The pension gap has been controversial
In old age, people live their whole lives, and they live their lives in the old age. Working hard for decades, and after retirement, waiting for the money to arrive on time every month, to eat, to spend the day, and to live in peace and security。
Over the years, our national pension has been increased for many years, the treatment of the majority of retired older persons has been increasing year by year, and the overall livelihood security of older groups has been improving. In reality, however, there is a gap in pensions between retirees, a matter that has been the hotbed of discussion since the after-dinner meal. On the internet and in real life, the feelings of retired older persons are often heard, as is the fact that they have been working their entire lives, with a pension of 45,000 per month, and a number of corporate retirees with only one or two thousand per month, leaving many of them feeling unbalanced。
It is precisely because of the prevailing reality in society that a large number of delegates, during the two sessions, put forward proposals that take into account the real needs of the general public and expressed the idea that hundreds of millions of retired older persons are hiding in their hearts. Of course, we need to look objectively at the fact that the gap in pensions does not come out of empty space, and that the underlying and past employment systems, the years of contributions, the base of contributions and the types of participation cannot be judged in a single way. Today, let us really talk about the pension gap, take a rational look at the reality, and look at what the delegates have suggested for the better。
In life, many old people meet and talk about pensions. Many of the older gays who retired from the industry were concerned that they worked at the factory when they were young, came home early and late, worked overtime, worked hard throughout their lives, paid pension insurance for decades, and received a modest pension after retirement. In view of the fact that some of the employees of the institutions have the same length of service, the monthly pension is considerably higher。
There are also groups of retired urban and rural residents, most of whom are rural elders, urban residents who are not covered by social security, many of whom are young and do not have a regular job. They pay contributions ranging from hundreds to thousands per year, depending on the level of pension insurance, which is lower. The difference is even more marked when compared to the employee's pension。
It is a very normal mind that many ordinary people have thoughts that are different in their old age, which is also dedicated to society. But we have to make clear that pensions are not simply “the same job, the same money”. The system of old-age pension insurance in force in the country is based on the core principle of overpayment and overpayment, a rule that has been established since its inception。
In short, the higher the base of contributions to old-age insurance at work, the longer the years of accumulated contributions, the more money is accumulated in the personal account, and the higher the amount calculated when retirement pensions are accounted for. Prior to the reform of the old-age pension insurance system in institutional establishments, the old-age pension insurance system had been introduced, and in october 2014 the formal harmonization of the old-age insurance system in institutional establishments had been reformed. After the reform, the historical legacy of the old and new system will slowly be reduced, except that the transition to the system will take time and will not be completely eliminated overnight。
Pension insurance for urban and rural residents and employee pension insurance are themselves two distinct systems of participation. Pension insurance contributions are paid by individuals on their own initiative, by the government, at a low cost and for ordinary people who do not have a fixed job; workers ' pension insurance, where there is a work unit, covers large contributions, while individuals bear only a small portion of the contributions, and the overall contribution costs are high. The difference in input and the difference in final treatment is also an objective reality in the design of the system。
In reality, a large number of delegates have paid attention to the needs of the population at large and have submitted recommendations to the two national conferences, which are not based on imagination, mostly from visits and studies at the grass-roots level, to gather the true voices of the thousands of ordinary retired people. Many delegates made recommendations in the context of the desire of the population to close the gap and to take full account of the country's financial affordability, taking into account equity and real viability。
It was suggested that the preference for enterprise retirees ' pensions should be further intensified. At the time of the annual increase in pensions, it had now been implemented in favour of older, hard-working and remote areas, and a number of delegates had suggested that, at the time of the annual transfer, priority should continue to be given to the retirement groups of enterprises with low pensions. In short, the increase in the number of low-pension pensioners has been proportionately more, the increase in the number of high-pension pensioners has been modest, and, by year-to-year adjustments, the difference in treatment has been slowly reversed, rather than a direct one-size-fits-all reduction of pensions for high-paying groups。
This idea is also consistent with that of most regular retired workers. Many older persons do not want to reduce the high pension entitlements, and do not want to deprive others of the security they deserve, more so that their pensions will grow faster and that the low-income retirement groups will have a better day. The benefits of pensions are already in hand and it is not realistic to reduce them easily, and it is a more prudent way to adjust them in a tilted way through the annual upward adjustment process。
Concern was also expressed about the low level of pensions for urban and rural residents. The older generation of the country, which had limited access to old-age pension insurance, had been able to grow land for the rest of their lives and lay the foundations for social development. A number of representatives recommended a steady increase in the basic pension standard for urban and rural residents, an increase in financial subsidies and a gradual increase in the old-age income in rural areas。
It is important to know that the basic pension standard is not uniform across the country's provinces, that it is higher in the economically developed regions and that in some of the provinces of the economy, the level of the basic pension is consistently lower. The representatives called for increased central fiscal transfers to help economically disadvantaged regions raise pensions and reduce the gap between provinces with regard to old-age benefits, so that rural older persons could also benefit from the dividends of social development。
In addition, it was suggested that the pension insurance system be improved and that institutional barriers be further addressed. In practice, there are a number of flexible workers, who work part-time, do small businesses and pay their own contributions to the employee's pension insurance, which are under considerable pressure. The number of flexible employment groups has increased every year, and these groups are fully responsible for unit and individual contributions. Many have low incomes, are hard to pay after 15 years and have low pensions after retirement. The representative called for the optimization of the policy of flexible employment participation, appropriate subsidies, a reduction in the contribution burden of this group, greater affordability of old-age insurance for the general population and a higher pension for older persons。
