GOVSI podkast: O pokojninski reformi

V novi epizodi vladnega GOVSI podkasta se voditeljica Petra Bezjak Cirman pogovarja z Marijanom Papežem, dolgoletnim generalnim direktorjem Zavoda za pokojninsko in invalidsko zavarovanje Slovenije (ZPIZ). Tokratni pogovor je namenjen pokojninski reformi, ki jo je Državni zbor potrdil septembra. Ali bo uveljavljena ali ne, pa je odvisno od izida zbiranja podpisov za referendum.

Papež v pogovoru razloži, zakaj nova reforma prinaša dostojnejše pokojnine ter zakaj ne gre za rezanje pravic, temveč za krepitev vzdržnosti sistema in boljše pogoje za upokojence. Meni, da tako ugodne reforme za ljudi ne bomo več dobili. Poudari postopnost uvajanja sprememb, saj se bo upokojitvena starost postopno zviševala, vendar ne tudi delovna doba, ter našteje nekatere ugodnosti, ki čakajo sedanje in prihodnje upokojence v letu 2026. Med ključnimi novostmi so višje invalidske pokojnine, izboljšan odmerni odstotek za starše, zimski dodatek in drugi ukrepi, predvsem za tiste z najnižjimi prejemki.

Po njegovih besedah gre za »najmanj neugodno, celo prijazno reformo«, ki je rezultat dogovora med socialnimi partnerji in sindikati.

Vabljeni k ogledu in poslušanju epizode podkasta!

[ENGLISH VERSION]

GOVSI Podcast: On the Pension Reform

In the new episode of the GOVSI government podcast, host Petra Bezjak Cirman talks with Marijan Papež, long-time Director General of the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute of Slovenia (ZPIZ). The conversation focuses on the pension reform adopted by the National Assembly in September. Whether it will actually be implemented depends on the outcome of the ongoing signature collection for a referendum.

In the episode, Papež explains why the new reform introduces more decent pensions, and why it is not about cutting rights but rather about strengthening the sustainability of the pension system and ensuring better conditions for retirees. He believes that such a favorable reform for people will not happen again.

He highlights the gradual introduction of changes – the retirement age will rise slowly, but the required years of service will not increase – and outlines several benefits that will take effect in 2026, for both current and future pensioners. Among the key improvements are higher disability pensions, an improved calculation rate for parents, a winter allowance, and other measures designed primarily for those with the lowest incomes.

According to Papež, this is the »least unfavorable, even friendly reform«, achieved through agreement between social partners and trade unions.

Tune in on your favourite platform to listen or watch the episode of podcast and enjoy the experience!

Transcript

Vladni podkast GOVSI

Voditeljica Petra Bezjak Cirman: Spoštovane gledalke in gledalci poslušalke in poslušalci dobrodošli v 29. epizodi podkasta GOVSI, ki ga pripravljamo na Uradu Vlade RS za komuniciranje. Z vami sem Petra Bezjak Cirman in vabim vas, da naš podkast spremljate na vseh platformah za spremljanje podkastov. V tokratnem podkastu se bomo posvetili pokojninski reformi, ki jo je državni zbor potrdil septembra. Razprave ob sprejemanju pokojninske reforme so pestre, saj nam pokojnine pomenijo zagotovljeno finančno varnost po zaključku delovne dobe. Na to temo smo se pri nas že pogovarjali z državnim sekretarjem na ministrstvu za delo Igorjem Feketijem, danes pa smo v goste povabili generalnega direktorja Zavoda za pokojninsko in invalidsko zavarovanje Slovenije Marjana Papeža. Dober dan in dobrodošli.

Gost Marijan Papež: Lepo pozdravljeni.

Voditeljica: Gospod Papež, bili ste logična izbira za povabilo, saj ste direktor ene od štirih glavnih blagajn javnih financ, tj. pokojninske blagajne, ki jo vodite že 20 let, od leta 2005 in ravno stanje oziroma vzdržnost pokojninske blagajne je bil eden od razlogov za pravkar sprejeto pokojninsko reformo. Preden pa prideva na to resno tema in vprašanja, povezana s pokojninsko reformo, me zanima nekaj podrobnosti o vašem delu na Zavodu. Kot sem že omenila, ga vodite 20 let, kar je poseben dosežek, sploh če govorimo o tako pomembni instituciji, kot je ZPIZ, ki skrbi za izplačila več kot 650.000 upokojencem iz obveznega zavarovanja. Kaj vas je motiviralo, da ste se odločili, da delate na tem področju?

Gost: Če po pravici povem, da nisem pričakoval, da bom na tem področju delal. Tudi ko sem imel predmet na Pravni fakulteti Socialna varnost, mi ni bil najbolj priljubljen. Bil sem pa štipendist Zavoda. In kljub temu, da sem bil štipendist Zavoda in sem se zaposlil, nisem pričakoval, da bo pokojnino dočakal na Zavodu za pokojninsko invalidsko zavarovanje (ZPIZ). Če pogledam zdaj nazaj, ali sem prav naredil? Moram reči, da gre za dinamično delo, strokovno organizacijsko in tudi do neke mere izpostavljeno. Vmes sem menjal tudi kraj bivanja, iz Ljubljane v Maribor sem se preselil, kar je za Ljubljančana redko, čas pa hitro mine. Izzivov je bilo ogromno in sem vesel, da je pred nami tudi reforma in upam, da jo bo Zavod uspešno izvedel. Uspešno jo bo izvedel, ampak upam, da bo zaživela.

Voditeljica: O tem bova še nekaj rekla v nadaljevanju. Verjetno voditi pokojninsko blagajno pomeni posebno poslanstvo, kajti naša pokojnina temeljijo na solidarnostnem sistemu. Kako se je vaše razumevanje solidarnosti skozi vsa ta leta spremenilo?

Gost: Ja, morda sem v določenih obdobjih celo govoril in tudi sedaj, da je celo preveč solidarnosti v samem sistemu. Da bi se morala socialnovarstvena politika reševati izven sistema. Ampak če samo omenim, da ZPIZ-2, kjer ima 13.000 vdovskih – predvsem so vdove – vdovskih pokojnin, zagotovljenih vdovskih pokojnin, kar smo dosegli v zadnjih dveh letih, mesečno povprečno 100 € višje pokojnine, sem se 7 let boril, da je do tega prišlo. Se pravi, da bi mi nekdo težko očital, da tudi nisem socialno naravnan. V samem sistemu je veliko socialnih korektivov, najpomembnejši je odmera od najnižje pokojninske osnove. Tako da je treba najti eno ravnovesje, da se najde med vplačanimi prispevki za tiste, ki niso imeli možnosti, da bi imeli višje plače, da je tudi socialni korektiv, da zagotavlja eno varno preživljanje starosti.

Voditeljica: Kadarkoli je pokojninska reforma, se vedno govori, da je nepriljubljena, ker posega v neke že pridobljene pravice in je veliko pritiskov. Spomnim se ena vlade, ki je morala predčasno zaključiti mandat tudi zaradi sprememb, ki jih je že želela uvesti na pokojninskem področju. Kako pa se vi spoprijemate s pritiski? Kako vi doživljate te nepopularne odločitve?

Gost: Glejte, to je zdaj. Mi smo v prvi vrsti izvajalci, ne. Mi se moramo Tudi jaz sam se moram zavedati, tudi če mi ni kaj všeč, pa bi bil jaz drugače naredil: ko je zakon sprejet, ga moraš spoštovati. Če tega nisi sposoben, potem moraš oditi. Ker zakon je procedura. Tudi tisto, kar jaz sam mislim, tudi ko razlagam, ni vedno vse zveličavno, so lahko različna mnenja. In to je pomembno. Če se tega zavedaš, je potem to drugače. Sem pa tudi vesel, da je Zavod institucija, ki se ga tudi strokovno upošteva, posebej z izvajalskega spektra, pa tudi kakšne rešitve se izpeljejo, kot jih mi predlagamo oz. damo pobudo, ker zavod ni predlagatelj.

Voditeljica: Kakšna pa je sprememba na tem področju v teh dvajsetih letih? Mislim, da sta prevzeli ravno vodenje takrat, ko je bila pokojninska reforma Antona Ropa?

Gost: Ja, takrat je že kar 6 let živela. Tisto je bila grda reforma glede višine pokojnin., ne Ravno ko sem razmišljal, bi rekel: če je katera bila vredna referenduma, je bila dejansko tista, ker je posegla v višino. Se pravi, da so se nižale pokojnine novih upokojencev in tudi vseh že upokojenih. Ko sem aprila 2005 nastopil mandat, je bila pa ena sreča, da smo z vlado v juniju podpisali, se pravi sporazum, da se prevzame dolg iz preteklosti. In od 1. 7. 2005 Zavod posluje z izravnanimi prihodki in odhodki. Kar pomeni, da ni bilo potrebno najemati kreditov, kar je bilo treba desetletje pred tistim. In je zakonsko financiranje zelo dobro urejeno: kar ni iz prispevkov, je iz državnega proračuna. Jasno pa je to težje: da je gospodarstvo v dobri situaciji, kar pomeni, da je tudi pokojninska blagajna v dobri kondiciji in da se iz proračuna zagotavlja čim manj sredstev in čim več iz prispevkov. To je glede financiranja ves čas dobro zagotovljeno. Nisem imel dejansko teh skrbi kot mislijo, da ko sem se zvečer legel, da sem razmišljal, ali bojo ali bo denar ali ne bo. Tukaj ni bilo vprašanja, da bi se katera vlada ali pa ker finančni minister privoščil, da ne bi bila zagotovljena sredstva in zadnjega v mesecu delovni dan izplačane vse dajatve.

