne bo imel absolutno nobenega vpliva. Teoretično pri nekomu, ki bi mu plača nihala gor in dol po neki sinusoidi ravno tako referenčno obdobje nima vpliva. Najbolj vpliva tam, kjer imajo ljudje na sredini kariere eno obdobje visokih dohodkov, od katerih so plačani prispevki, na obeh koncih pa obdobje zelo nizkih prispevkov.

Ampak ravno tu pa nastajajo anomalije, ki se pa danes zdijo marsikomu nepravične. Nekdo, ki ima 25 let visoke plače, na obeh koncih pa razmeroma nizko plačo in tudi nizko plačane prispevke, je skozi celotno kariero plačal manj prispevkov, pa bo imel višjo pokojnino od nekoga, ki je imel bolj enakomerno razdeljeno plačo in je skoz kariero plačal več prispevkov. Ampak bo njegova pokojnina nižja zato, ker se mu vzame samo tistih najboljših 24 let. Pri temu, ki ima približno enakomerno plačo, je približno vseeno.

Naredili smo simulacije za več tipov karier od črke A do L smo prišli, torej, 12 različnih variant, in ugotovili, da bodo res samo tisti, ki imajo dejansko samo teh 25 let brez dobrih prispevkov, potem pa na obeh koncih pa nižje nekoliko na slabšem. Pri veliki večini ostalih bo začela pokojnina odmerjena dejansko višje.

Voditeljica: Kaj bo leta 2035?

Gost: Takrat bodo že v veljavi vse spremembe teh temeljnih parametrov, kar pomeni, da bo spodnja upokojitvena meja starost 62 in zgornje 67. Odmerni odstotek bo znašel 70 odstoktov, referenčno obdobje bo takrat 40 let  minus 5 najslabših. V vmesnem obdobju se bo pa referenčno obdobje tudi postopoma širilo z zdajšnjih 24 na 40 minus pet let.

Voditeljica: Če povzameva: za naslednjih 10 let tisti, ki se želijo upokojiti, če gledava to ciljno skupino, ne bodo na slabšem?

Gost: Ne, saj pravim, razen pri tistih, ki imajo zelo specifično razporeditev višine plač skozi svojo kariero, bo  prva pokojnina odmerjena višje kot danes.

Voditeljica: Greva zdaj na konkretne primere,. Kaj prinaša reforma za žensko, ki je začela delati pri 17. letih in je skrbela za tri otroke. Kdaj se bo lahko upokojila in kakšna bo njena pokojnina oziroma osnova za izračun pokojnine?

Gost: Zdaj ženska, ki je začela pri 17. Če je ves čas v zavarovanju, 40 let, in skrbi za 3 otroke, lahko na račun skrbi za 3 otroke že danes zniža starostno mejo s 60 let navzdol za 26 mesecev. Ker je začela pri 17., lahko zniža starost še za dodatno leto, ker je začela delati pred 18. Po novem se bo zniževala starostna meja za delo pred 20 (leta 2035). Kar pomeni, da gre ta ženska danes v pokoj pri 57 letih, po 40 letih dela in s 40 leti pokojninske dobe je njen odmerni odstotek danes 63,5. Torej, danes v pokoj pri 57. letih, 40 let pokojninske dobe, odmera 63 pa pol. Po uveljavitvi vseh sprememb te reforme, torej, leta 2035 bi ta ista ženska zaradi začetka pri 17. in skrbi za otroke ravno tako lahko znižala starostno mejo do 57. leta, ravno tako bi šla v pokoj pri 57 letu starosti s 40 leti pokojninske dobe, a s tem, da bo pa njen odmerni odstotek takrat znašel 70.  Torej, ista starost, ista doba, pa približno 10 procentov višja pokojnina.

Voditeljica: In moški, ki je začel delati pri 22 letih, ni skrbel za otroke, je skrbela recimo mati, in je služil 12 mesecev obveznega vojaškega roka.

Gost: Danes gre ta moški v pokoj pri 62 letih, ko dopolni 40 let dobe.

Za vojaščino si danes ne more omisliti višjega odmernega odstotka. Lahko bi zniževal starost, ampak v tem primeru nima razloga za to. Po novem bo lahko ta Torej, se upokoji z odmernim odstotkom 63,5, po novem bo imel odmerni odstotek 70 za tistih 40 let dela in še služenje v obvezno služenje vojaškega roka bo lahko uveljavljal za zviševanje odmernega odstotka. Kar pomeni, da bo njegov odmerni odstotek 71,2 namesto 63,5.

Voditeljica: Torej, tudi na boljšem. Na boljšem bodo tudi najranljivejše skupine. Kaj za njih prinaša ta reforma?

Gost: Ko smo govorili o tem, da imamo na ena strani cilj poskrbeti za javnofinančno vzdržnost in na drugi strani za blaginjo, se seveda zdi, da si ta dva cilja nasprotujeta. Med upokojenci, so še posebej ranljive skupine invalidi v upokojenskih gospodinjstvih in samske upokojenci.

Zdaj pri invalidih smo glede same odmere naredili dve spremembi. Prva je višina zagotovljene oziroma najnižje invalidske pokojnine. Zdaj je ta znašala 41 procentov najnižje osnove, po novem bo znašala 50. To v denarju pomeni, da se, Če je zdaj najnižja invalidska med 490 in 500 evrov, bo po novem okrog 600.

Torej, precejšnje približno 22 procentov zvišanje najnižje oziroma zagotovljene invalidske pokojnine. Ravno tako smo pri odmeri pokojnine za invalidske upokojence, pri katerih invalidnost je stanje izven dela, torej kot posledica poškodbe izven dela ali pa bolezni, zvišali odmerni odstotek z 41 odstoktov na 50 dejanske osnove. Torej tudi tu se poviša za 22 odstotkov. Kar zadeva invalide smo tudi nekoliko poenostavili, pa upam, da tudi pospešili postopek poklicne rehabilitacije, ki je zagotovo prvi cilj ali pa želja ob nastanku invalidnosti. , ker še vedno Invalid, ki se vključi v delovni proces, je bolj opolnomočen, to pozitivno vpliva na njegovo počutje, pa tudi seveda na materialno blaginjo.

Tudi tu so nekatere spremembe še dodatne v tej smeri.

Treba je povedati tudi, da smo že z manjšim posegom, torej, z novelo konec leta 2023 (ZPIZ 2) izboljšali odmero za invalidsko pokojnino za tiste invalide, ki delajo za krajši od polnega delovnega časa. Torej, pri njih se ne upošteva dejanska plačilo za osnovo, ampak plača, ki bi jo imeli, če bi delali za polni delovni čas.

