Second population in japan 2011 Pension companies, managing OFE? Of course - after all, their profi

If someone has worked all his life and in retirement, it turns out that there is nothing to live for - the person loses self-esteem. With Jolanta Fedak, Minister of Labour and Social Policy, talks to Michael Sutowski. population in japan 2011
Michael Sutowski, Political Criticism: Where sees Mrs. massive sources of criticism, which dropped recently on the government in terms of changes in the pension system? Whether it's a challenge to certain ideological dogma, or rather - according to Professor Staniszkis - struck in one's rational interests? Jolanta Fedak, Minister of Labour and Social population in japan 2011 Policy: One does not exclude the other. As regards the ideology is in the 90 It tore the natural order of things so far, according to which the current generation of working jointly keeps those who have rested - the generation of their parents and grandparents. In 1999, we changed the paradigm of social policy and concluded that the current generation will be able to bear a double burden - keeping parents and save for their own retirement. Professor Balcerowicz, moreover, we outlined the clear alternative: we will not be adapted, retirement of our parents so that we can save ourselves for the future.
Do you really save? Finance these "savings" going out of debt in debt. The entire structure, to use the wording Boguslaw Grabowski, like the Bermuda Triangle. We issue bonds in order to finance the deficit - but OFE buying it for the money, the lack of which is the ... source of the deficit. The entire transition period is therefore extremely expensive.
Thus, ideology has nothing to do with reality. Beyond it are still "hard" interests? Yes, there is at least some interest groups with different motivations. Firstly - the creator population in japan 2011 of the reform OFE defend their work and do not want to admit to the error. Because in our political culture admitting a mistake is treated as natural. For example, if the Fed chief Alan Greenspan admits his mistake, Americans are willing to forgive him - we are different. The more I appreciate people like Boguslaw Grabowski said, once one of the allies of the system, which now supports changing population in japan 2011 the status quo.
Second population in japan 2011 Pension companies, managing OFE? Of course - after all, their profits depend primarily on the amount of contributions that were received. population in japan 2011 If this still part of the money they receive

by lot, it's hard to see why they defend them favorable to the status quo. For clarity - I have no pretensions to a PTE that defend their interests and seek to maximize profits. I just think it unacceptable that in defending its interests claim that the weapons better pensions for all Poles. And this is just a total lie.
In one of your interviews you said that from her point of view, the priority are "high and sustainable pensions Poles". population in japan 2011 It would be a cliche if not for the fact that the reform priorities were different. population in japan 2011 It was argued that forces us to change demography demography ... has nothing to do with it. The priority of that reform was - in my opinion - the relative reduction in pensions in relation to pay. Per capita reduced the amount you pass on to retirement, moving from defined-benefit rules for defined-contribution rules. Besides, it was the Polish stock market capitalization. In the absence of sufficient capital, private or foreign, it was decided

to use public money, population in japan 2011 ie forcibly collected from all Poles. And I think in the first place should population in japan 2011 be the concern that pensioners have to live with you.
It can be done with the current system?

Another moment we do not have - so we have to act in the present framework. There is some room for maneuver - such as a ban on acquisitions in the secondary market population in japan 2011 and the primary, which lowers transaction costs. If less money will be transferred into the capital, the taxes will be spent on regenerating such benefits.
Experts critical of OFE claim that the dispute over the size of the contribution to the fund is actually of little importance from the point of view of future pensions. They are wrong. Because future pension depends population in japan 2011 on such whether the budget will be adapted, of which the benefit. And for every penny that OFE "earned" for retirees, the state budget to pay ... four. Such interest has not seen the world! If the transaction costs of OFE are an average of 10 percent, as they have to invest, since the average, a successful company achieves profitability in Poland at 10 percent?! The problem is that if you get you something for free, then you do not respect.
This is a common argument from liberals - are against redistribution because ... If you pay taxes and contributions for many years, participating in society, develops the common wealth & #