Voditeljica: Zdaj imamo tudi po podatkih Evrostata iz avgusta letos najnižjo brezposelnost v Evropski uniji v Sloveniji. Torej, imamo največ delovno aktivnih ljudi okrog milijona, a ne?

Gost: Ja, morda imamo celo premalo brezposelnih, ker trg dela bi še… Posebej gradbeništvo, turizem in še kje drugje… IT področje, da bi imeli te Jaz mislim, da če imamo zadnja tri leta nekje blizu milijona, da smo nekje en plafon dosegli. Posebej zato, ker ni kadra in dovolj, da bi jih najbrž do 1.050.000 pa kar to v bistvu potrebovali. Imamo pa že okoli 170.000 tuje delovne sile.

Voditeljica: In to je dobro, ste nekje omenili, za pokojninsko blagajno?

Gost: Ja, čim večje zavarovancev tem bolje.

Voditeljica: Torej, za razumevanje prednosti, ki jih prinaša pokojninska reforma, moramo najprej sploh razumeti, kako deluje naš pokojninski sistem. Omenila sem že, da je solidarnosten. Kako bi ga vi nekaj v nekaj stavkih opisali?

Gost: Ne bi rekel, da je solidarnosten. Se pravi, je pokojnina odraz plačanih prispevkov, je ekonomska kategorija, z elementi solidarnosti. Je pretočen sistem. Se pravi tisti, ki so upokojeni, ki so aktivni, plačujejo za tiste, ki so upokojeni. Tisti, ki so upokojeni, pa so prej plačevali za tiste, ki so bili takrat upokojeni. To dejansko funkcionira. Jasno, so očitki, da čedalje manj zavarovancev plačuje za ena upokojenca. Če grem 50 let nazaj… Pred 50 leti je bilo manj kot 200.000 upokojencev, je bilo okoli 600.000 zavarovancev. Zdaj pa imamo čez 650.000 upokojencev, zavarovancev pa 1.000.000. Razmerje je bilo takrat 1: 3, 5, sedaj je 1: 1, 55. Če bi kdo rekel, ja, dobro, bi bilo, da bi bilo 1: 3. Tudi trg dela se je spremenil. Digitalizacije takrat ni bilo. Tako da ne moremo zdaj istega imenovalca povleči. Kaj je pomembno? Da je čim več zavarovancev, pa da so plače, ki jih imajo delavci, čim višje, ker potem je čim več presežkov prispevkov. Kar pomeni, da bomo rekli. Delovna mesta, kjer je dodana vrednost velika, tiste so dejansko najboljša.

Voditeljica: Jaz se včasih doma s starši skorajda spričkam, ko moj oče rad reče, jaz sem si zaslužil svojo penzijo, pa jaz rečem – ne, jaz jo zdaj plačujem zate.

Gost: Ampak zaslužil pa jo je, ker je takrat plačeval.

Voditeljica: Ja, a to se mi zdi, da morda upokojenci še niso dojeli, od kod prihaja ta denar, da so oni za svojo mamo pa očeta plačevali, mi pa zdaj za njih.

Gost: Ker so… Pred leti so novinarji spraševali mlade, ali bi plačevali za tiste, ki so v pokoju, pa so rekli, da raje ne. Ampak če bi jih spraševali, ali bi plačevali za svoje starše, pa dedke in babice, bi bil pa odgovor ja. Tako da je odvisno, kako iz katere perspektive pogledamo.

Voditeljica: 

Tako, jaz se tudi strinjam s tem pristopom. Morda tudi zaradi tega v Sloveniji nikoli ni zaživel drugi steber?

Gost: Ne drugi steber, bila je celo ideja individualnih računov. To je bilo leta 2009, da bi bil ničelni steber, pa potem sistem NDC in potem steber navideznih računov. To pomeni, kot da bi zabeležili, koliko si prispeval. Če pogledamo, tudi sedaj imamo vse podatke, koliko je nekdo imel bruto plače, koliko je prispeval in iz tistega izračunamo pokojnino. Tam pa ne bi bilo, da bi se nalagala sredstva, kar ne bi bilo tudi razumno. Pa pozabili so pri tistim NDC, se pravi, sistemu navideznih računov… Že beseda 'navidezni' je malo čudna, pa tudi ničelni steber, ko bi vsi dobili enako, recimo 300 €, ostalo pa bi se dejansko koliko si vplačal. To pomeni, da bi bilo za te z nižjimi pokojninami bistveno slabše. Pa nekaj Pozabili so, kako bi uredili invalidsko zavarovanje, pa družinske, vdovske pokojnine, kjer gre pa več kot milijarda sredstev. Takrat sem tudi sam nasprotoval minister, ko je minister Svetlik to želel promovirati, pa tudi vsi sindikati so bili neomajni. To ne pomeni, da smo proti drugemu stebru, če bi bil obvezen. Ampak ne na račun prvega stebra, ne na račun prvega stebra. In sem vesel, da se je pri tej reformi tako težo dalo prvemu stebru in da ni bilo nikoli vprašanje, da bi se ta prvi steber osiromašil. Ker pokojnine iz prvega stebra, za katere garantira država, pomenijo zagotavljanje tudi socialne varnosti v tretjem življenjskem obdobju.

Voditeljica: Določeni ekonomisti so ravno to izpostavili, da se nič ni naredilo na področju drugega stebra?

Gost: Glejte, lahko bi se več naredilo, se strinjam. In tukaj bi se v določeni meri tudi moralo, ampak je vprašanje, kje bi nekdo se pravi… Se pravi, delodajalci niso bili naklonjeni, da bi bilo obvezno zavarovanje in da bi določeno prispevno stopnjo tudi plačevali. Recimo, v začetku 1 odstotno točko, potem 2, pa največ 3 in isto tudi delodajalci. Tako da do tega ni prišlo. Ekonomisti imajo drugačne, tudi težnje. Niso toliko naklonjeni prvemu stebru, vsaj določeni mladi mislijo, da bi z drugim stebrom bistveno več dosegli. S čimer pa se dejansko ne strinjam.

Voditeljica: Že sami ste našteli nekaj reform, ki so bile v tem vašem obdobju izvedene in sprejete. Kaj je bil glavni namen teh reform? Bom samo eno statistiko navedla, in sicer, danes je vsak 5. prebivalec starejši od 65 let, čez 35 let bo vsak 3. Torej, kot kaže, bomo čedalje več in več prispevali v pokojninsko blagajno, ker bo več in več upokojencev, ker dlje živimo.

Gost: Tako je in to je normalno. Zdaj tudi Če se vrnem nazaj do leta 1975, da je bil delež v strukturi prebivalcev – pa jih je bilo manj, okoli milijon 800.000 v Sloveniji – je bil delež 11 %, v lanskem letu dobrih 30 % – delež starejših upokojencev v številu prebivalcev. To je, ampak Dejansko moramo zagotoviti, da bodo tudi dodatni viri. Govorilo se je včasih o demografskem rezervnem skladu, tam smo 10 let zamudili. Lahko rečemo. Na nek način je Kapitalska družba majhni del demografskega sklada, ampak pomembno je, da imamo večjo dodano vrednost za delovni cilj. Če bodo roboti opravljali delo namesto nas, pa bo treba obdavčiti ali »oprispeviti« robote, da se bo nabralo dovolj sredstev. Jaz verjamem v pokojninski sistem, ki je pridobitev civilizacije. Pred 15. leti sem bil celo na naslovnici, ko sem izjavil, prej bo propadla država kot pa pokojninski sistem. Zato so pa potrebne prilagoditve in reforme. Ne moremo capljat na mestu, ker potem pa bi se lahko zgodilo, da bi naenkrat se zgodilo, da bi bili revni upokojenci.

Voditeljica: Tudi ta reforma je tako kot prejšnje nastala v soglasju z Ekonomsko-socialnim svetom, torej, tudi z delodajalci, in večina sindikatov se z njo strinja, vi pa ste zanjo dejali, da je to »do sedaj najmanj neugodna, pod narekovaji celo prijazna reforma«?