In druga skupina, to so vdove. Zdaj se njihova vdovska pokojnina odmeri v višini 70 procentov, po novem, po spremembi, se bo višini 80 procentov. Enako velja za družinske: s 70 na 80 za enega člana oziroma na 90 za 2 ali 100 procentov za tri ali več članov. In tudi kar zadeva vdove in vdovce: smo tudi že prej z omenjenim ZPIZ 2 konec leta 2023 uvedli institut zagotovljene vdovske pokojnine, ki je ravno tako izboljšal položaj približno devet – deset tisoč osebam.

Voditeljica: Tudi obstoječi upokojenci bodo imeli dobrobit od te reforme, in sicer zimski dodatek, ki ga je prej vlada dala ali pa ne. Kaj zanje prinaša pokojninska reforma?

Gost: Ja, prva stvar je, da smo obstoječi letni dodatek prestavili in definirali njegovo višino in način usklajevanja v samem zakonu, torej postal sistemska pravica.

Dodali pa smo še zimski dodatek, ki bo predvidoma izplačan z novembrsko pokojnino že letos v višini 150 evrov, potem pa v naslednjih petih letih zraste na 250 evrov. Od tam naprej se usklajuje enako kot transferji posameznikom in gospodinjstvom.

Namen tega je seveda blažiti višje izdatke življenjskih stroškov v zimskih mesecih. Res je pa, da bo na obstoječe upokojence vplivala še ena sprememba. To je sprememba načina rednega usklajevanja pokojnin, tako imenovana indeksacija.

Zdaj letos oziroma zdaj, trenutno, se indeksacija izračuna kot 60 odstotkov rasti povprečne plače in 40 procentov rasti indeksa cen življenjskih potrebščin.

Torej, inflacije. To postopoma, do leta 2040, obračamo, da bo v formuli usklajevanja 80 procentov predstavljala inflacija, torej indeks cen življenjskih potrebščin, in 20-odstotne stopnje.

Še vedno bodo tudi upokojenci deležni neki rasti produktivnosti in posledično rasti plač, ampak večina usklajevanja bo pa vezano na indeksacijo, na inflacijo. In ko smo pogledali, kako bi pri povprečni starostni pokojnini ali pa malce višje, okrog 1000 evrov, kako bi vplivalo to na višino same pokojnine (pod predpostavko, da se rast plač in inflacije obnašata približno tako kot v povprečju zadnjih 20. let), smo ugotovili, da s tem zimskim dodatkom

vsaj do leta 2036 več kot izničimo morebitne spremembe, negativne spremembe pri pokojninah na račun usklajevanja. Takrat leta 2036 pa je treba vedeti, da se bodo ljudje že upokojevali z odmernim odstotkom 70. Namerno smo raztegnili to obdobje spreminjanja indeksacije rednega usklajevanja do leta 2040, ker je to edini parameter, ki vpliva na sedanje upokojence, in smo želeli, da začnejo učinkovati čim kasneje, takrat, ko se bodo ljudje že upokojevali po novih ugodnejših pogojih.

Voditeljica: Kakšne zneske bodo s tem zimskim dodatkom dobili upokojenci?

Gost: Letos 150 evrov, potem pa postopoma zraste v petih letih na 250 evrov, torej za 20 evrov na leto raste do leta 2030.

Voditeljica: Še eno skupino sva spustila – mladi. Še mlajši od mene, ki se verjetno še manj ukvarjajo še s pokojninskim sistem in velja neko prepričanje, da za njih pa ne bo potem na koncu izplačila iz pokojninskega sistema. Ali to drži?

Gost: Ne, seveda ne. Če smo zdaj pripravili pokojninski sistem za naslednjih vsaj 25 let ali pa tudi več. Konec koncev projekcije javnofinančne vzdržnosti so narejene do leta 2080.

In do takrat kažejo, da bodo, pod predpostavkami, ki jih danes poznamo, da bo naša pokojninska blagajna sigurno zdržala. Tako da nobenega razloga ni za to, da bi dvomili. Je pa tudi res, mislim, da med mladimi, ko smo gledali rezultate, obširne ankete ,mislim, da predlani sicer izvedene, da se ta mnenja močno spreminjajo. Ko so mladi, ko postajajo manj mladi, mnenje srednješolcev, pa tisti na faksu, pa tistih prvih pet let po faksu, so bistveno drugačna, in glede vprašanja pokojnin in glede vprašanja, na kakšen način in v kakšni obliki bi radi delali in tako naprej.

Voditeljica: Prej sem že omenil, da imamo pač sistem, kjer aktivno delovni ljudje plačujejo, da bodo potem za starost naši starši imeli konkretno pokojnino, a ne. Kaj pa recimo pomeni, da se recimo mladi, ki prihajajo, pozneje vključujejo na trg? Kaj je to za njih?

Gost: Kasnejše vključevanje na trg pomeni v vsakem trenutku manj aktivnih, ki plačujejo prispevke za trenutno upokojene. Za te konkretno pa seveda pomeni tudi, da bodo kasneje izpolnili upokojitvene pogoje. Je pa res, da se je pri nas povprečna starost ob prvi zaposlitvi dejansko znižala v zadnjih 6 letih in zdaj znaša približno 23,8 leta. Povprečna starost ob prvi zaposlitvi slovenskega državljana. Kar pomeni, doba 40 let ostaja, pokoj pa v povprečju pri 63,8. Seveda nismo vsi v povprečju. Obstajajo tudi druga vprašanja - vprašanja prekarnosti in nestanovitnih zaposlitev in tako naprej. Je pa tudi res, da se ta vprašanja naslavljajo oziroma da jih je treba reševati drugje. Pokojninski sistem je sam po sebi dovolj zapleten, kompleksen, da mu ne moremo naprtiti še tega bremena, da bi urejal stvari, ki mogoče niso urejene kje drugje. To bi bilo pa za pokojninski sistem pa že preveč.

Voditeljica: Greva sedaj malo na kritike. Ena od teh je bila za drugi pokojninski steber. Bi tem mladim, ki se vključijo na trg, svetoval, da plačujejo v drugi pokojninski steber?

Gost: Kdor si lahko to seveda privošči, je dodatno prostovoljno, dodatno pokojninsko zavarovanje dobra ideja. Zdaj smo tudi tu dodali še nekatere spremembe, za katere verjamemo, da bodo to obliko dodatnega zavarovanja naredile še privlačnejšo.

Izkaže se, da je pri nas,  prvič, mogoče tudi v nasprotju s splošnim prepričanjem, davčna obravnava zavarovanja ena najugodnejših na svetu po podatkih OECD. Samo i 2 državi imata ugodnejšo. Ker del plače, ki ga namenjamo za dodatno pokojninsko zavarovanje, je neobdavčen do približno šest procentov bruto plače.

