Employee pensions have risen for 20 consecutive years, why should farmers' pensions only rise by 68 yuan in 10 years?

There are many financial stories

2024-06-19 18:00Published in Guangdong

On June 17, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security officially announced that the pension of employees will be raised by 3% this year, which is good news for hundreds of millions of retirees. But unexpectedly, the Internet exploded, and there were more and more dissatisfied voices.

Many people think that the pension gap is getting bigger and bigger, and the people with high pensions should rise a little less, while the people with low pensions should rise a little more, that is, "raise the low and control the high", such as the 5,000 yuan pension as the limit.

How big is the pension gap? According to the data of the "China Labor Statistics Yearbook", in 2022, the average monthly pension of retirees in government agencies and institutions across the country will be 6,100 yuan, and the average monthly pension of enterprise retirees will be 3,149 yuan, which is almost twice that of the latter.

However, the really low pension is still the peasant pension, 205 yuan per capita per month, 30 times that of government agencies, and there are 6 provinces with less than 120 yuan, and the gap is even greater.

From 2005 to 2024, employee pensions have risen for 20 consecutive years. The farmer's pension, the national monthly minimum standard in 2014 was only 55 yuan, and in 2024, it will rise by 20 yuan to 123 yuan, and it will only rise by 68 yuan in 10 years, which is not as good as the increase in employee pensions in one year.

Personally, I am very supportive of "raising the low and controlling the high" and giving farmers more pensions. However, there are many people who object, saying that farmers have paid pension insurance? The peasants still have land, so let's see how selfish these opponents are.

In 2009, the state formally established a new type of rural social pension insurance system, which combines individual contributions, collective subsidies and government subsidies. If you don't, you also need to pay for it.

In 1997, the mainland social security system was established, and the country did not forget those who had made contributions, so there was a policy of "deemed payment", that is, how many years of service you had before, even if you paid how much, you don't have to pay a penny.

From 1997 to 2014, although the system also began to pay pension insurance, they did not have to pay for it themselves, but all of it was borne by the finance. In 2014, the reform of pension insurance began to be combined, and the personnel in the system who participated in the work of the beginning of this year did have to pay their own pension insurance.

In October 2024, when the 10-year transition period ends, the system will really begin to require all people to pay their own pension insurance, which is exactly the same as that of enterprises.

In the end, it is clear who took advantage. Besides, the reason why the peasants have land is even more absurd. Why should a farmer be seventy or eighty years old and still have to farm to support himself, while the old man and old lady in the city can dance and play chess.

If you have land, no one wants to plant a lot of land in the countryside now, and retirees in the city can also go to the countryside to rent a piece of land to grow by themselves, which is very cheap.

Let's talk about the fact that some people say that the pension of employees can continue to rise, and it is also their own money. The less the peasants pay, the lower the natural it is. This is also a fallacy, you really think that you pay it all by yourself, and there are trillions of financial subsidies every year to ensure that your pension is paid on time. In the Northeast and some provinces, pensions have long been unable to make ends meet.

There is another important reason for the low pension of farmers, that is, they were remembered too late, and they could only participate in the insurance in 2009, more than ten years later than the urban workers. If they could have been included in the social security system earlier, they would have paid more. So, you can't blame them entirely for paying less.

It is said that retirees have the right to enjoy the dividends of national development, so they give urban workers a pension increase every year. But in terms of contribution, are there fewer farmer friends? Shouldn't they also enjoy this bonus?

In fact, most people are still more sensible, do not ask for the same pension for everyone, but only hope that the gap between pensions will not get bigger and bigger, and give more care to those who pay urban and rural residents' pension insurance.

View original image 417K

• 

• 

• 

Take the network and carefully screen