Wool Comes From Sheep: No to Pension Reform Grandstanding

Wool Comes From Sheep: No to Pension Reform Grandstanding
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 2, 2013

Summary: The Blue and Green camps' pension reform programs have been released. The two camps differ slightly on the income replacement rate and burden rates. But otherwise the two camps' reforms show no significant differences. If the ruling and opposition parties are willing to discuss the issues in earnest, a better version may be possible.

Full text below:

The Blue and Green camps' pension reform programs have been released. The two camps differ slightly on the income replacement rate and burden rates. But otherwise the two camps' reforms show no significant differences. If the ruling and opposition parties are willing to discuss the issues in earnest, a better version may be possible.

Compare the Blue and Green camp versions. They involve three key differences. One. They differ on the monthly benefits income replacement rate for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. The Executive Yuan wants the rate reduced to somewhere between 75% and 80%. The DPP wants it reduced to somewhere between 60% and 70%. Two. They differ on premium-sharing. The Blue camp wants the government employee/civil service employee debt burden ratio set at 65:35. The Green camp wants it changed to 60:40. They differ on labor health insurance. The Blue camp wants the government/employer/labor burden set at 10:70:20. Green Camp wants the government burden eliminated, and employers and employees to pay 60:40. Three. They differ on the labor insurance premium rate. The Blue camp wants the current 8% divided over 23 years, increased to 19%. The Green camp wants it increased to 16.25%, divided over 30 years.

The DPP has offered an opposition party alternative on a major policy issue. This has enabled the public to compare and to choose. This is healthy rivalry that merits acknowledgment. But the Green camp released its alternative late at night. In terms of content, it was "plenty of thunder, but little rain." As we can see, Taiwan's pension reform dilemma must be dealt with pragmatically. There is no room for boasting and grandstanding. The two camps' versions are so close. If the Green camp persists in characterizing President Ma's version as "a scam," and as "phony reform," it is merely revealing its limited vocabulary.

Examine both versions closely. The Blue and Green camp versions both leave room for ruling and opposition party haggling. Take the income replacement ratio. Can a compromise be found between the 80% Blue camp version, and the 70% Green camp version? That depends on phase two negotiations. Take the labor insurance premium rate. Will the Blue camp 19% version move toward the Green camp 16.25% version? That will require broader society wide negotiations. Both the Blue and Green camps are seeking to satisfy the demands of 9 million laborers. This includes the basis for monthly pension retirement calculations. Will it be the Blue camp version of 10 to 15 years for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers, and 15 years for labor? Or will it be the Green camp version of 10 years for everyone? These are all negotiable.

The ruling and opposition parties can jockey for political advantage all they want. But the final version must be reasonable. Haggling over details must not undermine the integrity of the pension reform program as a whole. In essence, the pension reform is a money problem. Whose pockets will be picked for the money needed? Any change in the rates or burden will affect the interests of other groups within the system. All of this must be carefully calculated. Only then can we avoid repeating the 18% preferential interest rate experience.

Take the Blue and Green camp's premium sharing ratios. It is obvious why a tiny change can affect the overall result. The Blue camp version places a greater burden on the government, both for public health insurance and labor health insurance. The government is responsible for 65% of the burden for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. It is responsible for 10% of the burden for labor. The Green camp version places even more of the burden on wage earners. The government is responsible for 40% of the burden for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers, as well as for labor health insurance. But the "employer" for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. is the government, The Blue and Green camp versions' "employer's share" are in fact paid out of taxes. The "employer" for labor health insurance meanwhile, is private enterprise. Both the Blue camp 70% version and the Green camp 60% version, impose a heavy burden on the employer. If adopted, the Green camp version would result in the labor health insurance premium burden surging from 20% to 40%. This is a heavy burden as well.

According to detailed estimates, by 2036 the Blue camp version will require employers to bear an additional 124.5 billion in labor expenditures. This is nearly double what it is under the current system. If labor costs must remain unchanged, the inevitable result will be downward pressure on compensation levels. The Green camp version would reduce government spending, but double the burden on labor. To subject labor to downward pressure on compensation, would peel another layer of skin from an already skinned goose.

In fact, the entire pension reform program is nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul. This includes the "18% preferential interest rate" and "income replacement rate 121%." They are clear examples of "relative deprivation" and violations of social justice. The most critical issue is where the money is coming from. In fact, the "employer" for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers is the government. The government's wool comes out of the hide of the sheep, i.e., the taxpayers. The employer for labor is private enterprise. The bosses' wool comes out of the hide of the sheep, i.e, labor. Whether the money comes from the government, the employer, or the employee, all of them will be feeling the pain.