Kapitalski dobički, ko vrednost tega raste, so neobdavčeni, in ko se rente izplačujejo, so samo polovično obdavčene z dohodnino. Imamo izvzeto, izvzeto in polovično obdavčeno. Zelo ugodna obravnava. Tu donosi slovenskih ponudnikih dodatnega pokojninskega zavarovanja niso slabi. So nekje v povprečju OECD in to celo, če se dobro spomnim, so v dobri družbi med Ameriko in Švico.

Težava je nastala edino pri višini rent, ker so te morale biti dosmrtne. Pri izračunu dosmrtne rente pa se uporabljajo zelo konservativne predpostavke, kot da bo človek živel po upokojitvi še skoraj 36 let. In iz tega razloga so bile te rente razmeroma nizke. In zavarovanci v tem drugem stebru so do trenutka upokojitve bili zelo zadovoljni, potem pa malo manj.

Zdaj smo spremenili nekoliko ta pravila, da v določenih primerih renta ni nujno dosmrtna. To pomeni, da se lahko zavarovanec odloči za neko pospešeno rento, da se mu venem obdobju izplačuje višje rente, in verjamemo, da bo tudi to že dodatno pripomogli k privlačnosti dodatnega zavarovanja, ki zagotovo izboljšuje socialno varnost. Zopet - tistih upokojencev, ki si v aktivni dobi lahko privoščijo, bodisi sami varčevati v tem drugem stebru, bodisi jim to omogočajo dobri delodajalci. In že zdaj obstajajo takšni, ki to počnejo.

Voditeljica: Kritika je šla ekonomista, Da bi morali bolj staviti na ta drugi steber in Luka Mesec, resorni minister, je odgovoril z eno anekdoto, da sta vidva menda predstavila islandski model upokojevanja. Bi mogoče povedal, kje sta požela aplavz in zakaj mi ne moremo imeti takšnega sistema.

Gost: Ja, mislim v delu, o katerem smo na začetku razmišljali, ampak to je res bila tista faza možganskih neviht, kot se temu reče. Vsem enako pokojnino iz prvega stebra. Če bi to, kar zdaj zberemo s prispevki enakomerno razdelili, bi pomenilo, da vsak upokojenec dobi skoraj 1000 evrov. Kdor pa želi več, pa seveda dodatno varčuje v tako imenovanem drugem stebru.

Kar tudi pomeni, da bi ti naši skladi zbrali kup enih sredstev, pri katerih bi se lahko potem država zadolževala z obveznicami in tako naprej. Kar pomeni, da bi lahko posredno financirali tudi nekatere razvojne projekte v državi. Skratka zgodba je šla v tej smeri. Temeljni dohodek, univerzalni, iz prvega stebra, potem pa plačilo iz drugega, kolikor kdor želi in kolikor kdo dejansko plačuje. Seveda z nekim postopnim prehodom, ker bi to pomenilo, da se skozi neko daljše časovno obdobje zdajšnji prvi steber, kjer seveda nimamo vsi enakih pokojnin, postopoma splošči in dopolni s tem drugim stebrom. 

To je bilo na ravni spogledovanja z nekaterimi idejami. Ne pomnim mesta, kjer naju ne bi skorajda kamenjali, ko sva to idejo predstavljala. Mislim, da ni bil praktično nihče nad tem navdušen, ne z leve ne z desne.

Torej smo to seveda opustili. Kar zadeva kritike, da nismo več poudarka dali drugemu stebru…  Seveda je lepo, da je Pokojninski sistem, ki je financiran, kjer vsakdo varčuje zase, je bolj odporen na demografske spremembe,  na krize, manj sicer odporen na nihanja na finančnih trgih in tveganja, to je treba povedat. 

Takšna oblika varčevanja vključuje nekaj tveganja. Ampak definitivno smo vztrajali na tem, da mora prvi javni steber biti še naprej primarni in glavni. In nikakor ne bi želeli in ne bi pristali na to, da se drugi steber krepi na račun prvega. Osnovna socialna varnost mora definitivno izhajati iz prvega, lahko pa seveda se pogovarjamo o spodbudah za neko dodatno prostovoljno varčevanje.

Voditeljica: Tukaj je še ena kritika. Ta je pa od sindikata poklicnega gasilstva. Da je predlog reforme dober le za delodajalce, trdijo in opozarjajo, da delavci na težkih delovnih mestih, denimo v železarnah, ne morejo delati, že zdaj ne, po izpolnjenih pogojih.

Gost: Zavarovanci v poklicnem zavarovanju, in to so tako  gasilci kot bivali, pa še policisti. Torej, imamo nekatere poklicne skupine vključene v to poklicno oziroma obvezno dodatno pokojninsko zavarovanje.

So ena redkih skupin, za katere se starostne meje niso spremenile. Smo jih poslušali, prisluhnil temu, da niso zmožni delati dlje, kakor delajo zdaj, in zanje starostnih meja za upokojitev nismo zviševali.  tako kot se, kar smo prej videla iz konkretnih primerov, starostna meja dejansko ne zvišuje tiste, ki so začeli delati pred 18. letom.

Tudi ti bodo šli pri isti starosti, samo z boljšo pokojnino, v pokoj od zdaj naprej. Tako da se ne bi strinjal, sploh če sva prej ugotovila, da kombinacija daljšega referenčnega obdobja in višjega odmernega odstotka vodi v veliki večini primerov do višje odmerjene pokojnine.

To je še en argument. Predvsem pa, da bo naš pokojninski sistem in skupaj z njim celotne javne finance - ker moramo, če gledamo demografski prehod upoštevati tudi višje stroške v zdravstvu dolgotrajni oskrbi - da bo preživel, da ga ne bo treba z ukrepi, kakršni je bil zloglasni ZUJF ali pa s kakšnimi ukrepi Evropske komisije, ki lahko proti državam, ki nimajo javnih financ pod kontrolo, uvede postopke zaradi čezmernega javnega dolga ali pa primanjkljaja … Vse to so dejansko plusi tudi za delavce. Torej višja pokojnina, za nekatere se starosti ne spreminjajo, in pa predvsem ta sistem, v katerega je marsikdo že dvomil, za katerega so nas pred dvanajstimi leti svarili, da se bo sesul sam vase, bo dejansko zdržal še naprej.

Jaz mislim, da je to plus tudi za delavce.

Voditeljica: Predlagam, da zdaj odgovoriš na nekaj konkretnih vprašanj naših sledilcev podkasta. Prišlo je tole vprašanje: oktobra 2030 bom dopolnil 40 let delovne dobe, junija 2031 dopolnim 60 let starosti. Do kdaj bom moral delati in kolikšen bo odstotek za izračun pokojnine?

