Forecast of Pension Growth in 2023

At present, there are three main retirement groups in China. The first category is civil servants and public institutions, and the "dual track system" is implemented with enterprise retirees. Their pension is twice that of enterprise retirees, about 6000 yuan. The second category is enterprise retirees, and the national average pension level is around 3,000 yuan. The third category is retirees of urban and rural residents, and the national average pension is only 188 yuan.

Social security experts predict that the pension increase will drop to about 3.5% in 2023. Many retired workers said that pensions will be raised by 3.5% in 2023. According to the "trinity" model of quota, linkage and inclination, it will still appear-the higher the pension, the more it will rise, and the lower the pension, the less it will rise. The gap between the rich and the poor will not narrow, but will get bigger and bigger, which runs counter to the direction of "common prosperity".

Therefore, starting from the concept of "common prosperity" and reflecting the initial intention of helping the weak and helping the poor, the pension increase in 2023 should be "graded" according to the income level: 20% below 3,000 yuan, 10% below 3,000-4,000 yuan, and 5% above 4,000-5,000 yuan.

The appeal of retired workers makes many social security experts feel uncomfortable! Many social security experts are economists who have returned from studying abroad. Their minds are full of market economy, suspicion of poverty and love of wealth, and unfairness. Their objections are always these three reasons:

Article 1: It is against the market economy law of "pay more, get more, and pay more for a long time" to let the low income increase more and the high income increase less.

Article 2: it is unfair to high-income groups to let low-income people rise much. If high-income social security contributions are high, pensions should be increased. People with low pension levels have little historical contribution. Why do they want to increase their money?

Article 3: At present, the payment base of endowment insurance is 60%-300% of the average social wage. People with high wages pay more, and it is natural that they should increase their pensions after retirement. If people with low contributions are asked to increase their pensions, people with high wages are not willing to pay more.

The opposition of social security experts seems reasonable from the current market economy system. However, from the bottom logic analysis, the positioning of social security experts is wrong, which violates the initial intention and mission, and the conclusion cannot be correct. According to social security experts, milk that the rich can't drink should be thrown away, and the poor should starve to death.

Judging from the initial intention and mission of the country, if a large number of retired old workers with historical contributions in a society only have a pension of one or two thousand yuan, they can't even afford vegetables and pork. Where is "common prosperity"? Who ate the conscience of social security experts?

PS: Please also ask relevant departments to listen to the voices of retired old workers:

1 The premise of social security is security, not the market.

No matter which country, welfare is welfare, social security is social security, and market is market. For example, in some developed countries, the streets are full of vagrants, and even if they eat relief, they don't work, which shows that the social security system is good. Pension is social security and the last line of defense for retirees. They should stick to the bottom line of social security, instead of taking the road of marketization and drawing lessons from the marketization of education and medical care.

The reason why we dare not raise such a high proportion is because the social security fund has no money.

Dare not give more to low-income groups, in the final analysis, because pension funds have no money. The main income source of pension funds is the contributions of employees, which is far from enough. For example, the United States has only 330 million people, and the pension scale is150% of GDP; China has a population of1400 million, and the pension scale is 10% of GDP. We should reflect on the lack of money in pension funds.

3 We should consider the historical contribution of groups with low pensions.

If social security experts say that their pension level is low because they have no previous skills, low diplomas, low wages and low contributions. Such people can't see history, only money, only inequality in their eyes and no empathy in their hearts. The vested interests of high-income groups are also based on the "sacrifice" interests of the older generation of industrial workers. At that time, poverty and poverty were the selfless dedication and achievements of the older generation of industrial workers. Today's high-income groups eat the dividend of the "selfless dedication" of the older generation of retired workers.

It does not harm the interests of vested interest groups and is conducive to promoting common prosperity.

Retirees with pensions below 4,000 yuan are mostly old workers who have supported the construction of state-owned enterprises, frontier construction and heavy industry production. They practice "low wages" when they are young, catch up with laid-off workers in middle age, and receive low pensions when they are old. Therefore, giving more pensions to low-income groups is to make up for what history owes them, without harming the interests of high-income groups, because high-income groups have already received double dividends-high wages at work and high pensions after retirement.