Gost: Res je, res je. Začel sem z reformami leta 1992. ZPIZ-1, ki je bila grda, ZPIZ-2, ki je bila delana v času krize, ampak je vseeno ostalo padanja odmernega odstotka. Ni bila samo težnja stabilnost sistema, blagajne, ampak tudi dostojne pokojnine. ZPIZ-1 je samo slonel na stabilnosti sistema oz. blagajne. Tukaj je pa, bomo rekli Ta reforma gre pa bolj v smeri dostojnejše pokojnine. Malo se izogibam izraze 'dostojne', pa 'blaginji', ker so različni pojmi 'dostojna'. Lahko je za nekoga dostojna 1000, za nekoga pa 2000 evrov ne bo. Odvisno, na kakšni delovnih mestih je delal. Če pa rečemo 'dostojnejše', pomeni, da bodo pa višje, kot so sedanje in tukaj… Evo, čisto tako, bom preprosto rekel… Bi rekel misija nemogočega, ko so bila izhodišča, pa ko je bila Bela knjiga, da bomo dobili tako ugodno reformo za dostojnejše pokojnine, posebej za tiste, ki imajo najnižje pokojnine. tudi za nazaj. Mirno lahko rečem, da je ta najmanj neugodna, ne rabim uporabljat narekovajev, kot prijazna pa zato, ker določene stvari pa le prinaša, da lahko rečemo, da je reforma… Ker ko slišimo besedo 'reforma', pomeni, da pričakujemo, da bo več ali manj vse šlo na slabše. Tukaj pa, bomo rekli, ne gre na slabše, ampak so potrebne prilagoditve, ki bi bile lahko bolj neugodne, kot so, prinaša pa vrsto… ne Tukaj imam napisano na dveh straneh 14 zadev, ki že v letu 2026 prinašajo in nekatere in za sedaj upokojene in za nove upokojence. In to ni začasno, ampak trajno, če bo začela veljati, ugodnosti, ki vplivajo na višino pokojnine.

Voditeljica: Naštejte kakšno…

Gost: Zimski dodatek ne zimski dodatek, ki naj bi bil letos 150 €, potem do 250 € bi se dvignil, ki pomeni, da ga preko 650.000 upokojencev ga dobi, 11.000 invalidov. Potem, invalidske pokojnine 410 namesto 490 – 610 €. To je 120 € na mesec, na letni ravni 1440 evrov. To je, kot bi dobil skoraj tri pokojnine in teh je 9 tisoč. Še 14 tisoč je takih, ki pa so med 600 490 in 610, ki bi dobili tudi več, pa vpliva teh 490 na 60 teh 50  % ki se dvigne to je 22  % in velja takoj. T tudi na odmero vdovske, družinske, najnižjih nadomestil iz invalidskega zavarovanja. Kar pomeni: okoli 50 tisoč teh, ki imajo najnižje prejemke, bi dobilo več, bi jim pripadalo od 1. 1. 2026. Tako da tista, ko Delavska koalicija, ko govori, da za te, ki imajo najnižje pokojnine, je najmanj poskrbljeno… Daleč od tega. Tako da sem celo, ko smo bili v Studiu ob 17h, pa ko smo bili na Dobro jutro, jim rekel, da bi jih pričakoval s transparenti v podporo tej reformi, ne pa zbiranja podpisov. Škoda, da se igrajo s tako ugodno reformo. Ne bomo več dobili tako ugodne reforme za ljudi.

Voditeljica: Saj če se ne motim … Vse centralne sindikalne, torej 6, jo je podpisalo in ena ne. To je tudi zgovoren podatek.

Gost: In ker veste kaj? Sindikati so bili odlični pogajalci. Imeli so odlično ekipo in so dosegli več, kot bi kdorkoli pričakoval. Če bomo rekli odmerni odstotek 70, pa 50 % tisto, pa še kompenzacijski ukrepi… Mogoče, če bova imela čas, se še dotakneva, da še povem, katere stvari so še zelo pomembne pri tej reformi.

Voditeljica: Mislim, še preden se teh zadev lotiva še eno niso. Hvala Ob tem ko je Ekonomsko-socialni svet prižgal zeleno luč za to pokojninsko reformo, je minister Mesec dejal, da to ni takšna reforma, kot je bila v Franciji, kjer, če se spomnimo, so ljudje drveli na ulice in množično protestirali. In še danes ima Francija težave zaradi te pokojninske reforme. Verjetno bi se s tem njegovo prispodobo strinjali, a ne?

Gost: Ja, dogovor. To je bil pomembno. Dogovor med socialnimi partnerji. Pogajanja niso bila enostavna, ne, ampak na koncu so se poenotili in je prišel odličen rezultat. Vsi bi pa izgubili, če ne bi prišlo do dogovora, se pravi, za vzdržnost sistema in za dostojnejše pokojnine.

Voditeljica: Potem pa greva na te konkretnosti v pokojninski reformi. Kaj dejansko pomeni postopen dvig starosti za upokojitev na 62 oziroma 67 let? Kdo bo delal dlje?

Gost: Pomembno sporočilo te reforme je, da dve leti pogoji ostanejo enaki. Česar nismo poznali pri prejšnjih reformah: decembra je bila sprejeta, v januarju smo šli že v živo, pogoji so se spreminjali… Da, ti, ki so se vključili v zavarovanje med 20 in 22. letom, bodo potem delali več. Ampak napačno je tolmačenje in razlaganje, ko rečejo: 2 leti bodo delali več. Nekateri nič več. Kdor je vstopil zavarovanje z 22. leti pa tja do 25. leta je nastopil, se za njih nič ne spremeni. Za nekoga, ki je vstopil v zavarovanje z 21. letom, bo leta 2035 moral delati eno leto več. Že sedaj morajo delati več kot 40 let tisti, ki so vstopili v zavarovanje med 15. letom starosti pa do 20. leta starosti. Vemo, da tistih s 15, 16, 17, 18 jih je zelo malo, ki vstopajo v zavarovanje, kar pomeni, da jih nič več se ne bo upokojilo z več dobe kot 40, ker se bo ta bomo rekli vstop v zavarovanje avtomatično tudi premaknil. Kar pomeni: če ne bi bilo dviga starostne meje, potem pa res ne bi mogli govoriti o reformi, v tistem smislu bomo rekli, da je nekaj, da je nekaj slabšega, ampak nujnega. Od 65 do 67 se bo pa dvignila tudi postopoma za tiste, ki pri 65. pa do 67. leta še ne bodo dopolnili 40 let pokojninske dobe. To je že pomembno sporočilo, ki je daleč tistega, kar je bilo predvideno v Beli knjigi, ko je bilo najmanj, da se bo dvigala doba na 42 let. Pa tudi padli zakon na referendum leta 2010 je imel 42. Že Tukaj ostaja 40. Ampak, kot smo rekli: nekateri bodo delali dlje, kot tudi že zdaj delajo. Je pa notri prenešeno v ta zakon: da kljub temu da ne bodo dosegli starosti, pa bodo dosegli že 40 let pokojninske dobe brez dokupa, da bo na koncu potem leta 2034 pokojninske dobe, da se bo tista doba nad 40 vrednotila ugodnejše. Primer: nekdo, ki je moral zdaj delati 2 leti več, da je dopolnil starost, se mu je ta doba vrednotila 2x1, 36 je 2, 72. Po novem se mu bo vrednotila 2 krat 3, se pravi, 6 odstotnih točk proti 2, 72. To je nekje za 5 % višjo pokojnino. Se pravi, se je gledalo, kjer se je le dalo, da se še kaj ugodnejšega prinese noter. Na koncu smo skoraj vsi padli v to, da smo iskali noter, tudi jaz, da smo iskali, kje bi lahko našli še kakšno stvar, ki bi bila ugodna za višino pokojnin. Zato lahko mirno rečem: razen redkih izjem bodo pokojnine višje.

Voditeljica: Kritiki ravno tole govorijo, a ne da tisti, ki se tako zgodaj začnejo delat, gledam vstopili na trg dela so zdaj že utrujeni, a ne in najbolj izmučeni. Verjetno sklepajo, da gre to za neka nižja delovna mesta, kjer fizično delaš, ne in da bo ravno ta moral dolgo delati.

Gost: Ampak glejte, to je že zdaj. Nekdo, ki je vstopil v zavarovanje med 15 in 20. letom, mora več delat. Moški, ki je vstopil zavarovanje s 15. leti, mora delati do 43 let, ženska 42. To velja že sedaj. Ampak je pa še v Zakonu o urejanju trga dela en institut 80-90-100. Se pravi, da je možno, če ne izpolni pogojev, pa je star že 58 let ali pa ima 35 let dobe (postopno bo 58 šlo do 2035 na 60), se lahko z delodajalcem dogovori, da četrtino manj dela. Se pravi, je pomemben ukrep. Nekdo, ki je pa res zdravstveno prizadet, se lahko zaposli za krajši delovni čas iz invalidskega zavarovanja, polni delovni čas na drugem ustreznem delu z omejitvami ali pa tudi invalidsko upokoji. Tako da je tega teh možnosti veliko. Pa še enkrat pravim: največ 2 leti dlje bo treba delat komaj od leta 2035 in ne za vse, samo za nekatere, ki so se vključili v zavarovanje z 20. letom starosti. ali pa 65 ne bodo me še 40.

