Pros and cons of the parliament’s resolution on raising the retirement age

According to Hamshahri, Hadi Haqshanas; In a note related to the recent resolution of the parliament regarding the increase in the retirement age, the economics expert said:

We can consider the recent resolution of the parliament regarding raising the retirement age as both positive and negative. Positive because it helps pension funds to get out of bankruptcy and government aid. Naturally, the less the pension funds get help from the government, the more the government can spend its resources on infrastructure.

In the past decade, at the beginning of the 90s, pension funds received less than 5 thousand billion tomans from the government, but in the current year’s budget, this number has reached 350 thousand billion tomans, which naturally cannot continue. The government cannot spend all its resources either on paying the wages and salaries of the employees or on paying the pensions of the members of the pension funds. After this chapter, naturally, the approval of the parliament is a desirable action.

Another noteworthy point is that this law has another advantage for retirees, and that is the increase of the retirement bonus ceiling; This means that those who were retiring this year would receive up to 500 million tomans per year of service. Naturally, when an employee works for more years, he is subject to an increase in years and receives more bonuses, but this advantage also comes with a complication; This means that increasing the years of employment of employees reduces the capacity for employment, and thus the unemployment rate also increases with the implementation of this law.

But this resolution also has another aspect, which is that pension funds have had resources in the past and have invested these resources in companies and enterprises that, if those economic enterprises and companies that depend on pension funds were managed correctly and in an economic way, today The funds did not have such a budget deficit; Therefore, if the pension funds still think that the government will pay them directly, like in the past years, or that the employees will pay deductions for a longer period of time, if the fund officials themselves, especially the economic sectors of these funds, do not think about the state of the companies, it is natural that this The second routine cannot continue either. This means that neither the first procedure, i.e. direct payment by the government, can continue, nor the second procedure, which increases the years of service of employees and workers with the regular approvals of the parliament. Both of these ways are short-term accommodations; Therefore, managers of pension funds should activate their economic sectors so that the resources invested in the past years reach productivity.

At the same time, the implementation of this law in the coming years is seen in the program law, and when the Guardian Council approves this resolution, the president promulgates it as a law to be implemented from next year, but it should be noted that the effects of the implementation of this law It appears in the long term and people whose work experience is over 28 years are not covered by this law; Therefore, no one will be involved in the consequences and complications of this law for the next 2 years. From the third year after the promulgation of this law, those who have 27 years of work experience will have a few months added to their years of service to reach those who will be hired this year. These people are most affected by this law; This means that in about 35 years, the real effects of this law will appear. Naturally, when the new law’s executive effects show little by little, if it has a negative burden or side effects, as other laws such as the 5th and 6th 5-year plans have been regularly amended, this law will also be amended based on its effects and consequences, and it is not the case that the next parliament cannot make changes in it or modify it