Both the Blue and Green camp versions, to put it bluntly, are mere band aids that require one to pay more to get less. The real problem is not whether people will swallow this bitter medicine. The real question is whether once this pension reform time bomb has been disarmed, Taiwan can make an economic comeback. Can everyone's concerns about retirement be allayed? Can everyone's hopes for a better life be restored? Only then will the current pension reform program be possible and make sense.

羊毛出在羊身上 年金方案不能耍花槍
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.02.01

藍綠版的年金改革案皆已出爐。兩者除替代率、負擔比、費率等主張略有差異，雙方提出的改革手段，並無太大分別。朝野如能站在這樣的見解上誠懇討論，那麼年金改革或許有可能尋得較佳版本。

比較藍綠版本，主要差別包括：第一，軍公教月退所得替代率，政院版主張減至七成五到八成，民進黨版則主張降為六至七成。第二，保費分擔方面，藍版主張政府／公務員的負擔比為六成五比三成五，綠版則主張改為六與四比。勞保部分，藍版主張政府／雇主／勞工各負擔一比七比二，綠營則主張取消政府負擔，雇主和勞工各負擔六與四。第三，勞保費率方面，藍版主張由現行的八趴分廿三年調高至十九趴，綠版則主張在卅年內調至十六點二五趴即可。

民進黨能就重大政策提出在野黨的相對方案，供人民參考比較與選擇，這是政黨政治良性競爭的表現，值得肯定。然而，綠營更晚提出對案，其內容卻只留下「無甚高論／不過爾爾」的印象；可見當前台灣年金面臨的困境只能務實面對，沒有太多買空賣空、耍花槍的餘地。在雙方版本雷同度如此高的情況下，綠營若再批評馬總統的提案是「騙局」、「假改革」，顯已辭窮。

仔細觀察，藍綠版本都各自保留了一些供未來朝野協商、角力的空間。以所得替代率為例，未來會不會在藍版的八成及綠版的七成之間找到新的折衷點，要看第二階段的溝通如何。以勞保費率為例，會不會由藍版的十九趴往綠版的十六點二五趴下移，則涉及更大範圍的社會溝通，藍綠都在競向九百萬勞工訴求。包括退休金的月退計算基礎，是要以藍版的軍公教十到十五年、勞保十五年為準，或以綠版標準向十年一致化，都有討論空間。

但無論朝野如何攻防，我們認為最後的版本都必須照顧整體改革方案結構的合理性，不能為了若干枝節討價還價或刪砍，而導致改革架構的傾斜。質言之，年金改革圍繞的不外是一個「錢」的問題：多繳的錢要由誰的口袋裡掏，不夠的錢要讓誰少拿一些？任何一環的費率或比重稍有改變，就會影響整個制度中另一群人的權益，必須精密計算，才不致重蹈十八趴的覆轍。

以藍綠版的「保費分擔比」為例，即可看出為何些微的調整能影響大局。藍營的版本，無論是公保或勞保均賦予政府較大的負擔（軍公教部分政府負擔六成五，勞保部分則是一成），綠營版本則更重視受薪者負擔（軍公教及勞保均為四成）。然而，軍公教的「雇主」是政府，藍綠版的「雇主分擔」其實皆由稅金支付；但在勞保部分，「雇主」是企業，不論是藍版的七成或綠版的六成，「雇主」的負擔都不輕。而若採綠版，勞工保費分擔要從兩成驟增為四成，亦是極沉重的負擔。

根據精算，藍版到了民國一二五年，全國雇主在勞保支出上將增加一二四五億的負擔，較現制幾乎倍增。而若必須維持勞動成本不變，必然的結果就是薪資水準的壓低。若依照綠版，政府減少支出，而勞工的負擔則是倍增；若再承受減薪壓力，無異一隻瘦鵝要剝兩層皮。

事實上，整個年金方案，在處理完如「十八趴」及「所得替代率一二○趴」等明顯「相對剝奪」及違反「社會正義」的案類後，剩下的都只是「朝三暮四」、「捉襟見肘」、「挖東牆／補西牆」的手法而已。最關鍵的問題皆在：錢從哪裡來？其實，軍公教的雇主是政府，政府的羊毛出在納稅人的羊身上；勞工的雇主則是企業，而老闆的羊毛出在勞工的羊身上。不論出錢的是政府、雇主或受雇者，誰都會喊痛。

無論藍綠版本，說穿了，今天年金問題都只有「多繳、少領」一帖解藥，別無良方。真正的問題，其實不在人們吞不吞得下這帖苦藥；而在拆解了這顆年金炸彈後，台灣能不能努力把經濟的榮景找回來，把大家從為退休生活的憂心盤算，拉回到更充實的人生憧憬。那樣，此次年金改革，才有可能，也才有意義。