A Pension Plan for the Nation, not Blue vs. Green Confrontation

A Pension Plan for the Nation, not Blue vs. Green Confrontation
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 30, 2013

Summary: The broad outlines of the Executive Yuan's pension reform program have become clear. From what we see so far, the 18% preferential interest rate for retired civil servants is history. Past absurdities such as retirement benefits exceeding salaries are a thing of the past, never to be seen again. These two points alone show that pension reform is headed in the right direction.

Full text below:

The broad outlines of the Executive Yuan's pension reform program have become clear. From what we see so far, the 18% preferential interest rate for retired civil servants is history. Past absurdities such as retirement benefits exceeding salaries are a thing of the past, never to be seen again. These two points alone show that pension reform is headed in the right direction. But one form of preferential treatment remains, the income replacement rate and monthly retirement benefit calculations. This will determine whether pension reform will win public support and persuade veterans, civil servants, and public school teachers. There is no room for opportunism or carelessness.

Yesterday, before reporting to President Ma, the Executive Yuan and the KMT legislative caucus coordinated with each other. The process was smoother than expected. No significant disagreements arose. The main reason for this was that the Executive Yuan made adequate preparations. They considered the ramifications of pension reform at all levels. They left little for legislators to criticize. The channels of communication this time were also relatively open. They held over 100 grassroots level forums. They consulted people far and wide. They enabled the Examination Yuan and Legislative Yuan to coordinate with each other. They allowed dissenters opportunities to amend the bill. Even more importantly, the nation's circumstances are different. The public is more supportive of pension reform. People have examined the issue more closely and concluded that the arguments in favor of reform are valid.

In all fairness, sweeping the 18% interest rate into the dustbin of history was no easy task. The Executive Yuan sought relief. It distanced itself from the 1995 dividing line approach. It looked after impoverished early retirees. It used the income replacement rate to reduce preferential deposits for affluent veterans, civil servants, and public school teachers. It deftly performed an end run around the 18% preferential interest dilemma. For some time, the 18% preferential interest rate has amounted to a form of Original Sin that veterans, civil servants, and public school teachers have been forced to assume. With this reform, at least those veterans, civil servants, and public school teachers who have no chance of receiving these government benefits will no longer need to bear this cross.

Contrast this with the DPP's pension reform alternative. The ruling and opposition party versions have roughly the same income replacement rate for monthly benefits. But the Green camp version, also advocates incorporating the 18% preferential interest rate into the income replacement rate, gradually phasing it out. On this point, both sides seem to be thinking alike. Should the income replacement rate be high or low? Should it be 70%, 75%, or 80%? This may require some debate.

On what basis should government pensions for veterans, civil servants, and public school teachers be calculated? In the past it was calculated on the basis of one's salary during the year of retirement. The Ministry of Civil Service advocates using the labor insurance model. It would base pensions on one's average salary over one's last 15 years of service. This seems reasonable. This standard is more stringent than the last 10 years version proposed by the DPP. Seen in this light, the ruling KMT's attitude toward pension reform is no more conservative than the opposition DPP's. The Executive Yuan later changed its wording, to a vaguer "ten to twenty years." This was probably a response to ruling vs opposition party confrontation within the legislature. They wanted to allow for haggling.

Overall, this version of the Executive Yuan's pension reform proposal is solid. But many blank spaces still need to be filled. These will require delicate handling. If the Ma administration wants to convince all parties, he must adopt a more aggressive approach. He can emulate the approach used to care for impoverished veterans, civil servants, and public school teachers. He can establish a floor as well as a ceiling. This would eliminate the phenomenon of 100,000 to 200,000 NT monthly benefits for wealthy retired officlals.

The government is distributing monthly benefits. Its aim is to provide retirees with benefits that are appropriate. It is not to enable them to strike it rich from retirement benefits. That would be contrary to justice and reason. That would be wrong even if the nation had the money, which it does not. Also, more highly paid civil servants received large salaries while in office. They usually have considerable savings. After retirement they often have other sources of income or part-time employment. Yet again the government provided them with exorbitant monthly benefits. This was merely icing on the cake. This merely increased the injustice. Take the Executive Yuan's thinking about labor insurance pension reform. For pensions over 30,000 NT, it would reduce its annual capital payment rate from 1.55% to 1.3%. This "law of diminishing marginal utility" could be applied to highly paid officials. This would be more consistent with the spirit of reform. This would also mollify ordinary veterans, civil servants, and public school teachers.

The current pension reform underwent negotiations within the Executive Yuan. The ruling and opposition parties' versions are comparable. Differences remain, but the basic direction is the same. Therefore one can be optimistic. What's important is that everyone, including the ruling and opposition parties and the public, understand that pension reform is inevitable, and the only just and reasonable course. Only reform can win public approval. Only reform can satisfy reformers. Therefore, the Ma administration must proceed cautiously. It must not repeat the capital gains tax fiasco, which was fair yet won little public approval. Labor insurance issues must not be broached now. Mentioning them in the same breath is sure to provoke controversy. If nine million laborers and one million veterans, civil servants, and public school teachers lash out simultaneously, the Ma administration would be unable to survive the political storm.