Of course, the recommendations of the delegates are mere suggestions for political participation and do not mean that they will be implemented immediately. The policy, which takes into account the multiple realities of the size of the country's hundreds of millions of retirees, their financial sustainability and the sustainability of the social security fund, can be fully realized without delay, if the people so desire。
When many netizens saw the representative's proposal, they became more emotional and felt that the gap should be closed. We need to look rationally at the absolute equality of pensions, which is difficult to achieve at this stage。
First, pension insurance is reciprocal in rights and obligations. The broad principle of long, long and better treatment cannot be wavered. If, regardless of the amount of the contribution, retirement takes the same amount of money, many people are reluctant to contribute more and more, and the pool of pension funds is difficult to sustain, to the detriment of all participants in the long run。
Secondly, the legacy of history requires time to digest. The time frame for the restructuring of the institutional enterprise pension insurance system has been limited, with older retirees still being accounted for under the old system. Over time, older retirees have been phased out, new participants have been fully covered by the unified social security rules, and the historical gap will naturally be reduced, a process that will take more than a decade or even decades。
Thirdly, the large number of retirees in our country, the hundreds of millions of retired workers in the country, and the hundreds of millions of urban and rural residents who are insured for old-age pension, require huge financial support for every improvement. The state must ensure that pensions are paid in full and on time, taking into account all aspects of public investment, including education, health care and infrastructure, and that financial capacity is objectively available。
Although it is not possible to close the gap completely, the state has been working for years to promote greater equity in old-age security。
First, the employee's pension has been increased for many years, having risen for more than two decades by 2025, and continued to be revised upwards in the basic pension of retirees by 2026, with a combination of flat-rate adjustments, tied-up adjustments and tilt adjustments being maintained in adjustment programmes. The quota adjustment reflects an inclusive approach and increases a sum of money for all; the adjustment is linked to the length of years of contributions and the level of old pensions, and encourages the overpayment of long contributions; the tilt adjustment is dedicated to the elderly and to retirees in difficult and remote areas, in order to safeguard the interests of vulnerable groups. Each year is adjusted in such a way that there is a sense of proportionality towards groups with low pensions。
Second, basic pensions for urban and rural residents are constantly being increased, central subsidies are being increased, and the provinces are autonomously raising the local basic pension standard. Although the overall level of pensions for the population is not yet high, it has improved considerably over a decade ago. At the same time, a higher level of contributions to the old-age pension insurance system has been added to encourage people in a position to do so to pay more, accumulate more and receive more in the future。
Furthermore, the promotion of the integration of national pension insurance, which used to operate in each province with large economic disparities between provinces and a different pension burden. The national integrated system is now in place to achieve a nationwide transfer of the social security fund, to ease the pressure on provinces with old industrial bases and large numbers of retirees, and to ensure that pensions are paid in full and on time, without any arrears。
In addition, annuities and occupational pensions are advancing steadily. The annual metal of an enterprise supplements pension insurance, and the enterprise can create a second pension for the employee if it is in a position to do so. Occupational annuities are generally applied in the enterprise sector, and in many large enterprises annuities are set up. In the future, a growing number of ordinary workers will also be entitled to supplementary pension benefits, further balancing the retirement income of different groups. It is only true that the corporate annuity rate is not currently high, that many small and medium-sized private enterprises are not covered and that there is a need to develop slowly。
In fact, there are three things that ordinary retired people want: first, pensions can rise every year, keeping pace with price increases, and the purchasing power of money is not diminished; second, low-income retirement groups can receive more care and reduce unjustified disparities in treatment; and third, pensions must be paid in full and on time, without fear of the most basic sources of life in later years。
Many retired older comrades who do not want a very high pension want a monthly pension that is enough to eat and buy medicine without putting too much burden on their children. Older rural friends are looking forward to an increase in the basic pension, without having to rely entirely on their children. These modest aspirations are also the direction of social efforts。
Of course, we also need to make an objective distinction between what is reasonable and what is not. The difference between the years of contributions and the different bases of contributions is a reasonable difference under the rules of the system, while the disproportionate gap of treatment created by the legacy of the historical system and the different systems of participation is a place where society wishes to move gradually towards optimal improvement. It's not about making an averageist pot, it's about pursuing relative fairness。
There are often polarized voices when discussing pension topics online. Some felt that the gap was too large and that it was necessary to level it immediately; others insisted on paying more than they could do without the treatment they had. Both ideas have their own merits, but they cannot be divorced from reality. The absolute average of large meals can discourage active contributors; a widening of the gap of complete leeway can undermine the sense of access of older persons at the lower end. It is in this context that national policies seek to strike a balance and gradually optimize the system。
It is in itself a good thing that the delegates brought the voices of hundreds of millions of retired older persons to the table. The representative is from all walks of life, reaching out to the grass-roots level, hearing the real concerns of ordinary people, translating civil claims into proposals, and providing an important reference for policy formulation. The proposal does not necessarily take full account of landfall, but the representative's voice will allow decision-making to be fully informed of the views of the wider retirement population and provide a realistic basis for the subsequent reform of the pension insurance system。
Old-age security is a major livelihood project that affects thousands of families and the quality of life of every individual after he or she has grown old. The pension insurance system is also not static and will continue to improve as the economy and the socio-demographic structure evolve. As our country's economic strength continues to grow, the social security system is being optimized, and the gap of treatment between future retirement groups is expected to be further eased, with more ordinary older persons having a more decent and stable old age。
After reading the article, what do you think about the difference in pension benefits? What categories of retirement groups do you think should be given the highest priority for the subsequent optimization of pensions? Welcome to the comment section and share your thoughts。
