Our pension legislation from the moment of formation of independent Ukraine only also does that "is improved", and so that after each "improvement" its imperfection isn't visible unless blind. Subject of improvement of the pension legislation - it is constant on lips of politicians and the authorities, especially before elections. Each party "promises to promise" more than others.
And it is valid, when before elections (in 2003) when after elections (in 2008) there are changes. But each time is made impression that these changes were created as - that not elaborately, hastily, as though in free time from the main occupations (than are occupied generally our "national" and others broken to a feeding trough, our people shouldn't explain, here "noodles on ears", like - "first of all care of welfare of simple people", only any naive foreigners can visit).
No, as for ", darlings" (deputies, ministers, civil servants) then all of them very well thought up and thought over, namely:
- the stazhevy coefficient is appropriated at once such transcendental, as though they "отпахали" who on 70, who on 80, and who and for 90 years.
- selection of salaries on a salary and the size of pension is made for determination of coefficient at all "for 5лет till 2000 and for all the time after 2000" as for "пересiчних" Ukrainians, and for well about - very small, but very favorable period, and further selection isn't reconsidered and the average coefficient doesn't go down irrespective of, whether they work after a retirement and what get paid thus.
- recalculation of pensions is made irrespective of, whether they work after a retirement or not, therefore, that if the salary at this position grows, say, twice, and the pension automatically grows twice, that is in direct ratio to salary growth.
That is for themselves, darlings, when developing laws they apply the principle "everything in our country are equal, but some namno - wow more exactly".
And they have also two purely shulerskikh of an explanation (excuses type) and justification of existence of such privileges:
1) "In all civilized countries the salary of civil servants is lower, than in the industry therefore there have to be privileges" (but forget about "вказiвку" to make a salary of civil servants isn't lower than average on the industry (about deputies and ministers I and I don't speak - there a full atrophy of conscience! )
2) Assignments from a salary in a pension fund at "пересiчних" - 2 percent, and at civil servants - to 5 percent (it seems, as on this basis and the pension at the last can be 2,5 times more), carefully "forgetting" that from fund of a salary of that and another another 33,2 percent undertake, that is the difference between 35,2 and 38,2 percent on contributions to a pension fund allows to speak about a difference in pensions unless in 10 percent and no more, and at all many times, that is they simply select a big difference at "cattle", having on the piece of bread our piece of oil!
Well - "elite"! (My God as the word that application at the wrong door defiled! ) Well, seized upon a feeding trough, well how not to use, the crystal-clearest, honest and clean, conscience in the childhood together with snivels высморкали, what now to constrain itself - that, nevertheless "is purely specific on concepts", oh, that I speak, that is on them to the developed and approved laws, that is - is lawful! (Though it is the purest water corruption when, using the situation, create for itself the laws, allowing "to seize", without knowing when to stop! )
Groundlessness and immorality of the listed above rules and privileges is obvious, and an exit here one: to stop legislative "beastliness", to adopt the law under which ruled determination of the size of pensions and the rule of their recalculation will be absolutely identical to all, irrespective of a post, participation in lawmaking and proximity to budgetary "trough".
Know, in Soviet period there were such secret concepts as "sausage for the Kremlin and the other management" and "sausage for the population", and it were as speak in Odessa, "two big differences"!
And what they, these "sirs", "did" for us, "пересiчних" Ukrainians, "population", "electorate", "biomass", and in other words - "cattle"? After all presence of "sir", and they call themselves quite so, assumes "cattle" existence, differently the concept "sir" loses meaning (therefore for the normal person both of these addresses are equally disgusting! )
We will give only obvious examples of imperfection, and actually - a cardsharping at modification of the legislation.
Under the law of 2003 if the pensioner doesn't work, and the average salary across Ukraine increases, to it the pension in a size "to 20 percent from growth rates of a salary, but no more than from the minimum pension" annually raises. That is, if, for example, the pension makes 1000 hryvnias, and the average salary grew twice, the pension will grow already by 94 hryvnias (20 percent from the minimum pension in 470 hryvnias), and if pension - 400 hryvnias, - for 80 hryvnias. For comparison - at the civil servant and the deputy the pension will grow twice, that is if was 1000, there are 2000 hryvnias. It to you, as they say - not a trifle ("on pockets to pinch").
