Electoral program of the CSSD under the magnifying glass - part 2. - social system

Solidarity society, legal certainty, defense and the development of a social democratic state. These are some of the main slogans of the CSSD's election program. And what is really under it?

A democratic welfare state is a standard European value that we want to further develop. The costs of the Czech welfare state currently belongs absolutely and relatively to the lowest in Europe. In relative terms, they are almost a third lower than the European average, and in absolute terms the difference is even dramatically higher.

- source: cssd.cz

It's beautiful that we have some of relatively the lowest expenditure on the social system. But lo and behold, it has a catch - the Czech Republic has in comparison with other EU countries below average tax burden. In other words, we all send a smaller part of our income to the state coffers than most of Europe, with the proviso that the more to the east, the less the tax burden. Of course, there are exceptions.

As the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Janota, said: "We cannot have English taxes and Swedish spending." We need to decide whether we want more personal freedom to decide on our income or whether we want to put more money into the social system with by the fact that maybe one day we will have something out of it.

Another pitfall is that even though we have (supposedly) one of the lowest expenditures in the so-called welfare state, we must realize that only the social system, various benefits, etc. each year make up about half (or more) of the expected state expenditures. If a deficit of about 200 billion is now expected, then about half (CZK 100 billion, ie CZK 100) of this debt is generated by the "welfare state".

And as is well known, the state is a bad manager. For this reason, the social system of the Czech Republic is inefficient and a lot of money is probably thrown out the window, even in popular terms. Do you want to entrust your money to this bad manager (under any colored government), or do you prefer to decide where to put your resources?

However, it must not be overlooked that, in international comparison, we still spend far less in a number of areas than is enough to live in dignity, be it pensions, family support, social services, access to housing or education and health care. And also that the socially needy and those who did not cause it must not pay extra for the crisis.

- source: cssd.cz

And again, we spend less because we spend less on taxes. However, we cannot compare the Czech Republic with countries such as France, Great Britain, Germany, Austria and others, as the CSSD likes. We have to compare the Czech Republic with countries that play the "same league" - that is, with countries such as Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, perhaps also Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. In comparison with these countries, on the other hand, the Czech Republic spends some of the largest resources.

So far, our country spends much less on pensions than the European average. Relatively a third, absolutely even less. Pensions are therefore a more sensitive item in our country than elsewhere. The increase in pensions and similar benefits must respect the fact that the cost of living of the groups concerned is rising, as well as the overall growth in income. The cost of living for pensioners is generally rising faster than average inflation. Therefore, we will promote a higher increase in pensions than an increase in the cost of living of pensioners so that the real value of pensions remains at least at the level of 55% of the average net wage. In this context, we will also make a possible one-time "expensive" compensation (the so-called thirteenth pension) from CEZ's dividend.

- source: cssd.cz

Let us leave the information about lagging behind the European average aside, because then we would have to compare salaries and others and talk about the "European average" in the appropriate context. Just like that, without context, it is not possible for the reasons given above.

The fact is that current retirees and retirees in the near future are de facto poor, whose standard of living is no longer possible. At least not right away. For several years now, however, a message has been sent to younger students to save for retirement. The current pensioners did not have this possibility, they were robbed of it by the communist regime (which is one of the proofs antisociality this regime) and therefore are on the way they are. It's not their fault. Unfortunately.

However, the pension situation here will be bad for many years to come, and it may be fixed when the current people in their forties retire. This will "leave" perhaps the last generation of people who have been affected by the dormant reform (which I hope to implement by the next parliamentary term) and who have not paid more for retirement. The CSSD also has a large share (after the Communist Party, I would say the largest) in this deplorable state. At a time when it was the best opportunity, she did not do a pension reform, but instead invested time in social benefits like crayons. How immensely asocial and explicitly against retirement behavior.

Dear retirees, I regret you. The Social Democrats (and others), along with the Communist Party, have apparently ruined your old age. It's sad, but it's true. We must make sure that this does not happen to future generations.

Comments are off.