We would like to remind the DPP. Successful pension reform is good for everyone on Taiwan. The Green camp must not use the issue to make political hay and engage in irrational obstructionism. If the DPP can offer a sound alternative, the public will be only too happy to support it.

這是國家大計，不是藍綠對決
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.01.30

行政院版的年金改革方案輪廓成形。從既有的內容看，十八趴確定將走入歷史，以往「退休比在職領得多」的荒謬現象將不復見。僅這兩點，即說明年金改革走在正確的方向上。然而，最後的優利基準、所得替代率、及月退本俸計算基礎的選擇，仍是決定年金改革能否贏得民眾掌聲及軍公教信服的關鍵，絲毫沒有投機或馬虎的空間。

在向馬總統報告前，行政院日昨和執政黨立院黨團進行溝通，過程較預期順利，雙方沒有重大的歧見。主要原因是，行政院事前準備充分，對改革涉及的各個層面作了周全思慮，沒有太多偏失或疏漏讓立委挑剔。此外，這次的整個溝通運作也比較成熟，除在基層辦了百場座談廣徵民意，和考試、立法兩院的協調也都預留足夠空間，使不同意見有修正的機會。更重要的是，鑑於國家大環境變化的前提，社會各界對於這次的年金改革普遍有更大的共識，以嚴格眼光檢驗著論證的合理性。

平心而論，光是如何將十八趴送入歷史，就是一項極其棘手的艱鉅工程。行政院的解套方式，是採取以民國八十四年為界的切割辦法，既照顧了早年退休的清寒人員，又以所得替代率連動的設計讓較豐裕的軍公教必須降領優惠存款；如此，不失聰明地迂迴化解了十八趴的難題。長期以來，十八趴幾已成為軍公教難以承受的「原罪」，經過這次改革，至少可讓那些根本無緣領受此一「德政」的軍公教人員不必再背負罵名。

比對民進黨目前已浮現的改革對案，雖然朝野版本對於月退所得替代率的高低還有約莫一成的差距，但綠營的版本，也是主張將十八趴納入所得替代率計算，使之漸次消失於無形。這點，雙方似乎是英雄所見略同。而所得替代率應該從高或從低，是七成、七成五或八成為宜，恐怕還需經一番辯論。

至於軍公教退休年金的計算基礎，過去一直是以退休當年的本俸從高計算；銓敘部主張比照勞保模式，以「最後十五年」的平均計算，似乎是合理的方式。這個標準，甚至比民進黨版所提的「最後十年」，是更嚴的標準。由此看來，執政黨的改革思維並不比在野黨保守。雖然最後行政部門又改口以比較模糊的「十年或廿年」的訴求代替，這恐怕只是為因應朝野國會修法角力而預留的討價還價空間。

整體而言，這次行政院的年金改革版本堪稱架構穩健，但其中還有不少留白等待填補，這些都需要再作細膩處理。如果馬政府有更大的企圖想要讓各方心服口服，我們建議還可採取一個更積極的作法：可仿照照顧弱勢軍公教設置門檻下限的作法，相對提出一個天花板上限，以消弭領取一、二十萬月退的「退休富官」現象。

政府發放月退，目的是在維持退休人員一個有尊嚴的退休生活，而不是讓他們甚至以退休金儲蓄致富，那就完全違反了公平合理。國家有錢不宜如此，何況國家沒錢。再說，高等公務員在任內領有高薪，通常應有一定積蓄，退休後又往往另有酬庸或兼職，政府再發放超高月退，只是錦上添花、徒增不公而已。再參考行政院在勞保年金乙案的改革思維，對於年金超過三萬以上的被保險人，將削減其年資給付率，由百分之一點五五降至一點三。這樣的「遞減法則」，如果也能適用在高薪官員，不僅更符合改革精神，也更能讓一般軍公教較感心服。

這次公教年金改革，從跨院際的協商氣氛，到朝野版本的比較，儘管若干差異仍然存在，但基本方向相去不遠，值得大家樂觀以待。重要的是，不論朝野或人民都明白年金改革是台灣無可迴避的改造工程，也唯有站穩公平、合理的立場，改革才能得到人們的掌聲，並獲得被改革者的信服。因此，馬政府必須步步為營，審慎因應，絕不能重蹈證所稅「有公平、無掌聲」的覆轍。尤其勞保問題要不要放在此際一併處理，勢必被相提並論進而引發爭議；如果九百萬勞工和一百萬軍公教同時反彈，馬政府消受得了嗎？

我們也要提醒民進黨：年金改革成功，是台灣人民同蒙其利，綠營千萬不可將之視作政治鬥爭而濫行杯葛。如果能提出好的對案，相信民眾都樂於支持。