But if the pensioner continues to work, he can do each 2 years recalculation at which its stazhevy coefficient and coefficient of a salary will be multiplied by the size of an average salary across Ukraine for previous year, and from the period which its salaries for determination of coefficient undertake, it could clean unprofitable for it to 10 percent of the insurance experience. As a rule, the average coefficient on a salary everything is went down as after a retirement of people works not at the most highly paid position, but nevertheless at such recalculation at increase of an average salary twice its pension grew not by 94 hryvnias, and percent on 80 and the working pensioner after recalculation received pension more, than the unemployed even if at them both the experience, and coefficient of a salary were equal.
At this law the person who has retired, for example, in 2000
at an experience of 40 years and coefficient of a salary 2, and the person who has retired in 2007 at the same parameters, had in 2007 of pension,
differing by the size not for percent, and practically many times. Unemployed pensioners were offended very significantly.
It became already indecent not to notice such outrage, and here in the law about the budget for 2008 there are the provisions which are attempt to liquidate this injustice, but attempt very clumsy (as they say, "a nose pulled out - the tail got stuck! ").
The positive moment, certainly, is that made recalculation of pensions by all earlier retired with multiplication them the stazhevykh of coefficients and coefficients on a salary at a size of an average salary for 2006 (though could increase and by average for 2007-й and, it is visible, the gut is thin). But look that from this left!
Two employees retired in January 2000-го years with an identical experience in 38 years and identical coefficient on the salary, equal 3. One of them after leaving didn't work for pension, the second continued to work at not really highly paid position, recalculating pension after 2004 each 2 years. As a result of recalculations the coefficient on a salary fell to 2 (as at recalculations the periods with low payment were added), and the experience grew till 43 years. Now to them counted pensions.
To the first counted 3*0.38*1.2*928+470*0.13=1330.60 hryvnias.
Second 2*0.43*1.2*928+470*0.18=1042.30 hryvnias.
The second worked more and in addition brought money in a pension fund, and as a result received pension nearly 300 hryvnias smaller, and at the following recalculations the difference will increase only! Where here elementary logic, I don't speak about justice? ! The second shouldn't either work, or to get paid "in an envelope", or not to go on recalculations. But who could warn him about such option?
Option - that of the category "naperstochnykh". You thought, what a ball there? I didn't guess, the road! If offended unemployed pensioners earlier, now offended the working! As they say, "out of the frying pan into the fire! "
And on the whole world loudly declared, what such recalculation made for the first time, but anybody even in a whisper didn't tell, and what will be farther? Whether there will be such recalculation (with multiplication by an average salary of year before last) to become regularly and if is, with what regularity, whether each year or time in 2 years? Or it in general a single postelective tip from a lordly table? Under what thimble there will be a ball next time?
We that, have to read tea leaves? !
Besides, one more essential nuance was added.If till 2008 at recalculation the pensioner could reject unprofitable for it to 10 percent of an insurance experience from ANY period, in the law about the budget there was an amendment: only from the periods to a retirement. This amendment, naturally, at all didn't restrain the highly paid administration, but significantly struck on "пересiчним" which after a retirement work at a position with low payment. If, for example, the second pensioner (and it is a real example! ) will go for recalculation in 2007 under such condition, its coefficient in general will fall up to the size of 1.6! If it after that ceases to work, in comparison with the first it at the subsequent recalculations for the unemployed will be, as they say, "poor, both thin and pale! "
And after all the person planned to reject more than 4 unprofitable years so at input of such changes in the law of people and it would be necessary to warn for 4 years (or, at least, not to allow to reject the periods not after a retirement, and after the moment of publication of the law, differently the law actually gets a retroactive effect that is inadmissible). It is really unclear that is inadmissible to change rules on a game course, to distort cards, once for such receptions in decent society it was possible to obtain and a candelabrum on the head! But "in the law" it, unfortunately, doesn't threaten present sharpers, there's nothing to be done - impunity (that is, excuse, "a nedotorkanost! ")
Dear Yulia Vladimirovna! You after all the honors pupil, and the diploma didn't buy (in difference, I think, from many in our parliament), and honestly protected, what you pass such "skins"? Well, the higher mathematics still can be forgotten partially, but right there, as they say, simple "арихметика! " After all such "nuances" about the budget could insert into the law exclusively being the sharper and thimbleriggers! It is possible, what in our parliament they and not a rarity, and you signed in a hurry, not especially getting a grasp? We think that adjustment is necessary and possible, and we offer the following obvious in our opinion, amendments:
1. To restore to pensioners who worked after a retirement and did recalculations, their maximum coefficients on a salary which they had at the moment or after an exit to a nensiya and to carry out them repeated recalculation of pensions taking into account these coefficients to restore justice.