Gost: Ja. V bistvu je smiselna primerjava med zdajšnjo situacijo, če ne bi spremenili ničesar, in novo. Po zdajšnji situaciji bo gospod torej junija 2031 star 60 let. Takrat se lahko upokoji, bo pa imel takrat 40 let in osem mesecev dobe. Splačalo bi se potem še za tiste štiri mesece potegniti, torej zdaj iti v pokoj oktobra 2031 z odmero 64,86. Torej to bi bilo po zdajšnjem. Po novih pogojih: leta 2030 bo meja, upokojitvena meja, starostna meja 60 let in devet mesecev. Te gospod takrat še ne bo dosegel, bo pa v letu 2032 dosegel zahtevano starost. Tako da bi za njega po novem bilo idealno, da se upokoji.

Upokojitvene pogoje bo imel septembra 2032, star 61 let pa tri mesece, ampak takrat bo njegova doba znašala 41 let in 11 mesecev. Torej se splača potegniti še za en mesec in se upokojiti oktobra 2032 star 61 let pa štiri mesece z 42 leti dobe, kar pomeni, da je njegov odmerni odstotek takrat 67,75 (kolikor bo za 40 let v letu 2032) plus šest odmernih točk, za 41. pa 42. leto, torej skupaj 73,75 odstotka.

V resnici pomeni, da bi, da bo po novih pogojih delal eno leto dlje, njegova pokojnina pa bo namesto 64,86 odstotkov torej odmerjena z odmerki odstotkom 73,75, kar je kar bistveno izboljšanje.

Voditeljica: Odlično. Tudi ta je zanimiv primer: Če se nekdo upokoji, na primer z 32 leti delovne dobe, ko bo star 67 let, ne bo imel 40 let tega referenčnega obdobja. Kaj se bo pri njem upoštevalo?

Gost: Upoštevalo se bo teh 32, s tem, da se bo odštelo eno ali pa dve leti. Treba je pogledat na razpredelnico: pri 40 se odšteje pet let, pri 37, 39,4 leta in tako naprej. 

Voditeljica: En sledilec se, o tem sva že veliko govorila, z zaskrbljenostjo sprašuje o demografskih trendih in rodnosti. In se sprašuje o smiselnosti plačevanja pokojninsko blagajno.

Gost: Vplačila v pokojninsko blagajno so v obliki prispevkov. Prispevek je davek, pobran z določenim namenom, v tem primeru za socialno zavarovanje. Če davka ne plačaš, greš v zapor.  

To je prva motivacija za plačevanje vsakega davka. Mislim, da obstaja nek rek, da so 3 stvari na svetu, ki jih človek mora narediti - ena od njih je davke plačat. Kar zadeva to, kaj nekdo ima od teh prispevkov … 

Kot prvo, če ne plačuješ prispevkov, svojim staršem odtegneš pokojnino. In odtegneš jo sebi, zato se nikakor ne bi strinjal, da se ne splača tega plačevati. Čeprav mogoče komu na kratek rok se zdi, da bi bilo boljše tisti prispevek, ki ni mali, seveda, 24,35 odstotka od bruto plače …

Da bi ga bilo bolje zadržati zase. Ampak glede na to, da naš pokojninski sistem temelji na medgeneracijski solidarnosti, je to po mojem napačno razmišljanje.

Voditeljica: Končajmo s to mislijo o solidarnosti. Hvala ti za te prve informacije. Reforma naj bi zaživela s prihodnjim letom, a ne?

Gost: Ja. V delu, ki se dotika zimskega dodatka, že letos. Naslednje leto se začnejo nekatere izboljšave, torej dvigovanje odmernih odstotkov pri invalidskih pokojninah in tako naprej. Torej, spremembe parametrov, ki vplivajo na odmero starostne pokojnine, pa od 2028.

Voditeljica: Hvala. In hvala tudi vsem našim sledilcem podkasta. Spremljate nas lahko na vseh platformah, kjer spremljate podkaste, in na našem vladnem youtube kanalu. Hvala in se vidimo naslednjič. Nasvidenje.

[ENGLISH VERSION]

Government podcast GOVSI

Host Petra Bezjak Cirman : Dear viewers, listeners. Welcome to the 21st episode of the GOVSI podcast, which we are preparing for you at the Government Office for Communications of the Republic of Slovenia. I am Petra Bezjak Cirman, and my guest today is Igor Feketija, State Secretary at the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. Greetings.

Guest Igor Feketija : Hello.

Host : For the past six months, alongside Minister Luka Mescu, you have been the main proponent and negotiator of the pension reform, on which you and the social partners reached an agreement in early April. This envisages how we will retire in the new era, and will also be the common thread of today's podcast. Igor, since we have known each other for some time, I suggest we chat.

Guest : It's valid.

Host: How would you briefly describe the main goals of the pension reform and why it was necessary?

Guest : The main goal is to prepare our pension and disability insurance system for the demographic transition. We can rightly be cautious about making long-term predictions, but the demographic ones are the ones that probably hold true: if we have a certain number of people who are 3 years old today, then we cannot have significantly more people who will be 23 years old in 20 years. That is true.

And these projections show that we will be getting older on average. That the share of those over 65 in the total population will grow from approximately 20 % to more than 30 % around 2055, and this will also mean certain changes for our pension insurance system. So, preparing this system for the demographic transition was the main aspect that we had in mind, and of course, trying to ensure as much as possible that pensions are also decent. That they will be high enough to enable a normal life. As far as this is possible within these given frameworks, in this process it is also possible to try to simplify this system a bit, and in any case, increase trust in it.

I believe that trust already exists today. We may have noticed that among the younger generation, it's a little less, but probably also because of limited education about it. So maybe the third goal could be to make it a little more transparent and increase trust in it.

Host: I'm not a younger generation either, but I count myself among the uneducated, so this will be a learning hour about pensions for me too. You mentioned a long-lived society, an aging population, and of course the long-term stability of the pension system. So how does the reform respond to all these challenges of the time?

Guest : When it comes to demographics, the dilemma is actually quite simple. We currently have 1.55 active people working and paying contributions for one pensioner. However, it is perhaps not superfluous to point out that we have a pay-as-you-go pension system, which means that those who pay contributions do not save anywhere for their old age. These contributions are immediately allocated to the pensions of those who are now retired.

So, very important: the ratio between the number of those who work, that is, are actively insured and pay contributions, on the one hand, and the number of retirees on the other. This ratio is today, as I said, approximately 1.55 workers per one retiree. If we gradually age, this ratio will become worse and worse, which means an ever-increasing burden on each employee.

And the only way to change this ratio is to retire a little older. This is nothing new. A good ten years ago, women retired at an average age of 58 and a half years, today they are 61 years old and 8 months old on average when they retire. And men, ten or twelve years ago, 61 years old and today 62 years old and 9 months old. So we are gradually retiring later and later.

