I'm very socialist when it comes to pensions — and broadly, when it comes to education, research, healthcare, and social safety nets. I deeply believe in the state’s responsibility to provide basic protections for its citizens.
But in most other areas, I’m quite capitalist. I believe in market dynamics, personal responsibility, and economic freedom.
That’s exactly why I don’t believe in the pension system — not Pillar I, not Pillar II, not Pillar III.
Pillar I: Social safety net, not a real pension.
Let’s be honest: Pillar I is not a retirement savings plan. It’s a social assistance mechanism — and that’s okay! It’s like unemployment benefits, public education, or universal healthcare. It’s meant to be a safety net for the elderly, to ensure a minimum standard of living in old age.
But let’s stop pretending it’s a “contributive” system. It never was, and it never will be. It has never been financially sustainable. It runs on political promises, electoral cycles, and constant state patchwork. It’s been eroded consistently — especially through inflation, special pensions, and arbitrary decisions by the state.
So yes, it’s a socialist system — and that’s fine. But it’s not what people are told it is.
Pillar II: State-controlled investment? That’s not real investment.
Pillar II was supposed to be a privately managed pension fund. In reality, it’s state-controlled. And I’ve never trusted a system where the state tells me how to invest my own money.
That’s not investment. That’s just another political instrument.
I’ve always been certain that the state will eventually seize or redirect those funds — and so far, it’s doing exactly that. It controls where and how the money is invested, how and when it can be withdrawn, and whether we’ll even see it again.
I’m convinced we won’t. Pillar II was just electoral marketing.
In short, we need to rethink how we talk about pensions. We need to stop mixing the language of "social protection" with "financial independence".
No comments:
Post a Comment