2.To approve legislatively frequency and an order of such recalculations further (at least and with multiplication by an average salary for a year before last), it is desirable to make recalculation annual, and it is desirable to add automatically thus an experience by data from the personified account not to send people once again.
3. To warn about innovations which can entail deterioration of the parameters influencing calculation of pension, some years prior to their introduction.
4. Pensions for pensioners with an identical experience and identical average coefficient owe baht IDENTICAL, and not depend on the retirement moment. Present (under the law) an annual additive in connection with growth of an average salary in "20 percent from growth rates of a salary, but not Bol, than from the minimum pension" - a full nonsense which could invent either full "bums", or frank swindlers (rather the second). Exactly "thanks to" this invention at the people who have retired with an interval in 3 years at an identical experience and coefficient the size of pension can differ twice! "Hey, you there, above! " You consider that it is the normal law! ? And we consider that such laws should be printed on thin paper to use them in a rest room as they deserve that, and to drive "inventors" by the scruff of the neck on "average" pension without any privileges and privileges!
By the way, we can't but tell some more words in protection of pensioners and veterans, and also children of war. In the law about the budget for 2008 it was supposed that they can have the various privileges put by it only in case the average per capita income in a family for the previous half a year doesn't exceed a certain size. We consider that to send aged people more than 60 years behind references as the hares, each half a year - it is simply immoral. It is necessary to enter situation by which data on an admissibility of privileges for people, whose age exceeds 60 years, the official if it didn't prove has to collect that the privilege isn't put, it is provided automatically. And to relieve it of temptation to dispatch all the agenda like "To you it isn't necessary and if don't agree - prove", for each such unreasonable agenda to remove a salary half.And after all to make - that all this is simple, everywhere there are computers and databases, about family structure - in ЖЭКах, about the income - in tax inspection, about pensions - in a pension fund, about privileges - in social securities and if to force data to bring together officials, they will quickly think how to collect the general database, and to automate this process (as they say, "you will think, Newton binomial! ") the Same can be told about references on a subsidy (at least when it concerns people of old age).
In general, when you observe all similar defects influencing life of million simple people, the joke of Brezhnev's times when there was no toilet paper is remembered. Leonid Ilyich called the corresponding ministers and told: "You that, can't define requirement? Count the population and define! " And those answer: "Yes we considered, Leonid Ilyich, considered! But we considered on the heads, and asses it appeared more! " Excuse for not absolutely literary word, but the impression sometimes is made that some mighty of this world well works the head when business concerns appointment of ministers and tamping of own pockets, and starts "thinking" absolutely other parts of a body when business concerns simple people! Isn't it time to define similar "thinkers" to responsible positions like "general manager of a sweeper? " There they, probably, also won't bring special benefit, but will precisely do less harm!
On behalf of all pensioners of Ukraine I address to the President, as to the Guarantor Konstitution, to the Prime minister and to the Verkhovna Rada with the requirement to consider the wishes given above and to eliminate noted defects when updating the budget for 2008 and at further improvement of the pension legislation. Only, please, don't drag out " decisions to charge to consider possibility of development of actions for issue of instructions on an order of approach to consideration of opportunities of carrying out preliminary researches about expediency of modification of a technique …" etc. tightening a solution for years ("above" it are able), and solve a maximum in 3 months (and differently on a fig we you "there, above" feed, if you such stupid, what you can't make it? )