We are also living longer. Today, women already receive their pension for an average of 25 years.

So, it's not true that we retire just to die. The average woman is currently retired for a quarter of a century and the average man is about 18 years old, so that's one way to respond to this aspect of the demographic transition.

Host: Is it a good thing for us to have one million active employees and at the same time around 640 thousand retirees?

Guest : Yes, that's roughly how the ratio is now, 1.55 active people per retiree. Twelve years ago, this ratio was worse, around 1.38, and it improved precisely because we increased the actual retirement age from 58.5 for women and from 61 for men to the current 61.8 and 62.9. But it's true that in terms of actual retirement age, we're still at the tail end of OECD countries, along with Luxembourg, Colombia and maybe some other countries. We're the earliest to retire. Which is great, it's wonderful to retire earlier, to enjoy old age earlier, while we can afford it.

Host: I have one of these questions: Where are we on these charts? It seems more towards the tail? What about other European countries?

Guest : It depends, but let's say some of the ones that we ultimately follow - the Danish and Dutch systems are often held up as a model, an example... The actual retirement age there is already approaching 70 years old and if they continue with this trend... They also have a different set of rules for how the age required for retirement is defined, it will tend to go even further. So, even later than in the seventies. We didn't want to follow their example - in that regard -. Yes, it may have moved a little where we are now, from that tail. But we definitely don't want to force people to work longer than necessary.

Especially those who may no longer be able to do so because they started early, worked in difficult jobs, are burned out, and of course there is no point and it would be cruel to force them to work longer than necessary.

Host: I have already said that you were one of the main negotiators for these pension changes. Let's now look at what representatives of all parties said when the coordinated agreement was signed at the Economic and Social Council. We will hear from the Prime Minister, Dr. Robert Golob, the responsible minister, Luka Mesco, Lidija Jerkič, a representative of the trade unions, and the representative of the employers, Marjan Trobiš . Let's now look.

Prime Minister: Today, we have all proven, proven again, that respectful dialogue between different actors is what leads to the best solutions, and above all, the most balanced ones. In this government, we have sworn from day one that social dialogue is key, which is why we have revived it, and that we must conduct it in a constructive and respectful tone. And I am convinced that today's signing demonstrates this in the best possible light.

Minister Luka Mesec: If they imagined the reform in such a way that 50,000 people would protest against it, as was the case in 1999, or that the government would fall because of it, as was the case in 2012, or that cities would burn like Paris 2 years ago, when the reform was adopted in France - no, this is not that kind of reform.

Trade union representative Lidija Jerkič: In the end, we trade unions, I must say, especially in the context of free trade unions, reluctantly agreed not to increase the contribution rates for employers. We know that workers pay even more into the pension fund than employers. This is now a matter of compromise.

Employers' representative Marjan Trobiš: If at the beginning it was mission impossible - at the first starting points, we were able to determine during the months of negotiations that it was possible to find a consensus. A consensus that we do not burden, but rather relieve the burden in a different way.

Host: Were you relieved when you reached an agreement? What were those negotiations like?

Guest : The negotiations were quite intense. I wouldn't say they were tiring at times, but I wouldn't expect anything else from the pension reform. I haven't rested yet, this is the first step, the signing of this agreement. The next step is to reach a consensus at the Economic and Social Council, then acceptance by the government, and then the procedure in the National Assembly. And I hope that this journey will end there.

And even then, of course, I won't rest easy, because I will be watching what happens to our pension system. I will be closely monitoring the next 5, 10, 25 years to see if we made the right decisions and calculations.

Host: But you also negotiated, not only at the Economic and Social Council, you presented the changes to other publics – young people, older people... What was this adoption process like?

Guest : Yes, in fact, even before we started the negotiations, in the phase of preparing the starting points, we tried to talk to the widest possible circle of interested public. We talked to representatives of young people about this several times, either with them alone or as part of the intergenerational coalition that young people have, and with the Federation of Pensioners' Associations of Slovenia. We talked to pensioners' associations, with representatives of disability organizations.

We also negotiated with the European Commission, of course. After all, the pension reform is written into the Recovery and Resilience Plan, so it is written there as a commitment that we must fulfill in order to be eligible to draw funds from this title. In short, we collected all this information when preparing the starting points, and during the negotiations themselves, we agreed to negotiate only within the ESF negotiating group, and then continue this debate as broadly as possible in the public debate.

Host: Many people thought that the government could not adopt such a reform in its last year in power. What do you think?

Guest : Well, it obviously comes with hard and persistent work. Of course, I would have liked to have gotten involved earlier, but given all the steps that had to be taken... Even before we had even finalized the starting points, we were also negotiating with representatives of the European Commission for about a year.

But precisely within the framework of the Recovery and Resilience Plan, these negotiations were also essential from the perspective of what Minister Mesec said in his statement: that the reform did not need to be set up in such a way that it would be cruel, as the previous two may have been.

Host: How do you view social dialogue? It has been interrupted in many governments, but then re-established. Was this key to the fact that we don't have Paris and people on the streets today?

Guest : Certainly. Our experience shows that in previous pension reforms in our country, there were dozens, thousands of people on the Republic Square and elsewhere. So from this perspective, it was important to reach agreement with both sides, especially with the trade unions. In my opinion, the agreement of the employers was important mainly from the perspective of the further process. I am firmly convinced that without the agreement of the employers, this reform would certainly not have been adopted and implemented. In reality, the question is whether it would even get through the National Assembly, let alone everything that we will have to go through in the future.

Host: So, congratulations! Now let's move on to the reform. I've already admitted that I'm not yet ready to consider retirement, so there's a lot that's not clear to me, and I'd like you to explain these terms and changes a little more. To begin with, what does it mean that 40 years of work or 40 years of retirement is enough, and how does this relate to the age until which we will have to work?

Guest : The basic retirement age in our country is 67 years. We have added a second condition for those who have 40 years of retirement service, so that they can retire earlier. Currently at 60 years. So, the age requirement is now 65 years, but if you have 40 years of retirement service, you can retire at 60.

This does not mean that 40 years of work is enough for everyone. Those who started very early had to work 42 years in the worst case until they retired. For example, today, someone who started working at 18 has to work until the lower age requirement, i.e. until 60. This 40-year requirement is what allows you to retire at 60 if you have worked for 40 years.

Host: Why did you decide that 40 years of retirement age is enough compared to, say, some other country?

Guest : I said earlier that from the perspective of the system surviving, of withstanding the demographic transition, the goal is to slightly raise the actual retirement age. So, if we now have an upper limit of 65 and a lower limit of 60, but in reality women retire at 61 years and 8 months, and men at 62 years and 9 months, the goal is to move this actual retirement age up. And there are various ways to achieve this goal. One of them would of course be to also increase the required retirement age itself, but we found that this would probably have the greatest impact on those who started working early and would have to work even longer. And we didn't want to do that. So we went the other way by moving the age limits and, in particular, incentives to remain active even after someone has already met the retirement conditions.

