Policies should not be made in response

Regarding the proposal of the Ministry of Labor, War Invalids and Social Affairs on reducing the minimum number of years of payment of social insurance premiums to enjoy the pension scheme from 20 years to 15 years, then to 10 years, there is an article in the newspaper LDO “Fucking” withdraw social insurance once: Reducing the number of years of payment of social insurance will solve what?”.

We have received many positive feedbacks from readers, of which the majority think that this proposal is unrealistic and does not limit the one-time withdrawal of social insurance.

An anonymous reader expressed: “Why don’t policy makers look at the reality of workers’ lives?

The policy must come to life when employees feel that their sweat and tears will be enough to support their family when they turn 50, instead of lowering the premium year but having to wait until 62, then the slippage money can not support themselves. Policymakers should not act in a way that causes frustration for workers.

Similarly, another reader said that the main issue is the retirement age, not the number of years of payment. The reduction in the year of social insurance payment but the increase in age is only to control a large number of employees who have paid social insurance premiums for a full year but have not reached the retirement age. If the law is changed in that direction, it will cause confusion and lead to massive withdrawals.

Reader Hai rice wrote: “In the mind of policy makers, if the thought is that they can’t be controlled, it is forbidden, reduce the number of years to stop those who pay full 10 or 15 years and withdraw once, 9.9 years or more. They also withdraw after 14.9 years. If 45, 50 years old have lost their job, no one will wait until 60, 62 years old to receive average pension. ,10 even 20 years without any benefits”.

Sharing the same opinion, reader Chu Van Lam commented: “Construction policy must be consistent with reality. Don’t just think in one way to control the number of people withdrawing social insurance once. The retirement age should be kept the same with both things. necessary and sufficient age and year of payment of social insurance premiums and employees can decide by themselves to take leave before the acceptable age minus the rate of pension enjoyment”.

According to many readers, reducing the number of years of contribution will not solve the problem, but reducing the retirement age will solve many things.

An anonymous reader said: “If it is reduced to 15 years, then 14 years they take a break and withdraw. If it goes down to 10 years, they also take a break and withdraw for 9 years. Then the vicious cycle will repeat!”. Reader Nguyen Anh wrote: “Reducing 15 years of working from 19-20 years old to 40 years old, leaving the business to pay full time, so you have to wait until nearly 20 more years to receive this salary. only massively withdraw 1 time”.

According to reader Hai Huynh, reducing the number of years of contribution solves the problem, but reducing the retirement age will solve many things. Similarly, reader Nguyen Thanh Tuy thinks that whether paying for 10 years or 15 years of insurance is eligible to receive a pension, but with the current decisive age, people still choose to withdraw once.

According to reader Tuan Ho, the core of the problem is that the retirement age of 62 years old for men and 55 years old for women is too high compared to the level of workers. “I suggest 55 years old men and 50 years old women or less, for example 50 years old men and 48 years old women” – suggested this reader.

Commenting on this issue, reader Phan Vinh pressed: “Last time, many National Assembly deputies suggested that the retirement age should not be increased, but the law-making agency did not accept it. If the law is not appropriate, boldly adjust the law. It is necessary to reduce the retirement age to 60 and 55 as before, which is the crux of the shortcomings of the Law on Social Insurance 2014.

Reader Ha Chuong wrote: “It is correct to reduce the retirement age! For example, when you are 55 years old, you will be able to retire for 30 years if you pay insurance premiums! For every 2 years of paying social insurance contributions, your retirement age will be reduced by 1 year. If you do not have enough time to pay social insurance contributions, you must work until the age of 60, whichever comes first.

According to many readers, the core of the problem is that the retirement age of 62 years old for men and 55 years old for women is too high compared to the level of workers.

Reader Vo Thi Kim Phuong suggested: “I think it is better to regulate how many years of social insurance contributions to retire, instead of such an age regulation, it is really fair. It should not be equal to everyone who retires at the same age as everyone. 60, but for example, when paying full 20 or 25 years of insurance, they have the option to retire.”

Similarly, reader Le Minh Hiep commented: “In my opinion, if they have enough time to pay social insurance contributions for 20 years or more, women 45 years old and men 50 years old or older are entitled to a leave, even if the pension is low”. For readers of Thuong Truong, the drafters should put themselves in the position of the workers because if the retirement age does not decrease, what will the workers live on to wait for the pension?

Similarly, reader Vu Khue said: “The retirement age and the minimum year of social insurance contributions should be shortened. But no one can wait for a pension for manual workers”.