Voditeljica: Omenjali ste novosti za starejše delavce. To mislim, da stopi v veljavo s 1. 1. 2026?

Gost: Tako je. To pa v vsakem primeru, ja.

Voditeljica: Potem ste že nekje omenjali: tudi če je bilo že dlje, boš imel boljšo pokojnino. Kaj to pomeni, zvišanje pokojninske osnove? Kaj vse se zgodi pri tem?

Gost: Zdaj bomo rekli: dlje delaš, imaš višji odmerni odstotek. Če je nad 40, ima pokojninske dobe brez dokupa, se je v 3 letih zavarovanja dobiš lahko največ 9 odstotnih točk bom rekel največ, 9 odstotnih točk, kar pa pomeni 14  % višjo pokojnino. Najbolj plodna leta so v času, ko imaš 40 let pokojninske dobe brez dokupa, sedaj pa starost, ker imaš že 40  % pokojnine, dobivaš pa še pokojnina se poveča. Podaljšanje referenčnega obdobja je pa tisto, kar v povprečju pomeni nižje pokojnine. To je pa moramo reči. Se pravi: neugodnejše od tega, zdaj, da je reformo, da se povečuje starost, je podaljšanje referenčnega obdobja, ki v povprečju poviša pokojnine, ampak – za katere pa jih direktno ne poviša? Dobra tretjina 35 % starostnih upokojencev je, že sedaj, vsako leto zadnja tri leta, ima odmero pokojnine od najnižje pokojninske osnove. Če to pretvorimo naprej za nove, pomeni, da je vseeno, ali ima 24-letno povprečje ali bi imel pa 40 minus 5 let, bo imel od najnižje. Kar pomeni, da na njih podaljšanje nič ne vpliva. Podaljšanje nič ne vpliva tudi za tiste, ki bodo imeli tudi kasneje odmero od najvišje pokojninske osnove. Nič ne vpliva, ampak teh je malo. Invalidski upokojenci: dve tretjini je tistih, ki imajo najnižje, se pravi, za 2/3 invalidskih upokojencev, če prevedemo, to ne bo nič vplivalo. Pa kaj se je še iskalo? Da določena leta, čas brezposelnosti, ko je nižje nadomestilo, matere, ko delajo krajši delovni čas po zakonu o starševskem varstvu, se bo ugodnejše vrednotilo: kot da so matere ves čas delale, se bo preračunal za osnovo. za brezposelnost se bo pa vzela plača pred letom, preden so nas nastopili brezposelnosti in prejemali nadomestilo. Študentsko, dijaško delo se ne bo upoštevalo v izračun pokojninske osnove in tudi invalid za invalidsko pokojnino odmera in posledično tudi za nadomestilo, se ne bo upoštevalo, če je manj kot 6 mesecev. Tukaj je že dobra kompenzacija, ampak ne bo začela veljati 1. 1. 2028, ko bi se podaljševalo referenčno obdobje, ampak že v 2026. Ne že v 26. Pa odmerni odstotek ne. Odmerni odstotek je pa taka kompenzacija, da razen za tiste, ki niso imeli res zelo nizke, visoke, nizke plače. Morda je nekdo bil na s. p., pa je šel na visoko… Pa spet, nekateri špekulirajo, potem pa rečejo, gremo, ko gremo na s. p., pa plačujejo od najnižje, ker mislijo – saj imamo za 24 let. To je državni sekretar lepo tudi razjasnil, tudi številkami, ampak tudi tisto osnovno: ni pravično, da nekdo, ki več vplačuje, dobi enako pokojnino oziroma kdo, ki manj, ki mu dobi celo višjo, kot je nekdo, Se pravi, 40 minus 5. Tudi mi smo nekaj izračunov naredili: nobenega ni s temi 70 %, ki bi imel nižjo pokojnino. Dejansko se jim poveča. Tisti, ki bodo imeli odmero od najnižje, pa bi najbrž že radi, da bi že naslednje leto to veljalo, odmerni odstotek in tudi 40 minus 5, ker bi se jim direktno povečala pokojnina za 10 %. Da pa nekdo od teh dela še 3 leta dlje, bi že prišel – zdaj ima 781 evrov, potem bi pa s tem prišel pa že z 79 odstotki, odmerni odstotek 79, pa bi že prišel nad minimalno plačo, tam nekje 950 evrov. Zato to poudarjamo, da je za te za najnižjimi pokojninami najbolj poskrbljeno.

Voditeljica: Igor Feketija je to pojasnil tudi v našem podkastu.

Gost: Tako je, tako je.

Voditeljica: Imel je tudi isto vprašanje kot vi: mladi. Vedno rečejo, sami ste že prej povedali anekdoto o mladih, da na njih pa pokojnine ne bodo dočakale. Kaj pa pomeni ta reforma za mlade?

Gost: Glejte, jaz sem se zaposlil na pokojninskem pa sem rekel – 40 let je tako oddaljeno, da ne bom tega doživel. Sodelavka stara 50 let, pa sem jo gledal, kaj ona v službi še dela. A to je percepcija mladih. ne In to jim ni nič za zameriti. Ampak kaj se je zgodilo 1. 2. 2015, ko je bilo uvedeno, da se prizna doba, da se plačujejo prispevki in je priznana doba za dijaško in študentsko delo. Tukaj je zelo pomembno, da dobimo preko 80 milijonov v blagajno, da imajo mladi dobo. Ne, to je tisto 2 meseca in 18 dni je bilo lansko leto v povprečju vključenih preko 100.000. Ampak ta zavest, da nekdo plačuje pol leta ima dobe eno leto, 2 leti 3 leta in mladim ni več vseeno, kako bo s tem sistemom, v katerega so oni že nekaj vplačevali. In je zavest drugačna, kot je bila včasih. Delali so eno anketo, mislim, da E-študentski servis, da je delal anketo, in da je na četrtem mestu kot pomembnost bilo med mladimi, kakšna bo pomembno z pokojnina. To je za mlade pomembno. In pomembno sporočilo te reforme je, da se tudi za naprej vzpostavlja temelj oziroma se ga nadgrajuje za dostojnejše pokojnine. Mladi se zavedajo, da bodo še 1 do 2 reforme doživeli -, pa lahko da bo še tako dobre ne bo po moji oceni – da se bodo lahko pokojnine še znižale. Ampak če bi imeli zdaj ne bi imeli tako dobrega temelja, potem bi lahko rekli, ja, to pa se ne splača. Zdaj pa je k prvi steber tako stabilen in upam da bo zaživela ta reforma, da imajo mladi izredno dobro popotnico tudi za naprej., bomo rekli Boljšo kot mi, ko smo doživeli ZPIZ-1, ko je dejansko bil poseg v pokojnino, starostno in tudi ostale, grob poseg, ki ga je potem ZPIZ-2, ZPIZ-2G in še posebej pa ta sistem popravlja za naprej in za nekatere tudi za nazaj.

Voditeljica: Torej, tudi ta stavek, da za njih pa ne bo več penzije, ne zdrži.

Gost: Ne, glejte, hitro čas mine in ni nič narobe, če mladi imajo jasen fokus, da bodo dobili službo, da bo si ustvarili družino, da bodo dobili stanovanje, da bodo lahko… To je tista percepcija od začetka, potem pa čas hitro mine… in je Zato pa pravim o dodatnih zavarovanjih je tudi dobro razmišljati. Se pravi, da tudi če manj sredstev nalagaš, je vseeno drugače, a jih nalagaš 30, 40 let ali pa 10, 20 let. Tako da je treba tudi iz tega zornega kota razmišljati, tudi ne samo o obveznem, ampak tudi o dodatnem zavarovanju.

Voditeljica: Bi še želeli karkoli izpostaviti iz te pokojninske reforme?

