[000:00:00;00] you have heard a lot about how to increase the retirement age, at what age and how much it should be increased, also the same approvals and laws that have been said have opponents, the way to increase the retirement age, that basically reforms and solving the conflicts of pension funds should be done from the side . in your presence, the age reform should have started or from other places, in your presence, the most important axes of opposition. it was the increase of the retirement age that we discussed in the previous programs. in this program, with the presence of two experts, we want to discuss it again. i invite you to accompany us until the end , thank you, or mr. faizinejad, the technical and insurance deputy of the

national pension fund, is present here in the upper studio. in favor of raising the retirement age, mr. esadi, a member of the legal committee of the center of workers' trade unions, is present as an opponent of raising the retirement age. while greeting and god bless both guests , i would like to start with mr. asadi and this question, mr. asadi, why are you against raising the retirement age? in the name of god. first , correct your words, correct your age and background it is in the program. the development of what has been seen is both the age reform for retirement and the reform of the record . parametric is a need that

all social security funds have, but it should be seen if the time has come for these parametric reforms, or whether there is a suitable time for it or not. second , whether these measurements or changes that are made can be fruitful or not . the main point is that it seems that acting on a case-by-case basis is not successful , that is, it is not in the interest of the social security fund. the second problem that exists in this regard is that they see pension funds as the same, even though pension funds have different functions , the social security fund is not compatible with the national pension fund or other late funds .

you make a single prescription for a patient who is different . naturally, the treatment you get is certainly not effective. you raised a question from d's point of view, one whose time has come, one can be effective, you said it's not productive, i don't think it's worth your time. in my opinion , this so-called effectiveness must be accompanied by another item , must be accompanied by other functions, as long as it comes from the workers' pockets. or use the pockets of the insured to modify the resources of the social security organization, it is not a good idea. mr. faizinejad, why do you agree to increase the retirement age? in the name of allah , the merciful, the merciful, i offer my greetings, courtesy and respect to the honorable guest and dear viewers. i also

congratulate you on the blessed month of ramadan, the spring of the qur'an, and the spring of nature. we are related to this we have to keep one point in mind before the issue and that is that we are talking about insurance funds, insurance funds are funds whose basis and way of working are such that they should not be dependent on the government. yes, because when an employee pays an insurance premium during 30 years of service, and now the employer's share is paid, this money is finally accumulated in that insurance fund, and at the end of retirement, he must

receive his salary from the pension fund. this is the issue. that when we come , we will make some amendments about the current rules retirement regulations to know that these reforms are not the reforms that i. rather, we are making decisions for the future and our decisions will definitely have their effects in the long run. insurance funds are intergenerational funds. they do not belong to current retirees. in our pension fund , the average pension payment in terms of service history is 29 years, that is, from the time the person retired until today. he has received pension for 29 years, which means it has taken almost 3 decades. well, the rules and regulations that we have when a person is employed and start receiving from that time. we will retire from him until

he retires, there is a special rule based on the national employment law or the civil service management law, and definitely when he retires, we are based on the same law. and based on the principles of insurance and actuarial that we have, we also calculate the pension for him, that is, in the future , other laws and regulations will be established that we will be forced to have another payment despite those rules and principles of our insurance, or let's have another condition for retirement. this is outside of the principles of insurance and should cause a blow to funds become insurance and leave that insurance status, but they become a protection fund. definitely, if we stay within the framework of the upstream regulations , such as the positive social security system society law

of 2083 and the resistant notification policies of the supreme leader , these should be taken into account. we should be careful in paying the benefits and applying the rules of pension regulations. what we apply should be insurance . we should not make an emotional decision. look at the issue of increasing age. we count on our employees what we have done is that from the time a person wants to subscribe to us until the time he retires, we expect that he will have 30 years of insurance premium. pay , and after 30 years of service , they can now benefit from a pension according to their age, the fact that

there are changes in the rules and regulations of pension, for example, now, early retirement , let me tell you, hard jobs are unprofitable, this is the rule retirement and the rules of insurance principles governing insurance funds are disturbing. and it weakens the funds, and when the funds weaken , we become dependent on the general budget of the government we cannot pay pensions from our own resources , so i will tell you how dependent the pension fund itself is now , so we need to make parametric reforms . it is not needed now. in the past, we should have thought about this. now this is accepted in 17 countries of the world. and they are working , how dependent are you on the budget? 90% of our salaries , we get pensioners' salaries from the general budget of the government , mr. asadi, you

are very convinced, mr. doctor. there is an insurance that should follow the increase in age as well as the increase in experience, but in reality this is it. if you look at the process of passing this law , you will see a law in the development plan to adjust the salaries of pensioners or retirees . to come for manab to predict the retirement age for insured persons or workers. that means , in fact , they want to take from this pocket of the insured and workers and put it in their pocket. naturally it can't be right, you see

, proportionality is actually the primary and main reason for the disproportionality of the government's pension for the disabled, at least in the last 10 years. it has been in a way that gradually pushes everyone towards the minimum wage, that is , an insured person who retired 10 years ago, for example, with the maximum hand, will get the minimum after 15 years. this is the handiwork of the government. it is not the fault of the insured or the worker that another institution wants to provide its resources and provide the worker from my pocket , that cannot be correct. this is when in the annual pension increase something called our other levels we will open it and say, sir, the insured people who get at least 35% of the rest, 22 after a few years. you reach the minimum wage