Host: These already exist, don't they?

Guest: They already exist, they will continue to exist. But for those who have completed 40 years of retirement age but do not yet have the age requirement, they will be stronger now, immediately with the implementation of the reform. So, we have just chosen another tool for the goal, an intermediate goal, which is increasing the actual retirement age. There are countries, and in Slovenia too, we have had strong calls for linking the retirement age and retirement age to the extension of life expectancy: the longer we live, the more the retirement age and retirement age would automatically increase, according to some formula.

Those who propose these things find it appealing because in this way the pension system is automatically regulated. There is no need to go through tedious political processes and negotiations every time they need to make a small change. However, they ignore the fact that such a principle introduces a lot of uncertainty into the entire system. Because five years before retirement, a person would not actually know when they will actually be able to retire, because the formula may show in two years that their age limit or retirement age has increased and moved away.

And secondly, those countries that have adopted this system are already moving their retirement age towards 70. In our country, this would be absolutely pointless, given our life expectancy in good health, in good condition. In fact, we would be forcing people to stay active longer, but they would be on sick leave for a greater part of the time. So, sick leave.

For these reasons, we did not choose this path, but simply to raise the administrative age limits and some other measures on the incentive side to achieve this intermediate goal of raising the effective retirement age.

Host: System experts say that it's good to gradually introduce these changes. Can you explain a little bit about how they will follow each other? That is, if someone asked me on the street whether I should retire this year or wait another two or three years, what would I say?

Guest : I absolutely agree that the introduction of changes must be gradual, and fortunately we can afford that. As for the essential parameters of the pension system, i.e., the retirement age, the contribution percentage, the reference period, nothing changes for another two years after the law enters into force. So, it is only in 2028 that the parameters start to change, and until the final target years, they change gradually, through an eight-year transitional period.

This means that in 2027 the age limits will still be 60 and 65.

In 2028, they will start to rise by three months per year, reaching a lower age of 62 and an upper age of 67 in 2035. This is actually necessary from the perspective of comparability of insured persons in individual years. We cannot afford such large jumps, and it is also appropriate and only right from the perspective of the situation of individual people who are about to retire.

So, a two-year period when nothing changes, and then an eight-year transition period for the changes to even come into effect.

Host: You already mentioned the contribution percentage. Now I have one question related to this, namely: on the website gov.si/pokojninska, where we invite everyone to look for the latest information on changes to the pension reform, it says: 'To improve the well-being of future retirees. With the reform, we are increasing the contribution percentage, from 63.5% to 70%'. What does this mean for us laypeople who are not experts?

Guest : The pension is calculated in such a way that, when someone meets the conditions for retirement, the average salary from which contributions were paid is first calculated, and then this average salary is multiplied by the so-called assessment percentage. When calculating this average salary, the period in which this average is calculated is important (I believe we will continue with this). Currently, the 24 most favorable consecutive years are taken into account.

Our proposal is that this accrual period, i.e. the reference period, be extended to a full 40 years, with the deduction of the 5 least favorable years and some additional exceptions.

This may mean a lower base, a lower average for some insured persons. In order to at least compensate, or even a little more than compensate, for this reduction, we also increase the assessment percentage. So, if the pension is calculated as the product of the average and the assessment percentage, a higher assessment percentage, all else being equal, means a higher pension. But since the rest is not unchanged...

Our calculations show that in the vast majority of cases, pensions will actually be calculated higher this way than they are under the current system. The starting point in the negotiations was also that we cannot expect people to work longer and receive worse pensions. This was simply unacceptable, and for both sides in the negotiations, hence this approach.

Host: 40 years minus the 5 worst years . We know that at the beginning of our careers we have a worse salary. Will we be worse off, say, when 40 years of salary and minus 5 are taken into account?

Guest: This depends mostly on how the salary is distributed within someone's career within these 40 years. For those who have a roughly stable salary over the entire period, this will not be known at all, the reference period, and they will only feel an increase in the assessment percentage of about 10 percent. For those whose pension is assessed from the lowest base, which means that this calculated average is lower than about three quarters of the average salary in the country: even for these, the reference period will have absolutely no impact. Theoretically, for someone whose salary would fluctuate up and down along a sinusoid, the reference period also has no impact. It has the greatest impact where people have one period of high income in the middle of their career, from which contributions are paid, and at both ends, a period of very low contributions.

But this is where anomalies arise, which today seem unfair to many. Someone who has 25 years of high wages, but at both ends of the salary is relatively low and also low contributions paid, has paid fewer contributions throughout his career, but will have a higher pension than someone who had a more evenly distributed salary and has paid more contributions throughout his career. But his pension will be lower because only those best 24 years are taken from him. For someone who has a roughly equal salary, it is more or less the same.

We did simulations for several types of careers from the letter A to L, we came up with 12 different variants, and found that only those who actually have these 25 years without good contributions, and then at both ends, slightly lower, will actually have a lower pension. For the vast majority of others, the starting pension will actually be higher.

Host: What will happen in 2035?

Guest: At that time, all changes to these basic parameters will be in effect, which means that the lower retirement age will be 62 and the upper age will be 67. The contribution percentage will be 70%, and the reference period will then be 40 years minus the worst 5. In the interim period, the reference period will also gradually expand from the current 24 to 40 minus 5 years.

Host: To summarize: for the next 10 years, those who want to retire, if we look at this target group, will not be worse off?

Guest : No, because I'm saying that, except for those who have a very specific distribution of salary levels throughout their careers, the first pension will be assessed higher than today.

Host: Let's move on to specific examples. What does the reform bring for a woman who started working at 17 and was taking care of 3 children? When will she be able to retire and what will her pension or the basis for calculating the pension be?

Guest : Now a woman who started at 17... If she is insured all the time, 40 years old, and takes care of 3 children, she can already lower her age limit from 60 down by 26 months today to take care of 3 children. Since she started at 17, she can lower her age by an additional year because she started working before 18. According to the new law, the age limit for working before 20 (in 2035) will be lowered. Which means that this woman retires today at 57, after 40 years of work and with 40 years of pensionable service, her pensionable service percentage is 63.5 today. So, she retires today at 57, 40 years of pensionable service, and the pensionable service at 63 is half. After all the changes to this reform are implemented, in 2035, this same woman could also lower the age limit to 57 due to starting at 17 and caring for children, and she would also retire at 57 with 40 years of pensionable service, but her assessment percentage would then be 70. So, the same age, the same service, but an approximately 10 percent higher pension.