Gost: Ja. Otrok, se pravi odmerni odstotek za otroke. Bil je celo sprejet. Vam rečem 'celo', ker po navadi se to ne zgodi, če gre za amandma opozicije. Sedaj imamo odmerni odstotek za največ 3 otroke, po novem ni omejitve. Odmerni odstotek za otroke namesto 1, 36 bo že takoj od 1. januarja, če bo začel veljati. Pa da bo 1, 6 odmerni odstotek za vojaščino. Potem moramo tudi povedati, da prvo leto otrokove starosti je bila zdaj priznano možno znižanje ali pa odmerni odstotek. To je za skrb v prvem letu otrokove starosti. To je zdaj odpadlo. Za vsakega rojenega otroka ali posvojenega se to ureja. Nadomestila iz invalidskega zavarovanja se bodo nekatera nova dvignila na med 33 in 75 %. Za vdovske smo tudi že rekli. Je pomembno, se pravi, da se bi že v mesecu v januarju dvignili s 70 na 75, to je 7, 1 %, pa potem s 70 na 80. To je 14 % višje pokojnine. Je ogromno teh stvari, ki so za dobrobit ljudi. Najnižje pokojnine, ki jih prejema 8000 ljudi, dvig z 29, 5 na 30 %. Pa bo kdo rekel, to je pol odstotne točke, to ni nič od najnižje pokojninske osnove. Ampak to pomeni 150 evrov, 150 evrov na leto, kar ni zanemarljivo za nekoga, ki ima 350 evrov. Pa kot smo rekli – tukaj 150, pa božičnica oziroma zimski dodatek. Tako da je tega res veliko in bi bilo dejansko res škoda, da ne bi… Tudi se dvigne, čeprav malenkostno, zagotovljena invalidska starostna pokojnina, ampak tudi 36 € več. Usklajevanje pokojnin ne. Brez podaljšanja obdobja poslovanja, sprememba, usklajevanje pokojnin bi težko rekel, da je reforma – potem bi bilo brez veze, da se dela, ne pa samo bremeni blagajno. S temi novimi ugodnostmi, ampak tudi z dogovorom z upokojenci, je bilo… z ZDUS-om, Sindikatom upokojencev, dogovorjeno, da se podaljša obdobje, kjer bo 50: 50 9 let, in komaj 2045 naj bi bilo 20: 80. Pa so varovalke, da se vsakih 5 let Ekonomsko-socialni svet sestane in ugotovi, kaj ta drugačen način usklajevanja pomeni za višino pokojnin. Pa če pogledamo nazaj: pri ZPIZ2 je bilo, ali bo 70-30 ali 60-40. Na koncu je bilo sprejeto 60-40, pa 3 leta se pokojnine niso usklajevale. Ko bo prišla kriza, se bo poseglo v usklajevanje pokojnin. Zdaj pa če primerjamo… Tisti, ki imajo nižje pokojnine, so večkrat rekli, zakaj se ne usklajujejo, da dobimo vsi v enakem znesku? Ne, s tem se ne strinjam. Se pravi, Pokojnina mora biti odraz plačanih prispevkov in ohranjati vrednost. Če pogledamo malo slabše pokojnine in uskladitev, na primer naslednje leto 0, 5 % v primerjavi z zimskim dodatkom: 0, 5 % pomeni za tiste, ki imajo 500 € pokojnine 30 € na letni ravni. Zimski dodatek pa naj bi bil 170, Kar pomeni, da dejansko tisti, ki ima pa 3000 evrov, bi mu pa ta 0, 5 % pomenil 180 €. ne Samo tisti bi imel manj, ostalim pa dejansko zimski dodatek, ki je bil uveden z namenom kompenzacije, slabšanja odmere, uskladitve pokojnin za te posege za te, ki so že upokojeni, ga daleč prekaša, ne samo kompenzira. Tako da, ko tako gledam in razmišljam, ne vidim logike, zakaj bi ti, ki imajo naziv Delavska koalicija, kje imajo tisti interes, da mislijo, da ta reforma ni dobra. In da bi pobrali samo smetano, ki je sedaj v zakonu in tiste 3 stvari izpustil, tako se pa ne prilagaja pokojninski sistem, ki, kot smo rekli, potrebuje prilagoditve za vzdržnost. Ne moreš samo reči, toliko in toliko bo, ne boš pa vedel, od kje bo nakazano. ne Očitajo pa glede predvsem glede tega, da se prispevna stopnja delodajalcev ni dvignila. Ne, To me ni presenetilo, da se ni dvignila. ker Če bi moral pred pogajanji to napovedati, bi rekel, da bo ostala enaka. Višja prispevna stopnja ne pomeni za višino pokojnine niti centa višje niti nižje. Jasno, če bi se izenačila s 24 – 35 na polovico, da bi bila 10, da bi bila 12,75 za oba, To bi pomenilo, da bi bile neto plače višje – kar se tudi jaz strinjam -, ampak kaj bi bilo nevarno, ko bi delodajalec moral dvignit bruto plače? Bi rekel, aha, ne bom bruto plače dvignil, saj delavec je neto plačo že dobil z okviru nižje prispevne njihove stopnje. In kaj bi to pomenilo? Da bruto plače ne bi šle gor in bi pokojninska blagajna dobila manj prispevkov. Ni pa to zanemarljivo: okoli 280 milijonov je ena odstotna točka prispevne stopnje za delodajalce. Recimo, če bi bilo 3, je to že 900 milijonov, kar pa ni zanemarljivo za obremenitev delodajalcev, ki pa niso tisti, ki so a priori rekli ne. So rekli, pod pogojem, če so kompenzacijski ukrepi na drugi strani. Ko nekateri rečejo, delodajalci pa niso nič prispevali… Prispevali so dogovor. Tudi oni so se morali strinjati, za 70 %, za 50 % in za druge ugodne stvari, da je prišlo, bomo rekli do ZPIZ-2O s takimi ugodnostmi. 24, ki že začnejo veljati, tisti neugodne, razen usklajevanja, ki smo pa rekli, da je kompenzirano z božičnico oz. z letnim zimskim dodatkom. Lahko samo upamo, da ljudje ne bodo nasedli populističnim izjavam, neresničnim izjavam in da bodo dejansko verjeli stroki. Pa naj si potem izračuna … Pa upam, da ne bo šel kdo podpisat, ki bi mu šla pokojnina s 490 na 610, pa bi verjel, kako se za njega ne bo nič spremenilo in bi bil ob 1440 evrov na letni ravni. Ne vidim, kje imajo obraz, da bi te ugodnosti preprečili za toliko število tistih, ki imajo najnižje pokojnine.

Voditeljica: Ja, za tiste, ki nas spremljajo, saj tega nisva niti povedala na začetku – zakon še ni v veljavi, saj trenutno poteka zbiranje podpisov za morebitni referendum in mora Delavska koalicija zbrati 40.000 overjenih podpisov. In potem se razpiše še referendum.

Gost: Upam, da ga ne bo in zato sem jaz večkrat danes rekel – upam, da bo uveljavljen…

Voditeljica: … da bo prevladal razum. Za konec vprašanje, ki je verjetno najpogostejše za vse tiste, ki se nameravajo v teh mesecih upokojiti. Večkrat ste že povedali, kdaj se bolj splača: konec tega leta ali 1. 1. 2026.

Gost: V naslednjem letu. Ni treba 1. 1., lahko čim dlje. Zdaj pa poglejmo: tisti, ki se bodo naslednje leto upokojili namesto letošnjega leta, ker bo ugodno ugodnejše, nekje 2, 5 %. Če bo začela veljati ta reforma, se pravi, ZPIZ-2O, bodo imeli tudi ugodnejše vrednotenje za otroke, tudi odmera bo ugodnejša. Tako da upam, da bodo posebej tisti, ki imajo otroke ali pa služili, so služili vojaški rok deležni, ne samo ugodnejše upokojitve in višje pokojnine zaradi tega, ker je ugodnejše upokojitev po sedanjem zakonu naslednje leto, ampak tudi zaradi uveljavitve nove. Moram pa še tukaj povedat … Ko smo gledali – ker je vedno varovalka, če izpolniš pogoje do konca leta, upokojiš po teh pogojih kadar koli – ta varovalka je bila vedno za to tu, ker so po novih pogojih bile vedno slabše upokojitve in višine. Tukaj trenutno – ne bom rekel, da ga ne bomo našli - ne najdemo primera, ki ne bi bil v letu 2026 oz. po novem vsaj enako ali pa v več primerih ugodnejši, kot je po sedaj veljavnem zakonu. To pa tudi nekaj pove.

Voditeljica: Torej, dlje kot bodo delali v letu 2026, boljše jim bo.

Gost: Kdor je še pri močeh, pa da nima še drugih zadolžitev, da ga žena in mož čaka, da bosta vse skupaj preživela, da ne bo en doma… in pa to, ali vnuki čakajo, da jih stari starši čuvajo, pa da se dobro počutijo, je tudi ta aktivnost smiselna čim dlje, kar bo tudi višja pokojnina. Pa bomo rekli: ob plači je tudi 40 % prva 3 leta, potem 20 %, pa v povprečju je plača višja kot pokojnina.

Voditeljica: Odlično. Upam, da se čim več takšnih sodelavcev najde. Hvala lepa gospod Papež, da ste bili z nami. Bilo je zelo zanimivo in veliko novega ste povedali.

Gost: Hvala. Tudi vam in vse dobro.

Voditeljica: S tem smo zaključili današnji podkast. Hvala in nasvidenje. 

[ENGLISH VERSION]

Government Podcast GOVSI

Host Petra Bezjak Cirman: Dear viewers and listeners, welcome to the 29th episode of the GOVSI podcast, which we are preparing at the Government Office for Communications of the Republic of Slovenia. I am Petra Bezjak Cirman with you and I invite you to follow our podcast on all podcast platforms. In this podcast, we will focus on the pension reform, which was approved by the National Assembly in September. The discussions surrounding the adoption of the pension reform are varied, as pensions mean guaranteed financial security for us after the end of our working life. We have already discussed this topic with the State Secretary at the Ministry of Labour, Igor Feketija, and today we invited the Director General of the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute of Slovenia, Marjan Papež, as a guest. Good afternoon and welcome.

