The draft law that provides for the modification of how the money from private pensions can be withdrawn has been adopted by Senate. However, the initiative suffered some changes that have warmed in Parliament. Economist Bogdan Glăvan points out that, often, in the pursuit of votes, politicians “devalue” the law, emphasizing that “the purpose of this pension pillar is to ensure a stable income.”
The law goes to the Chamber of Deputies Photo Archive / Truth
The Senate of Romania, the first room notified in the case of the initiative that changes the way the beneficiaries can withdraw their money from private pensions, adopted the project on Monday. According to the initiative, the beneficiaries will be able to withdraw only at most 30% of the amount accumulated at Pillar II, III or IV of pensions at the time of retirement. The rest of the money would be withdrawn over eight years, in monthly installments of over 1,251 lei, ie the minimum pension value.
Tensions in Parliament
However, the project has undergone some changes. The Senate Budget-Finance Commission has introduced an exception by which cancer patients can withdraw the entire amount in a single installment, following a request. The amendment was introduced by Senator Nicoleta Pauliuc (PNL), in order to give this category of people to be able to withdraw their money so that they can use them for treatment.
However, the modification created tensions in the Parliament, both in the discussions in the commissions and at the time of adoption, being reported by some senators, that other patients could benefit from the same regulation. The main argument invoked was that no one can decide whether a patient with a chronic disease has a higher life expectancy than a cancer patient.
However, the representative of the Ministry of Health said that there are no clear criteria for defining chronic diseases, and such an exception would mean too many exceptions. For his part, the Vice -President of the Financial Supervisory Authority Dan Armeanu said that “Basically, a Pandora's box opens in which the exception becomes a rule“, And the recommendation of OCDE clearly indicates exceptions for small funds or extreme circumstances.
The danger of “devaluation” of the law
Economist Bogdan Glăvan explained for “Adevărul” that we are “on the right track” with the legislation, after 17 years in which the way of withdrawal from private pensions should have been established. According to the economist, beyond the recommendations of OCDE, this regulation is needed, the pensions being a stable income. However, he draws attention to the exceptions introduced by the parliamentarians.
“” We are on the right track in the sense that in the end it seems that we will have a law to establish the way of payment. And I would like not to slip, as it happened with the special pensions, in exceptions, to throw the law in the garbage, in fact, and to create gates and exceptions for various people or categories of people. Once we have this discussion?
No justification is standing, in fact. We can only devalue the law. Returning to the financial issue, the purpose of this pension pillar is to ensure a stable income, an income that complements the pension offered by the state. So a periodic income if you want. If we take them suddenly, it means we don't have it anymore. So I violated the purpose of the law. The initial purpose of the law ”.
“The purpose of the law is to establish a general rule. The politicians, in the chase of shooting some votes, do only an inflation of laws. Which defies the purpose of the law, in fact.
“That law is called law, the purpose of the law is to establish a general rule of conduct, why you want. So, a general rule. We cannot regulate how to pass every citizen. (…) We have tens of thousands of laws in which we confuse ourselves. What is the problem with them? The basic values of a law, namely its stability, predictability.
We live in an era of this of the legislative depravity, in which the same kind of laws are introduced and the kind of exceptions are made. Why make an exception just for cancer patients? We can find justification to make an exception for many other social categories, and if we have been an exception, this thing does this give water to the mill or justify other social groups or pressure groups, which will ask for a new exception. It is exactly the dynamics that brought us to have special pensions over special pensions. Initially we were told that we have to introduce some special pensions. Then came 20 more professional categories, who also asked for special pensions. So that's the problem. That, in fact, the politicians, in the chase of shooting some votes, do only an inflation of laws. Which defies the purpose of the law, in fact. Devalues the law ””says the economist.
“MPs are not concerned about thinking in the future”
“Another deficiency of the legislation in Romania, of the Parliament, is that, in fact, the parliamentarians are not concerned to think in the future, to watch in perspective what will be over 5 years, over 10 years and to think of laws that remain good and then. (…) The purpose of the pension is precisely another.”, Says Bogdan Glăvan.
The solution, to the health system
According to the economist, politicians can also look at the health system, where a more competitive system would be faced:
“We should go to a more competitive system. If you look at Switzerland, you see a lot of insurance houses. I mean, we go to what we have done to the pension system. To remove the citizens under the burden of the state monopoly and leave their freedom to contribute and benefit from private health insurance.”
The project goes to the Chamber of Deputies, where it can be modified again.