Host: And a man who started working at 22 didn't take care of the children, let's say his mother did, and he served 12 months of compulsory military service.

Guest : Today this man is retiring at the age of 62, having completed 40 years of service.

He cannot think of a higher contribution percentage for military service today. He could lower the age, but in this case he has no reason to do so. Now he can. So, he retires with a contribution percentage of 63.5, now he will have a contribution percentage of 70 for those 40 years of work and he will be able to claim his compulsory military service to increase the contribution percentage. Which means that his contribution percentage will be 71.2 instead of 63.5.

Host: So, it will be better. The most vulnerable groups will also be better off. What does this reform bring for them?

Guest : When we talked about the fact that we have the goal of ensuring fiscal sustainability on the one hand and prosperity on the other, it naturally seems that these two goals are in conflict. Among pensioners, particularly vulnerable groups are disabled people in pensioner households and single pensioners.

Now, for the disabled, we have made two changes regarding the assessment itself. The first is the amount of the guaranteed or lowest disability pension. Now it was 41 percent of the lowest base, now it will be 50. This means in money terms that, if the lowest disability pension is now between €490 and €500, now it will be around €600.

So, a significant increase of approximately 22 percent in the lowest or guaranteed disability pension. Likewise, when assessing the pension for disabled pensioners whose disability is a condition outside of work, i.e. as a result of an injury outside of work or illness, we increased the assessment percentage from 41% to 50% of the actual basis. So here too, it increases by 22 percent. As for the disabled, we have also simplified somewhat, and I hope that we have also accelerated the process of vocational rehabilitation, which is certainly the first goal or desire when disability occurs. , because still a disabled person who is included in the work process is more empowered, this has a positive effect on his well-being, as well as, of course, on material well-being.

Here too, some changes are additional in this direction.

It should also be said that with a minor intervention, that is, with the amendment at the end of 2023 (ZPIZ 2), we have improved the assessment of disability pension for those disabled people who work less than full-time. , So, for them, the actual salary for the base is not taken into account, but the salary that they would have if they worked full-time.

And the second group, these are widows. Now their widow's pension is assessed at the rate of 70 percent, now, after the change, it will be at the rate of 80 percent. The same applies to family pensions: from 70 to 80 for one member or to 90 for 2 or 100 percent for 3 or more members. And also as far as widows and widowers are concerned: we also introduced the institute of guaranteed widow's pension at the end of 2023 with the aforementioned ZPIZ 2, which has also improved the situation of approximately nine to ten thousand people.

Host: Existing pensioners will also benefit from this reform, namely the winter allowance that the government previously provided or did not provide. What does the pension reform bring for them?

Guest : Yes, the first thing is that we moved the existing annual allowance and defined its amount and method of coordination in the law itself, so it became a systemic right.

We have also added a winter allowance, which is expected to be paid with the November pension this year in the amount of 150 euros, and then increase to 250 euros over the next five years. From there, it is coordinated in the same way as transfers to individuals and households.

The purpose of this is, of course, to mitigate the higher cost of living expenses during the winter months. However, it is true that existing pensioners will be affected by another change. This is a change in the method of regular adjustment of pensions, so-called indexation.

Right now, this year or right now, currently, indexation is calculated as 60% of the growth in the average wage and 40% of the growth in the consumer price index.

So, inflation. We are gradually reversing this, by 2040, so that in the adjustment formula, 80 percent will be inflation, i.e. the consumer price index, and 20 percent will be the rate.

Pensioners will still benefit from some productivity growth and consequently wage growth, but most of the adjustment will be tied to indexation, to inflation. And when we looked at how, with an average old-age pension or a little higher, around €1,000, how this would affect the amount of the pension itself (assuming that wage growth and inflation behave approximately as they have on average over the last 20 years), we found that with this winter supplement

At least until 2036, we more than offset any changes, negative changes in pensions due to adjustment. At that time in 2036, it is important to know that people will already be retiring with a contribution percentage of 70. We deliberately extended this period of changing the indexation of regular adjustment until 2040, because this is the only parameter that affects current pensioners, and we wanted them to take effect as late as possible, when people will already be retiring under new, more favorable conditions.

Host: What amounts will pensioners receive with this winter allowance?

Guest : €150 this year, then it gradually grows to €250 over 5 years, so it grows by €20 per year until 2030.

Host: We've dropped another group – young people. Even younger than me, who are probably even less concerned with the pension system and there is a belief that they won't get any payments from the pension system in the end. Is that true?

Guest : No, of course not. If we now prepare a pension system for at least the next 25 years or even more. After all, projections of public financial sustainability are made until 2080.

And until then, they show that, under the assumptions that we know today, our pension fund will certainly hold up. So there is no reason to doubt it. But it is also true, I think, that among young people, when we looked at the results, extensive surveys, I think conducted a year ago, that these opinions are changing significantly. When they are young, when they are becoming less young, the opinions of high school students, and those at college, and those in the first 5 years after college, are significantly different, and regarding the issue of pensions and regarding the question of how and in what form they would like to work and so on.

Host: I mentioned earlier that we have a system where actively working people pay so that our parents will have a concrete pension in their old age, but no. But what does it mean, for example, that young people who come in later enter the market? What does this mean for them?

Guest : Later entry into the market means fewer active people at any given time, who pay contributions for the currently retired. For these people, it also means that they will meet the retirement conditions later. It is true that the average age at first employment has actually decreased in the last 6 years and is now approximately 23.8 years. The average age at first employment of a Slovenian citizen. Which means that the period of 40 years remains, and retirement is on average at 63.8. Of course, we are not all on average. There are also other issues - issues of precariousness and unstable employment and so on. But it is also true that these issues are addressed or that they need to be resolved elsewhere. The pension system is in itself complicated enough, complex enough, that we cannot burden it with this burden of regulating things that may not be regulated elsewhere. But that would be too much for the pension system.

Host: Now let's move on to the criticisms. One of them was for the second pension pillar. Would you advise these young people who are joining the market to pay into the second pension pillar?

Guest : For those who can afford it, of course, additional voluntary, supplementary pension insurance is a good idea. Now we have also added some changes here that we believe will make this form of supplementary insurance even more attractive.

It turns out that in our country, for the first time, and perhaps contrary to popular belief, the tax treatment of insurance is one of the most favorable in the world according to OECD data. Only 2 countries have a more favorable one. Because the part of the salary that we allocate to additional pension insurance is tax-free up to approximately 6 percent of the gross salary.

Capital gains, when the value of this grows, are tax-free, and when annuities are paid out, they are only half taxed with personal income tax. We have exempt, exempt and half taxed. Very favorable treatment. Here, the returns of Slovenian providers of supplementary pension insurance are not bad. They are somewhere in the OECD average and even, if I remember correctly, they are in good company between America and Switzerland.