, then you look at a person who has worked hard from the beginning to the end of his service or more , and has paid hard . what can be done to fix this dissatisfaction , from whose pocket again, from the worker's pocket, the worker is the one who made the decision here or he wanted these salary levels in this way. to increase is that the government has done what it has done, it has the resources it needs to provide, not to provide, from the most available source , which is the pocket of the insured and the workers of this country, it tries to provide the resources, if the government can pay its debts to the social security organization on time, it can pay its debts at the daily rate. able

to pay his insurance or debts in such a way that they become liquidable, liquidable , according to today's saying, he is the one who can solve the problem . use resources, but only for the problem of their dissatisfaction from the pockets of workers and insurance if someone wants to spend money, of course it is possible. it is not acceptable for the government to pay things in the annual budget to pay social security debts. sometimes they are so strict that it cannot be paid at all. sometimes they give money or companies and institutions to the social security organization in exchange for their own debts. this means that these companies go bankrupt. the organization should

take money from other companies for several years and bring it to the profitability limit. once it reaches profitability , the government will issue a resolution to hand over these companies. see the development plan in this law. in addition to the fact that a portion of the workers and insureds' pockets are taken out of the pockets of the workers and the insured , i emphasize that with the increase in age and experience , the retirement age for men has also increased. 62 years and the fact that they have 35 years of experience means that an insured must work for 35 years in order to receive the full pension. in the same law , there are materials for the development program that, by removing them, can provide resources for the insured without the need to put pressure on the working community . look at it

the issue they brought up for the first time was that it was not the right time. look at the situation we are in now. our average retirement age is 51 years old. our average retirement age is 51 years old . life expectancy is now 76 years for men and 78 years for women. this coming in the implementation of the youth law of the population, now a person with 45 years of experience is being hired at the age of 45. with this situation, if we do not accept the age change situation, this person wants to retire with 6 years, so there is a need for parameter reforms, one of which is the second age increase. mr. doctor, i'm sorry, you dare to say someone

with 6 years fixed. i said that if we don't change , according to the law on the youth of the population, which now puts the maximum age of employment at 45, when you can be employed at the age of 45, our average retirement age is 51, which means how much does it mean to retire after 6 years, which naturally mr. doctor feels one of the conditions. in retirement, there are two conditions: age and experience . it is not possible to use age as our average retirement age is 51 years. age as one of the cases

, parametric reforms should be reformed. secondly, we actually discussed the situation of proportionality, which may be due to the proportionality or equalization of the salaries of our retirees. resources because of that, for example, we gained or lost, because we, the doctor, were only approved for this reason. please refer to the age and constant of the parliament's deliberations . it is completely characteristic, it is not a hidden thing . please allow us to implement article 30 of the law of the sixth development plan of the government. to increase pensioners' salaries in such a way that at the end of the 6th development plan, each retiree will receive 90% of the same salary as a working person. for example , in our regulations, we refer to the government as the government

and in the implementation of article 98 of the employment law, a country is obliged to, when the benefits related to the retirement of the status quo. life and this did not provide the livelihood of the retirees, definitely, in the form of this document , take measures to provide the livelihood of the retirees, but this provision of livelihood does not necessarily mean an increase in salary, because the increase in salary itself is actually a type of liquidity and is itself inflationary. let's think about other situations, such as the discussion of providing treatment or non-cash transactions. for that reason , let's actually strengthen the retiree's financial situation so that he doesn't need this salary increase like himself the increase in salary has both a financial burden and a burden, of course, he will eventually retire out of his own pocket , so this idea was not a reason for us

to want to increase the age because of this , but one of the main reasons for this is actually the age increase. . the life of mr. esadi raised the question that this was the most immediate thing that should be done for the reforms of the funds and that it is not the time. do you agree or disagree with these two propositions? we said that we are now members of our community now, 850,000 of us have pensions, something common to the executive administration of the country, which is a mistake

. considering that we don't actually have an entry and this number is the same 850,000 people as i am now, our prediction is that in the next 10 years , they will not retire if we don't change the entry or if we don't increase the age, many of them will be in some way. our parametric changes are really late . in four days, how can we really secure our pensions? should we reach 100% to the public budget? along with the parametric corrections, my personal belief is that this role it is less, we considered perhaps more cases than this that we proposed in the program , god willing, we hope that if you agree with them, it means

the least contribution to this issue, the least poison in the parametric reforms, mr. esadi, well, you mentioned a point that you said that if there are things in the program seventh, it can be removed and these are the problems of those cases that we only look at one factor as a contribution to the funds. it cannot be a correct thinking assumption . first of all , the funds are fundamentally different from each other. the national pension fund is not the same as the social security fund. jobla national pension fund to be defined that is, the known people are experts , first-class experts, those who are not experts, they are vice presidents , but in the social security fund, we do not have such jobs as you want first. or do you make it proportional, he says, sir, for example, how much does a deputy