Guest Marijan Papež: Thank you. 

Host: Mr. Papež, you were a logical choice for the invitation, as you are the director of one of the four main public finance funds, i.e. pension fund, which you have been managing for 20 years, since 2005, and the balance or sustainability of the pension fund was one of the reasons for the recently adopted pension reform. Before we get to this serious topic and issues related to the pension reform, I would like to know some details about your work at the Institute. As I already mentioned, you have been managing it for 20 years, which is a special achievement, especially if we are talking about such an important institution as the ZPIZ, which is responsible for payments to more than 650,000 pensioners from mandatory insurance. What motivated you to decide to work in this field? 

Guest: To be honest, I did not expect to work in this field. Even when I had a course on Social Security at the Faculty of Law, it was not my favourite. But I was a scholarship holder at the Institute. And even though I was a scholarship holder of the Institute and got a job, I did not expect that he would receive his pension at the Institute for Pension and Disability Insurance (ZPIZ). Looking back now, did I do the right thing? I must say that it was a dynamic job, professionally and organizationally and to some extent exposed. In the meantime, I also changed my place of residence, moving from Ljubljana to Maribor, which is rare for a Ljubljana resident, and time flies. There were a lot of challenges, and I am happy that the reform is also ahead of us, and I hope that the Institute will successfully implement it. It will successfully implement it, but I hope that it will come to life.

Host: We will say more about this later. Probably running a pension fund means a special mission, because our pensions are based on a solidarity system. How has your understanding of solidarity changed over all these years?

Guest: Yes, perhaps at certain times I have even said, and still do now, that there is even too much solidarity in the system itself. That social security policy should be resolved outside the system. But if I just mention that ZPIZ-2, where 13,000 widows - mainly widows - have widow's pensions, guaranteed widow's pensions, what we have achieved in the last two years, an average of €100 higher monthly pensions, I fought for 7 years to make this happen. That is, it would be difficult for someone to accuse me of not being socially oriented. There are many social correctives in the system itself, the most important being the assessment from the lowest pension base.

So, a balance needs to be found between the contributions paid for those who did not have the opportunity to have higher salaries, and a social corrective that ensures a secure livelihood in old age.

Host: Whenever there is a pension reform, it is always said that it is unpopular because it encroaches on some already acquired rights and there is a lot of pressure. I remember one government that had to end its mandate early also because of the changes it had already wanted to introduce in the pension field. How do you deal with the pressure? How do you experience these unpopular decisions?

Guest: Look, this is now. We are primarily the implementers, no. We must be aware, even if I don't like something, but I would have done it differently: when the law is passed, you have to respect it. If you are not capable of that, then you must leave. Because the law is a procedure. Even what I think, even when I explain it, is not always all that is salutary, there can be different opinions. And that is important. If you are aware of this, then it is different. But I am also glad that the Institute is an institution that is also considered professionally, especially from the implementation spectrum, as well as what solutions are implemented, as we propose or. initiate, because the Institute is not the proposer.

Host: What has changed in this area in these twenty years? I think you took over the leadership at the time of Anton Rop's pension reform.

Guest: Yes, it had already been in existence for 6 years at that time. That was an ugly reform regarding the number of pensions. Just when I was thinking, I would say: if there was one that was worth a referendum, it was actually the one because it interfered with the amount. That is, the pensions of new pensioners and of all those who had already retired were reduced. When I took office in April 2005, it was fortunate that we signed an agreement with the government in June, that is, an agreement to assume the debt from the past. And since 1 July 2005, the Institute has been operating with balanced income and expenses. Which means that it was not necessary to take out loans, which was necessary a decade before. And the statutory financing is very well regulated: what is not from contributions is from the state budget. But clearly this is more difficult: that the economy is in a good situation, which means that the pension fund is also in good shape and that as little funds as possible are provided from the budget and as much as possible from contributions. This is always well ensured in terms of financing. I did not have the worries that people think, that when I went to bed in the evening, I was thinking about whether there would be money or not. There was no question here that some government or the Minister of Finance would allow funds not to be provided and all benefits not to be paid on the last working day of the month.

Host: Now, according to Eurostat data from August this year, we also have the lowest unemployment rate in the European Union in Slovenia. So, we have the most employed people, around a million, right?

Guest: Yes, maybe we even have too few unemployed people, because the labour market would still... Especially construction, tourism and elsewhere... IT field, to have these I think that if we have had somewhere close to a million in the last three years, that we have reached a ceiling somewhere. Especially because there is no staff and enough that we would probably need up to 1,050,000 of them, which is basically what we need. But we already have around 170,000 foreign workers.

Host: And that is good, you mentioned somewhere, for the pension fund?

Guest: Yes, the more insured persons, the better.

Host: So, to understand the benefits of the pension reform, we first need to understand how our pension system works. I already mentioned that it is solidarity-based. How would you describe it in a few sentences? 

Guest: I wouldn't say it is solidarity-based. That is, the pension reflects the contributions paid, it is an economic category, with elements of solidarity. It is a pay-as-you-go system. That is, those who are retired, those who are active, pay for those who are retired. Those who are retired used to pay for those who were retired at the time. This works. Of course, there are complaints that fewer and fewer insured persons are paying for one pensioner. If I go back 50 years... 50 years ago, there were less than 200,000 pensioners, there were around 600,000 insured persons. Now we have over 650,000 pensioners, and 1,000,000 insured persons. The ratio was 1:3.5 then, now it's 1:1.55. If someone were to say, yes, well, it would be 1:3. The labour market has also changed. There was no digitalization then. So, we can't use the same denominator now. What's important? That there are as many insured persons as possible, and that the salaries that workers have are as high as possible, because then there is as much surplus contribution as possible. Which means that jobs where the added value is high, those are the best.

Host: Sometimes I almost fight with my parents at home when my father likes to say, I earned my pension, and I say – no, I'm paying it for you now.

Guest: But he earned it, because he was paying it back then.

Host: Yes, but it seems to me that maybe the retirees haven't yet understood where this money comes from, that they used to pay for their mother and father, and now we pay for them.

Guest: Because they... Years ago, journalists asked young people if they would pay for those who are retired, and they said they would rather not. But if they were asked if they would pay for their parents, but for their grandparents, the answer would be yes. So, it depends on which perspective we look at it from.

Host: So, I also agree with this approach. Maybe that's why the second pillar never came into being in Slovenia?

Guest: No, the second pillar, there was even the idea of ​​individual accounts. That was in 2009, so that there would be a zero pillar, and then the NDC system and then the pillar of virtual accounts. That means it's like recording how much you contributed. If we look, even now we have all the data on how much someone had gross salary, how much they contributed and from that we calculate the pension. But there would be no need to invest funds, which would not be reasonable. But they forgot about those NDC, that is, the system of virtual accounts... The word 'virtual' is a bit strange, as well as the zero pillar, when everyone would get the same, say €300, and the rest would be how much you paid in. This means that it would be significantly worse for those with lower pensions. But they forgot a few things about how to arrange disability insurance, and family and widow's pensions, where more than a billion funds are involved. At that time, I was opposed as a minister, when Minister Svetlik wanted to promote it, and all the unions were adamant. This does not mean that we are against the second pillar, if it were mandatory. But not at the expense of the first pillar, not at the expense of the first pillar. And I am glad that this reform gave such importance to the first pillar and that there was never any question of this first pillar becoming impoverished. Because pensions from the first pillar, which are guaranteed by the state, also mean ensuring social security in the third period of life.

Host: Certain economists have pointed out that nothing has been done in ​​the second pillar?

Guest: Look, more could have been done, I agree. And to a certain extent, it should have been done, but the question is, where would someone say... That is, employers were not in favour of compulsory insurance and paying a certain contribution rate. Let's say, at the beginning 1 percentage point, then 2, then a maximum of 3 and the same goes for employers. So, it didn't happen. Economists have different, even different, tendencies. They are not so in favour of the first pillar, at least certain young people think that they would achieve significantly more with the second pillar. But I disagree with that.

Host: You yourself have listed some of the reforms that were implemented and adopted during your period. What was the main purpose of these reforms? I will just mention one statistic, namely, today every 5th inhabitant is older than 65, in 35 years it will be every 3. So, it seems that we will contribute more and more to the pension fund, because there will be more and more retirees, because we live longer. 

Guest: That's right and that's normal. Now also If I go back to 1975, when the share in the population structure - and there were fewer of them, around one million 800,000 in Slovenia - the share was 11%, last year it was a good 30% - the share of older retirees in the population. That is, but we have to ensure that there will be additional resources. There was sometimes talk of a demographic reserve fund, we were 10 years late there. We can say. In a way, Kapitalska družba is a small part of the demographic fund, but it is important that we have greater added value for the work goal. If robots do the work for us, we will have to tax or "contribute" to the robots to accumulate enough funds. I believe in the pension system, which is an achievement of civilization. 15 years ago, I was even on the front page when I stated that the country would collapse sooner than the pension system. That is why adjustments and reforms are necessary. We cannot stand still, because then it could happen that we would suddenly become poor pensioners.