The only problem was the amount of annuities, because they had to be lifelong. When calculating a lifelong annuity, very conservative assumptions are used, such as that a person will live for almost 36 years after retirement. And for this reason, these annuities were relatively low. And the insured in this second pillar were very satisfied until the moment of retirement, and then a little less so.

We have now changed these rules slightly so that in certain cases the annuity is not necessarily lifelong. This means that the insured person can opt for an accelerated annuity, so that higher annuities are paid to him over a certain period, and we believe that this will also further contribute to the attractiveness of additional insurance, which certainly improves social security. Again - for those retirees who can afford to save in this second pillar during their active life, either on their own or with good employers enabling them to do so. And there are already those who do this.

Host: The economist criticized that we should focus more on this second pillar, and Luka Mesec, the relevant minister, responded with an anecdote, that you two supposedly presented the Icelandic retirement model. Could you tell me where you received applause and why we can't have such a system?

Guest : Yes, I mean in the part that we were thinking about at the beginning, but that was really the brainstorming phase, as they call it. Everyone gets the same pension from the first pillar. If what we collect now through contributions were divided equally, it would mean that every pensioner gets almost €1,000. And whoever wants more, of course, saves additionally in the so-called second pillar.

Which also means that these funds of ours would collect purchased assets, from which the state could then borrow with bonds and so on. Which means that we could also indirectly finance some development projects in the country. In short, the story went in this direction. Basic income, universal, from the first pillar, and then payment from the second, as much as anyone wants and as much as anyone actually pays. Of course, with a gradual transition, because this would mean that over a longer period of time, the current first pillar, where of course we do not all have the same pensions, would gradually be flattened and supplemented with this second pillar.

It was at the level of flirting with some ideas. I don't remember a place where we weren't almost stoned when we presented this idea. I don't think practically anyone was excited about it, neither on the left nor on the right.

So, of course, we abandoned that. As for the criticism that we didn't put more emphasis on the second pillar... Of course, it's nice that the Pension System, which is funded, where everyone saves for themselves, is more resistant to demographic changes, to crises, but less resistant to fluctuations in financial markets and risks, that must be said.

This form of saving involves some risk. But we definitely insisted that the first public pillar must continue to be primary and main. And we would not want and would not agree to the second pillar being strengthened at the expense of the first. Basic social security must definitely stem from the first, but we can of course talk about incentives for some additional voluntary saving.

Host: Here's another criticism. This one comes from the professional fire brigade union. They claim that the reform proposal is only good for employers, and point out that workers in difficult jobs, such as in steel mills, cannot work, not even now, under the conditions they have.

Guest : Those insured in occupational insurance, and these include firefighters and paramedics, as well as police officers. So, we have certain professional groups included in this occupational or mandatory supplementary pension insurance.

They are one of the few groups for whom the age limits have not changed. We listened to them, we listened to the fact that they are not able to work longer than they are working now, and we did not raise the retirement age for them. Just as, as we have seen from concrete examples earlier, the age limit is not actually raised for those who started working before the age of 18.

They will also retire at the same age, just with a better pension, from now on. So I would not agree, especially if we previously established that the combination of a longer reference period and a higher contribution percentage leads in the vast majority of cases to a higher pension.

This is another argument. Above all, our pension system and with it the entire public finances - because, when we look at the demographic transition, we must also take into account higher costs in healthcare and long-term care - will survive, so that it will not have to be affected by measures such as the infamous ZUJF or by any measures of the European Commission, which can introduce procedures against countries that do not have public finances under control due to excessive public debt or deficit... All of these are actually pluses for workers as well. So a higher pension, for some the ages do not change, and above all this system, which many people already doubted, which we were warned about twelve years ago that it would collapse on itself, will actually continue to survive.

I think this is also a plus for the workers.

Host: I suggest that you now answer some specific questions from our podcast followers. The following question came up:. In October 2030, I will have 40 years of service, and in June 2031, I will be 60 years old. Until when will I have to work and what will be the percentage for calculating my pension?

Guest : Yes. Basically, it makes sense to compare the current situation, if nothing were to change, and the new one. According to the current situation, the gentleman will be 60 years old in June 2031. At that time, he can retire, but he will have 40 years and 8 months of service. It would then be worth it to pull out those 4 months, so now retire in October 2031 with a pension of 64.86. So that would be according to the current situation. Under the new conditions: in 2030 the limit, the retirement limit, the age limit will be 60 years and 9 months. The gentleman will not reach this yet then, but he will reach the required age in 2032. So it would be ideal for him to retire now.

He will be eligible for retirement in September 2032, at 61 years and 3 months, but at that time his service will be 41 years and 11 months. So it is worth pulling back one more month and retiring in October 2032 at 61 years and 4 months with 42 years of service, which means that his contribution percentage is then 67.75 (what it will be for 40 years in 2032) + 6 contribution points, and for the 41st and 42nd year, so a total of 73.75 percent.

In reality, it means that under the new conditions he will work one year longer, and his pension will be calculated at a rate of 73.75% instead of 64.86%, which is a significant improvement.

Host: Excellent. This is also an interesting example: If someone retires, for example, with 32 years of service, when they are 67, they will not have 40 years of this reference period. What will be taken into account for them?

Guest : These 32 will be taken into account, with one or two years being deducted. You need to look at the table: at 40, 5 years are deducted, at 37, 39.4 years, and so on.

Host: One follower, we've talked about this a lot, is asking with concern about demographic trends and birth rates. And he's wondering about the usefulness of paying into a pension fund.

Guest : Payments to the pension fund are in the form of contributions. A contribution is a tax collected for a specific purpose, in this case for social security. If you don't pay the tax, you go to jail.

This is the first motivation for paying any tax. I think there is a saying that there are 3 things in the world that a person must do - one of them is to pay taxes. As for what one gets from these contributions...

First of all, if you don't pay contributions, you are depriving your parents of their pension. And you are depriving yourself of it , so I would definitely not agree that it is not worth paying for it. Although maybe in the short term it seems to some that the contribution, which is not small, of course, 24.35% of the gross salary, would be better...

That it would be better to keep it for yourself. But given that our pension system is based on intergenerational solidarity, this is, in my opinion, the wrong way to think.

Host: Let's end this thought about solidarity. Thank you for this initial information. The reform is supposed to come into effect next year, right?

Guest: Yes. In the part that touches on the winter supplement, already this year. Next year, some improvements will begin, i.e. raising the assessment percentages for disability pensions and so on. So, changes to the parameters that affect the assessment of the old-age pension will begin in 2028.

Host: Thank you. And thank you to all our podcast followers. You can follow us on all the platforms where you follow podcasts and on our government YouTube channel. Thank you and see you next time. Goodbye.