From the article of 'Petrel'
No.638 / July 20, 1997

Please send us your opinion and the impression about this article without reservation.

Is it possible to reform the pension system?
"The old age life"that is collapsing
The load has increased rapidly without certain view of provision


----------
The examination of pensioning council of the government started aiming at the pension revision of 1999 term. The government and the Liberal-Democratic Party are typing out the policy to request the review of the pension level and the beginning age of provision. The finance of the country is failing, so we cannot depend on the finance easily, and the ratio of population of the aged grows more and more compared with the population to work actually, which makes the latter insurance fee load overweight. They say the pension system can do nothing but fall into the function paralysis and the dismantling for such difficulties if leaving it as it is now. Besides, the old great family system or "the good customs" of wrapping the aged in the family have been collapsed now, so the life of the aged does not consist without the pension. Thus, this bourgeois society cannot solve the contradiction and the difficulty even of the pension problem, and have fallen into the dilemma of closed all around.
-----------

The failure of a present pension system gushes everywhere.
As for the system now, the frame is given by the basic pension (national pension) and the welfare annuity, the mutual aid pension piled on it.
And, 2/3 of the basic pension is boarded by the insurance fee and 1/3 is boarded by the tax.
As for the wageworker's welfare annuity, it is provided that 17.35% of the pay is the insurance fee and the enterprise is bearing with the worker in halves.
It is actually recognized that the full amount is the welfare annuity and the mutual aid pension though the welfare annuity and the mutual aid pension are 2 stories on the system.

The problem is that the pension system to have been "maintained" through several reformations is disclosing contradiction and facing helpless difficulty now.
The national pension is becoming hollow as a system by increase of the unpaid of the independent enterprise person and the farmer, and in the enterprise pension, the operation profit scheduled has not been gained in the low interest rate, and a big uneasiness extends to the provision in the future, too.
It is examined to move the supplied age from 60 years old to 65 years old, and moreover to 67 years old by the reason a certain reformation is not being avoided. Moreover, it begins to be emphasized that the insurance fee must be raised even to 34.3% of two times now in 2025 either.
Additionally, a variety of opinion is expressed such as the public pension must limit only to the basic pension and the welfare annuity must shift to the enterprise pension.

Of course, it is necessary to do the reformation of limiting the provision of the pension to the person of high income and the person of property at once.
Though the one that the bourgeoisie is taking out is considered most "highly probable" in some reformation ideas, however not to mention it, it is the one plainly protecting the capital profit.
That is, the thing that the management group is insisting is that all of the basic pension is to be beared from the tax at first, on the other hand, "the reward proportional part" of the welfare annuity (That is, the part except the basic pension that corresponds to the first floor in that though people usually put all together and understand as the welfare annuity) is the one to be moved to the enterprise pension.
Bourgeois hope to acquire the condition that can reduce worker's pay by moving the basic pension to the financial load at first (Because, they will be able to control the amount of pay by losing the load of the worker) and to be liberated from "the reward proportional part," that is, the insurance fee of 17.35% on which half the load is also forced on the enterprise.

Then, the enterprise is liberated from the load of the insurance fee of all public pensions, and they are able to go out to the satage of the international competition wars "without the anxiety of looking back after."
It is nature that the capital thinks only about his own profit.
The enterprise represents the basic soul of this society, that is, the self-regard principle as a representative in this society.

On the other hand, the opinion is expressed from the standpoint of new liberalism, the standpoint of the deregulation or the accomplishment of free competition and independent responsibility, which insists the pension to be basically to the system of independence and self-sustain, too. In the opinion, the pension should shift to "the complete savings system." The basis of the contradiction of the pension system is in the management form of depending on "public," and the like. (For instance, the critic, Naoki Tanaka is taking out such a reformation idea.)

If to shift to "the complete savings system," it would become to be something like public saving system, the one that are maneged of individual savings by public of course, but I wonder the one such as the compulsory savings system would be really the same as the concept of pension.

Moreover, it is necessary to move the savings until present to the personal savings money for this; However, the money for the shift will become enormous amount. (Because the insurance fees that have been paid by now has already been provided by considerabl amount and it does not exist.) Who, and from where, produces such money?

In addition, this reformation brings another difficult problem how to do the present fund of the people who are receiving a pension again. The reason is that the money paid as an insurance fee in the future is the money that is "Savings" and not to be applied to the pension provision.

The opinion that the pension should be made also to be "liberalization" and "privatization," therefor should to shift to the one such as "saving method," is full of contradiction and is not the one to bring any "solution" either.

And, there do not exist only such various practical difficulties, but if the pension becomes the same as a kind of savings to begin with, there causes a basic doubt why is it necessary to enter the system.

The New Liberals and you typical bourgeoisie blare out as it is necessary "Independence and Self-sustain," and the operation of the pension by the soul of "helping" is wrong, or the doing by "'the good custom' of helping between generations" is sentimental and jocular to begin with, and it is necessary to exclude "the group principle." However, if it is assumed to be so, the pension system is denied, and in case of mere savings, does it not become to be the thig that the individual do selfishly (Or, freely)?

The failure of the pension system is the failure of the bourgeois welfare and there is the intensification, the crisis of the contradiction of the capital system in the basis.

The pension system has developed as a kind of "mutual aid system," as part of the welfare nation to ease the contradiction within the limit of the bourgeois society, and it was to have secured the abundant, stable, and relieved old age life even to the worker.

However, though the contradiction of the capitalistic production style to put the pursuit of the private benefit and the profit on the basis has exposed and has put out brightly the fantasy of such a welfare nation everywhere, the one is the failure of the pension system.

Though trying to engraft something community relation on private possession and individualism was the fantasy of the welfare nation; However, an obstinate self-interest in the basis dashes out to the surface from this welfare nation at once whenever bumping to a little contradiction and cannot function well after all.

The basic, essential solution of the problem is to liberate the entire society from the base of self-interest, profit pursuit, and individualism and to establish the true social production relation. The failure of the pension system teachs that the way of bourgeois welfare principle, which engrafts on the basis of society based on the self-interest the system of "mutual assistance" that contradicts it and eases and "corrects" the contradiction of this society by it, is just the makeshift, the one having limit, even a kind of cheat.

To begin with, the attitude of the society to "the aged" is wrong from foundation as understood even to see "the age-limit system." The reason why the age-limit system spreads is that this society is a society which the capital rules. If the true social production
relation will give birth, such contradictory, such foolish system will be abandoned at once.

The aged (What is this concept? From how old do people enter this category on the whole? It is not joke at all) is also an organic constituent member of the society naturally as long as he is healthy, is not he? What profit and merit is there by chasing the aged besides the social relation, by excluding the aged from the fundamental relation of human society as "the one who do not work should not eat," and by chasing the aged to the parasitic person's social position unilaterally?

It is clear there is not only anything but is rather harmful and nonsence taking the one inventing foolish consideration named "fear of aged society."

Though the aged are the splendid constituent member in the society, and have also the right and can bear the obligation, they are excluded there partly compulsorily, (You are now "retirement age." You should go out from the social relation.) and this time when it is necessary the true social cover as a member of the society by becoming actually impossible to work or sick they are refused it. (Cannot help doing with "self-help" by the collapse of the pension system and the medical treatment system, etc.) What a very splendid society, a society which can have done well, might be this capitalism society on earth?

The capital society is not only able to solve the contradiction (Though we have been examining only a contradiction) invented of oneself, but has already lost even the ability looking straight and understanding it.

Thus, this society should die and likely to die surely. Because human race is becoming difficult more and more to develop any further and to acquire even somewhat happy life without that either.