Host: This reform, like the previous ones, was also created in agreement with the Economic and Social Council, that is, also with the employers, and most unions agree with it, and you said about it that it is "the least unfavourable reform so far, in quotes even a friendly reform"?

Guest: It is true, it is true. I started with the reforms in 1992. ZPIZ-1, which was ugly, ZPIZ-2, which was made during the crisis, but still the percentage of contributions fell. The trend was not only the stability of the system, the treasury, but also a decent pension. ZPIZ-1 only relied on the stability of the system or. treasury. Here, however, this reform goes more towards a more decent pension. I avoid the terms 'decent' a little, but 'welfare', because 'decent' is a different concept. It may be 1000 euros decent for someone, but 2000 euros will not be for someone. It depends on what jobs they worked in. But if we say, 'more decent', it means that they will be higher than the current ones and here... Here, that's right, I'll simply say... I would say mission impossible, when the starting points were, and when the White Paper was, that we will get such a favourable reform for more decent pensions, especially for those who have the lowest pensions. even retroactively. I can safely say that this is the least unfavourable, I don't need to use quotation marks, but it is favourable because it only brings certain things, so that we can say that the reform is... Because when we hear the word 'reform', it means that we expect that everything will get worse. It is not getting worse, but adjustments are needed that could be more unfavourable than they are, but it brings a kind of... Here I have written on two pages 14 matters that already in 2026 bring and some and for current retirees and for new retirees. And this is not temporary, but permanent, if it comes into force, benefits that affect the amount of the pension.

Host: List some…

Guest: Christmas bonus, which is supposed to be €150 this year, then it would rise to €250, which means that over 650,000 pensioners will receive it, 11,000 disabled people. Then, disability pensions of €410 instead of €490 - €610. That is €120 per month, on an annual basis 1,440 euros. That is like getting almost three pensions and there are 9 thousand of them. There are another 14 thousand who are between 600, 490 and 610, who would also get more, and these 490 affects 60, these 50% that is raised, that is 22% and applies immediately. It also affects the assessment of widow's, family, and the lowest benefits from disability insurance. Which means around 50 thousand of those with the lowest incomes would get more, they would be entitled to it from 1. 1. 2026. So, when Delavska koalicija, when it says that those with the lowest pensions are the least taken care of... Far from it. So even when we were in the Studio at 5 pm, and when we were on Dobro jutro, I told them that I would expect them with banners in support of this reform, but not to collect signatures. It's a shame that they are playing with such a favourable reform. We will no longer get such a favourable reform for the people.

Host: If I'm not mistaken... Most central trade union, so 6, signed it and one did not. This is also a telling piece of information.

Guest: And because you know what? The unions were excellent negotiators. They had an excellent team and achieved more than anyone would have expected. If we say the percentage of 70, then 50%, and then the compensation measures... Maybe, if we have time, we'll touch on it again to say what other things are very important in this reform.

Host: I mean, before we get to these issues, there's one more thing they didn't. Thank you. When the Economic and Social Council gave the green light to this pension reform, Minister Mesec said that this is not the kind of reform that was in France, where, if we remember, people took to the streets and protested en masse. And even today, France is having problems because of this pension reform. We would probably agree with his analogy, wouldn't we?

Guest: Yes, an agreement. That was important. An agreement between social partners. The negotiations were not easy, no, but in the end, they came to an agreement and an excellent result was achieved. But everyone would have lost if there had been no agreement, that is, for the sustainability of the system and for more decent pensions.

Host: Then let's get to the specifics of the pension reform. What does the gradual increase in the retirement age to 62 or 67 mean? Who will work longer?

Guest: The important message of this reform is that the conditions will remain the same for two years. Something we didn't know about the previous reforms: it was adopted in December, we went live in January, the conditions were changing... Yes, those who joined the insurance between the ages of 20 and 22 will then work more. But the interpretation and explanation are wrong when they say: they will work 2 years more. Some nothing more. For those who entered the insurance at 22 and joined by the age of 25, nothing will change for them. For someone who entered the insurance at 21, they will have to work one year more in 2035. Already now, those who entered the insurance between the ages of 15 and 20 must work for more than 40 years. We know that very few of those who entered the insurance at 15, 16, 17, 18, which means that no more of them will retire with more than 40 years of pensionable service, because this, let's say, entry into the insurance will also be automatically moved. Which means: if there were no increase in the age limit, then we really could not talk about reform, in that sense that it is something worse, but necessary. From 65 to 67, it will also be raised gradually for those who will not have completed 40 years of pensionable service by the age of 65 and 67. This is already an important message, which is far from what was envisaged in the White Paper, when the minimum was that the period would be raised to 42 years. And the law that was defeated in the referendum in 2010 included 42 years of pensionable service. Here it remains 40. But, as we said: some will work longer, just as they already do now. But it is carried over into this law: that even though they will not reach old age, they will have already reached 40 years of pensionable service without any additional purchases, that at the end of the pensionable service in 2034, that the period over 40 will be valued more favourably. Example: someone who now had to work 2 years more to reach old age, this period was valued at 2x1.36 is 2.72. Now it will be valued at 2 times 3, that is, 6 percentage points against 2.72. That is about 5% higher pension. In other words, they looked wherever possible to bring in something more favourable. In the end, almost all of us fell into the trap of looking inward, including me, looking for something else that would be favourable for the level of pensions. Therefore, I can safely say: with rare exceptions, pensions will be higher.

Host: That's exactly what the critics are saying, but not that those who start working so early, I mean those who entered the labour market are already tired, but not the most exhausted. They probably conclude that these are some lower-level jobs where you physically work, not that they will have to work for a long time.

Guest: But look, this is already happening. Someone who entered insurance between the ages of 15 and 20 must work more. A man who entered insurance at the age of 15 must work until the age of 43, a woman 42. This is already in effect. But there is also an institute in the Labor Market Regulation Act, 80-90-100. That is, it is possible that if he does not meet the conditions but is already 58 years old or has 35 years of pensionable service (58 will gradually go to 60 by 2035), he can agree with his employer to work a quarter less. In other words, it is an important measure. Someone who is health-impaired can get a part-time job from disability insurance, full-time work in another suitable job with restrictions, or even retire on disability. So, there are many of these options. I say again: a maximum of 2 years longer will have to be worked only from 2035 and not for everyone, only for some who joined the insurance at the age of 20. or 65 will not be 40 yet.

Host: You mentioned the new features for older workers. I think that this will come into effect on 1 January 2026.

Guest: That's right. In any case, yes.

Host: Then you already mentioned somewhere: even if it was longer, you will have a better pension. What does this mean, an increase in the pension base? What all happens in this?

Guest: Now: you work longer, you have a higher pension calculation rate. If you are over 40, have pension purchased service years, in 3 years of insurance you can get a maximum of 9 percentage points, I will say the most, 9 percentage points, which means a 14% higher pension. The most fruitful years are when you have 40 years of pension purchased service years, and now, old age, because you already have 40% of the pension, and you are still receiving a pension, the pension increases. The extension of the reference period is what, on average, means lower pensions. This is what we have to say. In other words: more unfavourable than the reform, which increases the age, is the extension of the reference period, which on average increases pensions, but - for whom does it not directly increase them? A good third of 35% of old-age pensioners have, already, every year for the last three years, had a pension assessment from the lowest pension base. If we convert this further for new ones, it means that it doesn't matter whether they have a 24-year average or if they had 40 minus 5 years, they would have from the lowest. Which means that the extension has no effect on them. The extension has no effect on those who will also have a later assessment from the highest pension base. It does not affect anything, but there are few of them. Disabled pensioners: two thirds of those have the lowest, that is, for 2/3 of disabled pensioners, if we translate, this will have no effect. So, what else was there to look for? Those certain years, the time of unemployment, when the benefit is lower, mothers, when they work part-time under the Parental Care Act, will be valued more favourably: as if the mothers had worked all the time, it will be recalculated for the basis. For unemployment, the salary from the year before they became unemployed and received the benefit will be taken. Student, high school work will not be considered in the calculation of the pension base and the disability pension assessment and consequently also for the benefit, will not be taken into account if it is less than 6 months. Here is already a good compensation, but it will not come into effect on 1. 1. 2028, when the reference period would be extended, but already in 2026. Not already in 26. But the pension calculation rate is not. The pension calculation rate is such compensation that except for those who did not have really very low, high, low salaries. Maybe someone was on s. p., but it went to high... And again, some speculate, and then they say, let's go, when we go to s. p., they pay from the lowest, because they think - because we have 24 years. The State Secretary clarified this nicely, also with numbers, but also the basic thing: it is not fair that someone who pays more gets the same pension or someone who pays less, who gets even higher than someone, that is, 40 minus 5. We also did some calculations: there is no one with these 70% who would have a lower pension. In fact, it increases for them. Those who will have a contribution from the lowest, would probably like this to apply next year, the contribution percentage and 40 minus 5, because their pension would directly increase by 10%. If one of these people worked for another 3 years, he would already have reached – now he has 781 euros, but then he would already have reached 79 percent, the pension calculation rate is 79, and he would already have reached above the minimum wage, somewhere around 950 euros. That is why we emphasize that those with the lowest pensions are the most well-provided for.