get paid , now he should get a pension of 90, he should be employed in his provident fund, the structure is not like this at all. a woman who is a housewife says that you can adjust her salary. you can insure journalists for example, fix you cannot do this. there are some jobs that are defined in the national fund. in the social security fund , they don't have a definition that a worker who is in optional insurance, for example, where do you want his job to come from. you want to say that these jobs do not have equal employment, so what is the effect of reducing or increasing the age that you are against? mr. doctor, you are an escape. are you referring to the fact that the life expectancy has increased? yes, in fact, you should increase the employment time. look,

when i say that we have taken action in this direction. look, when you say that we acted against me, we acted against me. look, i said that there are 117 countries in the world, mr. doctor. please don't compare the situation of our country for 40 years. the situation of our country is very special . it is in this special situation that you say that its health indicators have grown so much. now we have reached the age of 76 for men and 78 for women. well , what did we do in order to increase the age of the people? we put the retirement law before the materials so that they can retire earlier. when they say that our average retirement age is 51. those rules in fact. that amend the laws, don't come here to see mr. doctor, now the biggest problem in our country is employment

. you are going to increase the retirement age, which means that more workers will stay. how are you going to coordinate this with that? is it really true that everyone who retires will be hired, mr. doctor? the problem is when you shoulder the burden when you don't provide the amount of an insured person's pension in a way that is forced. a university graduate is getting educated, he wants to build a life, he wants to go somewhere to work and get a salary. at that time, you are a retired person imagine you don't get enough pension or a worker whose salary is not enough. the person who wants to hire this force will hire the retired force. mr. doctor, why does the government

have a ban on hiring retirees for itself, but not for others? why, if the problem of our country is employment, i remember that time it was approved in the parliament. why retirees should not be employed , the discussion was that if we pass such a law , for example, 500 positions will be vacant, that is , the first discussion is a discussion about employment. there is employment, from this side you say that the retirement age should be increased, well, when the retirement age is increased, the young workforce who can no longer go to work, which is the same as the current workforce, is actually in conflict with each other. when i said that we not only

did not take any action regarding the increase in age, an action as a parametric reform for the increase in age, but we also passed the early retirement law, which means people who even sometimes and we retired not starting a family well, this medicine that you prescribe does not cure the pain of the unemployed population of the society . by the way, in this decree, he mentioned exactly two things . one of the things that he said that this decree does not include is hard and harmful jobs, which is what you are saying, from our point of view. in our opinion, the work of someone who works in hard and harmful jobs should be opened earlier than someone who sits behind a desk. this should not be the same as we accept in reality that

some people should open earlier. sand because their jobs are different from normal jobs, but your doctor what you are saying is that you dare to expropriate. you should read the introduction of this development plan resolution. exactly what it says is that reducing the disparity of pension funds. there is no discussion about life expectancy or increasing experience and age. this is not such a discussion at all. it is only a discussion of financial resources and the financial resources that the government itself, due to the negligence it has had and due to the laws it has passed, has caused a reduction in the resources of the pension funds, especially the social security organization's game fund. he has to pay for it, he has to come himself

what kind of help does the government want to help the government? the social security fund should accept treatment in its own clinics that are not insured by the social security and it is free. why did you invite people who do not belong to this fund to this table to come and take away from this table instead of mr. doctor mr. doctor instead of coming from spend the workers' pockets, take them from the friend of the fund, pay your debts to the social security organization of the government on

time, he will see that this fund can do it. in general, we also believe in parametric reforms and it should be done, but the time is not now we have a problem with employment. you went to serve these people more. look, you have now referred to the same clause of article 29 of the seventh plan law, which means that the government should take a series of measures to reduce the imbalance. at least my opinion was that the government should help. we should be dependent on the general budget of the government or we should go in the direction of reducing our dependence on the general budget of the government year by year based on the upper law. if we accept the first part, the funds will definitely move in the direction of becoming a self-supporting device. the second part must be reformed if we accept parametric

, is it possible to take action without reforms to strengthen the fund ? my proposal was that we currently have 90 social security funds. this is not the case. the social security fund is mainly provided by the employer . it is also a private sector and a government sector. i am not saying that it is not 20%. in fact, the government gives 23%, sorry, i am correcting, the employer gives 23 %, the employer gives 20% insurance premium, 3% unemployment insurance, 7 insured under the social security law. a 3% has been seen in the name of government share or government aid. this is at least my mental content. the government says that since the beginning of the revolution, the government has only given this 3% once. it has paid, which means that the government does not provide the help it should , it only repays the debt to the fund with terms and conditions. mr. doctor, the structure of the market fund of a

country is different from the social security structure , you cannot copy it. create a unit that works for both funds, mr. faizinejad, one question now , according to your order, how many of the problems and challenges of the funds have been solved by these parametric reforms ? so far that we have really over the years and over the programs any suggestions that we have actually related to parliamentary amendments that age and experience and the method of attribution. the history and method of assigning pensions and the status of payment of salaries to employees or pensioners , despite the proposal we had, none of them were actually implemented. this is not the same as increasing the old age. how many percent of the fund will solve your problem in the mismatch of the fund