社保制度整合 最終解決之道    林奇璋 中國時報  2012.10.30

 

勞保破產，政府是否該負起「撥補、最後支付保證」，眾說紛紜。筆者提供個人在美的精算工作經驗，釐清問題並作改制整合參考。

全世界都面臨人口老化問題，年老退休是每個人皆無法避免現象。議題複雜，又涉及長期規劃，因此有必要動用國家力量建立一套社會保險全民退 休制度；美國社會安全體系Social Security中OASDI即是此種產物。在社安制度下，提供全民基本退休生活保障。有「工作」收入者皆強制納保，包括軍、公、教、勞工等，財務自給自 足為基本原則；且制度設計具有所得重分配功能，保障最低生活水平，制度類似受教權與兵役義務，人人平等全國統一。美國三億多人口在社安制下退休金只有帳號，沒有身分差別。員工在工作期間，不同雇主依法提撥款項全匯流入一個大水池。而各企業主或政府可另自行增訂較優渥的職場退休金辦法，提供優惠福利。

而我國二三○○萬人口因時空背景，不同工作人口於不同時間建立不同制度。軍公教有軍保、公保，勞工有勞保，無工作者有國保，另有農保…。各制度不但無所得重分配功能，費率公式不同，給付條件差異更大。例如公保老年退休給付可享十八趴、法律條文有「政府保證、撥補」保障，目前唯有勞保、國保、農保無此保障條款。之前財政單位聲稱：「目前政府財務困難，且勞保基金屬於社會保險，應該自給自足，公保有政府保證、撥補，因政府是雇主…」，實在是觀念錯誤。因為上述所有不同身分的社保，應該有相同法源，在「唯一」的社會保險下，退休保障只有一個制度，由政府統籌管理，各帳戶差異只在收付款項數額高低而已。

全民基本生活都應該受保障，先進國家社會保險只有一個制度，提撥的雇主容或不同，但都屬社保範疇，遊戲規則統一。我國卻分割成軍、公、勞 保、農保、國保…。軍公教單獨「特保」，「特權階級保險」嗎？又強調政府是公保「雇主」，才有政府保證、撥補。財政單位這些「技術性」說法都無法成立，更違反價值觀與社保精神。

對勞工而言，勞保是政府開辦的，凡有工作的都強制納保、依法繳費，並由勞保局統籌運用投資，人民無權拒絕且必須參加受其規範。九百多萬勞工對台灣經濟貢獻絕不輸於六十萬軍公教，今天勞保危機延燒成社會對立，全然是政府造成，長年將國家資源偏差分配獨厚自己。無論過去是何原因，勞保同屬強制 參加的社會保險，卻不保證或撥補，實難撫平人心。

日前行政院發布新聞，承諾修法建構健全勞保制度，並將政府撥補周全入法，這是正確的第一步。過去不管是高官自肥或是制度設計缺失，也不管哪個族群團體，未來十五年都面臨先後的破產窘境。若不改革，勞保、特保都沒有未來。不只是牛肉麵、陽春麵的差別，而是沒得吃的差別。社會是共榮共存的，任何資源扭曲濫用都無法持久，現今該是社保制度整合，並設計所得重分配功能的時候了。  （作者為精算師）

 

http://news.chinatimes.com/forum/11051401/112012103000559.html

 

 

Social insurance reform needed    By James Lin 林奇璋  Tue, Nov 06, 2012

 

If Taiwan’s Labor Insurance Fund (LIF) goes bankrupt, should the government be the guarantor of last resort for the labor retirement pensions? People have different views on the issue. Based on my work experience as an actuary in the US, I would like to offer a few clarifications and references for system reform and integration.

An aging population is a global problem, and growing old and retiring is an inevitability we all face. The issue is complex and involves long-term planning, so it is necessary to build a national social insurance pension system.

The Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program of the US Social Security system is such a product. The OASDI offers basic guarantees for a life in retirement for the whole public within the social security framework. Anyone with a job income contributes to the program, including military personnel, civil servants, school teachers and workers, based on the principle of financial self-sufficiency.

Moreover, the program is designed with an income redistribution function to ensure a minimum standard of living. It is similar to the right to education or conscription in that it applies equally to every citizen across the nation.

Under this system, each of the more than 300 million US citizens is assigned an account number, and there is no difference made based on status. During a person’s employment, employers are legally required to make contributions to the same pool. Each enterprise and state government can also provide additional pension plans offering greater benefits.

Taiwan, with its 23 million people, has a different system. Different working populations have built different systems at different times. Military personnel have military insurance, civil servants and public school teachers have civil servant insurance and workers have labor insurance, while the unemployed rely on the National Pension Insurance. In addtion, there is the Farmer Health Insurance and other kinds of insurance. Such programs do not redistribute income, and they use different formulas for calculating contributions and payment conditions. For example, some civil servants and public school teachers enjoy an 18 percent preferential interest rate on their pensions.

The law also states that the government must guarantee these payments, but there is no such legal protection for the national, labor and farmer insurance programs.

The Ministry of Finance has said that given the government’s current financial difficulties, the LIF is a social insurance and as such should be financially self-sufficient, adding that the government guarantees pensions for civil servants and public school teachers simply because it is their employer. This concept is completely wrong. The different social insurance programs for these groups should be based on the same legal foundation. With a single social insurance, there should be only one retirement pension system, and it should be managed by the government. The only difference between the accounts should be the size of contributions and payments.

Basic living standards should be protected for the public as a whole. Advanced countries have only one social insurance system. Although different employers make contributions to this single system, they do so under the same social insurance system and following the same rules.

 

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2012/11/06/2003546984