Host: Igor Feketija also explained this in our podcast.

Guest: That's right, that's right.

Host: He also had the same question as you: young people. They always say, you yourself told an anecdote about young people, that they won't live to see their pensions. What does this reform mean for young people?

Guest: Look, I got a job at the pension fund, and I said - 40 years is so far away that I won't experience this. A colleague is 50 years old, and I looked at her, what is she still doing at work. But that is the perception of young people. No. And that is nothing to be blamed for. But what happened on 1. 2. 2015, when it was introduced that the period is recognized, that contributions are paid and the period for school and student work is recognized. It is very important here that we get over 80 million into the treasury, so that young people have the period. No, that is the 2 months and 18 days, last year on average over 100,000 were included. But this awareness that someone pays for half a year has a period of one year, 2 years, 3 years, and young people no longer care what will happen to this system, into which they have already paid something. And the awareness is different than it used to be. They did a survey, I think the E-student service did a survey, and the fourth most important thing among young people was what the pension will be. This is important for young people. And the important message of this reform is that the foundation is being established or upgraded for more decent pensions in the future. Young people are aware that they will experience 1 or 2 more reforms - and it may not be as good, in my opinion - that pensions may be reduced even more. But if we had such a good foundation now, then we could say, yes, this is not worth it. Now the first pillar is so stable, and I hope that this reform will come to life that young people have an extremely good future. Better than we did when we experienced ZPIZ-1, when there was an intervention in the pension, old-age and others as well, a gross intervention, which was then corrected by ZPIZ-2, ZPIZ-2G and especially this system for the future and for some also for the past.

Host: So, even this sentence that there will be no more pensions for them does not hold up.

Guest: No, look, time passes quickly and there is nothing wrong if young people have a clear focus on getting a job, starting a family, getting an apartment, being able to... That is the perception from the beginning, and then time passes quickly... and that is why I say it is also good to think about additional insurance. That is, even if you invest less, it is still different, but you invest them for 30, 40 years or 10, 20 years. So, we also need to think from this perspective, not only about mandatory, but also about additional insurance.

Host: Would you like to highlight anything else from this pension reform?

Guest: Yes. Regarding children, that is, the pension calculation rate for children. It was even adopted. I say 'even' because this usually does not happen if it is an amendment by the opposition. Now we have a pension calculation rate for a maximum of 3 children, now there is no limit. The pension calculation rate for children instead of 1.36 will be immediately from January 1, if it comes into force. So that the pension calculation rate for military service will be 1.6. Then we must also say that the first year of a child's age has now been recognized as a possible reduction or pension calculation rate. This is for care in the first year of a child's age. That has now been dropped. This is regulated for every child born or adopted. Some new disability insurance benefits will be increased to between 33 and 75%. We have already said about widows' benefits. It is important, that is, that in January they would be increased from 70 to 75, that is 7.1%, and then from 70 to 80. That is 14% higher pension. There are a lot of these things that are for the benefit of people. The lowest pensions, which 8,000 people receive, will be increased from 29.5 to 30%. Some will say, that is half a percentage point, that is nothing compared to the lowest pension base. But that means 150 euros, 150 euros a year, which is not insignificant for someone who has 350 euros. But as we said - here 150, and then the Christmas bonus or winter bonus. So, there is really a lot of this, and it would be a shame not to… The guaranteed disability old-age pension is also being increased, albeit slightly, but also €36 more. No pension harmonisation. Without extending the operating period, the change, the harmonisation of pensions, I would hardly call it a reform – then it would be pointless to work on it, not just burden the treasury. With these new benefits, but also with the agreement with pensioners, it was… with ZDUS, the Union of Pensioners, it was agreed to extend the period where 50:50 would be 9 years, and only in 2045 it should be 20:80. But there are safeguards that every 5 years the Economic and Social Council meets and finds out what this different method of harmonisation means for the amount of pensions.

And if we look back: with ZPIZ2 it was, whether it would be 70-30 or 60-40. In the end, 60-40 was adopted, but for 3 years pensions were not adjusted. When the crisis comes, they will intervene in the adjustment of pensions. Now if we compare... Those who have lower pensions have repeatedly said why they are not adjusted so that we all get the same amount? No, I do not agree with that. In other words, the pension must reflect the contributions paid and maintain its value. If we look at slightly worse pensions and adjustment, for example, next year's 0.5% compared to the Christmas bonus: 0.5% means €30 per year for those who have a €500 pension. The Christmas bonus is supposed to be €170. Which means that in fact for someone who has €3,000, this 0.5% would mean €180. Only that one would have less, but for the rest, the Christmas bonus, which was introduced with the aim of compensating, worsening the assessment, harmonizing pensions for these interventions for those who are already retired, far surpasses it, not only compensates.

So, when I look at it and think like this, I don't see the logic of Delavska koalicija, where do they have that interest to think that this reform is not good. And to only pick the cream that is now in the law and leave out those 3 things, but that's not how the pension system is adapting, which, as we said, needs adjustments for sustainability. You can't just say this much and that much will be, but you won't know where it will be transferred from. They mainly complain about the fact that the employer contribution rate has not increased. It didn't surprise me that it has not increased. Because if I had to announce this before the negotiations, I would say that it will remain the same. A higher contribution rate does not mean a cent higher or lower for the pension. Of course, if it were equalized from 24 - 35 in half, it would be 10, it would be 12.75 for both. This would mean that net wages would be higher - which I also agree with - but what would be dangerous when the employer had to raise gross wages? I would say, aha, I will not raise gross wages, because the employee already received a net wage from the lower contribution rate of theirs. And what would that mean? That gross wages would not go up and the pension fund would receive fewer contributions. But this is not negligible: around 280 million is one percentage point of the contribution rate for employers. Let's say, if it were 3, it would already be 900 million, which is not negligible for the burden on employers, who are not the ones who said no a priori.

They said, on condition that there are compensatory measures on the other side. When some say, but the employers did not contribute anything… They contributed to the agreement. They also had to agree, for 70%, for 50% and for other favourable things, so that it came, to ZPIZ-2O with such benefits. 24, which are already coming into force, the unfavourable ones, except for the coordination, which we said is compensated with a Christmas bonus or an annual winter bonus. We can only hope that people will not fall for populist statements, untrue statements and that they will believe the profession. Let them do the math then… I hope that no one will sign, whose pension would go from 490 to 610 but would believe that nothing would change for them and that they would be at 1440 euros annually. I do not see where they have the face to prevent these benefits for so many of those who have the lowest pensions.

Host: Yes, for those of you who are following us, because we didn't even say this at the beginning - the law is not yet in force, because signatures are currently being collected for a possible referendum and Delavska koalicija must collect 40,000 certified signatures. And then a referendum will be called.

Guest: I hope there won't be one, and that's why I've said it several times today - I hope it will be implemented...

Host: ... so that reason will prevail. Finally, a question that is probably the most common for all those who plan to retire in these months. You have already said several times when it is more worthwhile: the end of this year or 1. 1. 2026.

Guest: In the next year. It doesn't have to be 1. 1., it can be as far in advance as possible. Now let's look those who will retire next year instead of this year, because it will be more favourable, somewhere around 2. 5%. If this reform, that is, ZPIZ-2O, comes into force, they will also have a more favourable assessment for children, the assessment will also be more favourable. So, I hope that those who have children or have served, have served military service will benefit, not only from more favourable retirement and higher pensions because retirement under the current law is more favourable next year, but also because of the new law being implemented. But I have to say here... When we looked - because there is always a safeguard, if you meet the conditions by the end of the year, you can retire under these conditions at any time - this safeguard was always there for this, because under the new conditions there were always worse retirements and amounts. Here now - I will not say that we will not find one - we do not find a case that would not be in 2026 or. according to the new law at least the same or in many cases more favourable than under the current law. And that also says something.

Host: So, the longer they work in 2026, the better it will be for them.

Guest: Anyone who is still able, who has no other obligations, who has a wife and husband waiting for him, who will survive everything together, who will not be alone at home... and whether the grandchildren are waiting for their grandparents to look after them, who will feel good, this activity also makes sense for as long as possible, which will also result in a higher pension. Let's say: in addition to the salary, there is also 40% for the first 3 years, then 20%, and on average the salary is higher than the pension.

Host: Excellent. I hope that as many such colleagues as possible can be found. Thank you very much, Mr. Pope, for being with us. It was very interesting, and you told us a lot of new things.

Guest: Thank you. And all the best to you too.

Host: This concludes today's podcast. Thank you and goodbye.