What is the modern pension system in Russia?

The pension system of Russia is a set of institutions and norms being created in the Russian Federation with the aim of providing citizens with material security in the form of a pension. pension system in modern form introduced in Russia on January 1, 2002.

The Russian pension system consists of three types pension provision: state pension provision, compulsory pension insurance and non-state pension provision.

Below you can find a comparative description of these types of pensions.

What types of pensions are there?

As part of the state pension provision, state pension provision pensions (hereinafter referred to as state pensions) are paid.

As part of compulsory pension insurance, they are paid.

As part of non-state pension provision, they are paid.

What is a state pension?

Thus, the higher the salary, the higher the pension will be. However, it must be taken into account that there is a . This value is indexed annually taking into account the growth of the average wage in Russia. In 2017, it amounts to 876,000 rubles on an accrual basis from the beginning of the year (in 2016 - 796,000 rubles). In other words, as soon as earnings during the year reach 876,000 rubles, insurance contributions to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (PFR) for the insurance and funded pension of a citizen will not be transferred.

What is the system of non-state pension provision?

(NGO) is the formation at the expense of voluntary pension contributions of citizens (from personal funds) or employers (from their own funds).

NGO services are provided (NPF). Between the NPF and a citizen or an employer is concluded. Based on the transferred pension contributions (personal or from the organization's funds) and the income from their investment, a non-state (individual or corporate) pension is formed and paid.

Comparative characteristics of types of pension provision

Mass pensions were first introduced in Germany in 1889 by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. The first state pension fund collected money from both employees and employers. The more money a person invested in the fund, the higher the pension he received in old age. In 1891 in Denmark and in 1898 in New Zealand, the governments introduced pensions for the needy - as the authorities tried to reduce social inequality in society. By the beginning of the 20th century, two approaches to retirement had emerged:

Pension - seniority allowance for former employees. Its size depended on the length of service, labor and social services to society and the state.

The pension is an equal payment for people with low incomes.

Two types of pension system

On the basis of these two approaches in world practice, by the middle of the 20th century, funded and solidarity pensions stood out. Both types of pension system are conditional, and the world uses different sources of funding and their proportions in different years.

In a funded pension system, employees and/or employers contribute money to individual accounts. On the onset retirement age, disability or other insured event the client begins to receive benefits. The state in such a system only guarantees the payment of pensions.

In a solidarity system, contributions are collected from all sources into a single fund and then paid to pensioners. Depending on the sources of funding, two subtypes of the solidarity system are distinguished:

The insurance system - works like an insurance fund. All employees pay insurance premiums that provide benefits to retirees.

The state security system - the pension fund is formed on the basis of budget money. The state gives part of the earned funds from the state budget to the pension fund. Citizens do not pay special contributions to the pension fund - it is formed from all state revenues: taxes from the population and companies, sales of raw materials, goods, technologies, services, etc.

Pension in Russia and how it was arranged

The first pensions in Russia began to be paid to civil servants and the military in the 17th century. Later, the number of categories of citizens receiving pensions expanded until a mass pension appeared in 1964. Prior to that, in 1956, the Soviet government approved the law "On State Pensions", according to which women at 55 and men at 60 who did not work on collective farms could receive benefits. Eight years later, collective farmers also began to receive state pensions - before that, they received benefits from artels, which organized their own funds and mutual funds.

Introduction

Conclusion

Bibliography

Applications

Introduction

The modern pension system is the fruit of the centuries-old labors of mankind. Initially, the pension was considered solely as a reward, indicating the fact that a person receiving such a monetary reward is noted for certain services to the fatherland or has a high social position. The first to see the light were military pensions, which were given as a reward to the soldiers of Rome under Julius Caesar. But the solidarity system of compulsory pension insurance was first put into practice in Germany about 100 years ago. The initiator of the introduction of the solidarity insurance system was Otto von Bismarck, who made every effort to promote it to the masses. Since then, the German pension system has been the prototype of the world pension insurance practice.

Depending on the country, the practice of pension insurance pursued certain goals. For example, in Denmark, compulsory pension contributions were used as a means of combating poverty in the country, so such funds were formed at the expense of standard tax payments. The countries of Asia and Africa have built an insurance system different from the European one. If in Europe it is customary to pay a pension, regardless of the amount of contributions paid, then in Asia the funded system is considered preferable. Later, the accumulative insurance system became widespread, as it appealed to many citizens who fought for the effective redistribution of pension funds. Today non-state pension funds offering unique insurance programs are especially popular. Such companies use a variety of methods to attract customers (mobile marketing<#"center">Chapter 1. Place and significance of the pension system in market relations

1.1 Essence and functions of pension insurance

In modern society, objectively, there are separate segments of the population that are in need of temporary or permanent material support, implemented through the system social security.

Social security is a system of material support for certain categories of persons who are unable or who experience significant difficulties to independently provide for their existence.

The main form of social security is social insurance, which is a system of material security for the population of the country, based on the principles of insurance. The leading role in the process of Russian state social insurance belongs to the Pension Fund of Russia, which manages the finances of pension provision in the country.

State pension insurance - a type of insurance carried out at the expense of compulsory insurance contributions from employers and citizens, in order to provide citizens with labor pensions for old age, disability, loss of a breadwinner and for length of service in accordance with the Law of the RSFSR "On State Pensions".

Pension provision is made in the form of payment of pensions to certain categories of persons if there are grounds established by the current legislation. The basis for pension provision are various legal facts: reaching a certain age; the onset of disability; death of the breadwinner; long-term execution of a certain professional activity(length of service).

Russian pension fund

Pension(from lat. pensio - payment) - a regular cash payment (calculated per month), which is made in the manner prescribed by law to certain categories of persons from social non-budgetary funds and other sources intended for these purposes.

The right and guarantees of pension provision in the Russian Federation are established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation: The Russian Federation is a social state whose policy is aimed at creating conditions that ensure a decent life and free development of a person. In the Russian Federation, labor and health of people are protected, a guaranteed minimum wage is established, state support is provided for the family, motherhood, fatherhood and childhood, the disabled and the elderly, a system of social services is being developed, state pensions, benefits and other guarantees of social protection are being established. (Article 7). Everyone is guaranteed social security for old age, in case of illness, disability, loss of a breadwinner, for the upbringing of children and in other cases established by law. State pensions and social benefits are established by law. Voluntary social insurance, the creation of additional forms of social security and charity are encouraged." (Article 39).

Pension insurance, being a subsystem of social insurance, has a number of specific features of the economic category of insurance:

The object of pension insuranceis the social risk of the citizens of the country, associated with the inevitable onset of old age, the acquisition of permanent disability, loss of a breadwinner and others in cases.

Pension insurance policyholdersare organizations of all forms of ownership, private entrepreneurs.

State pension insurance insurerin the Russian Federation on behalf of the state is the Pension Fund of Russia.

Insurer of pension insurance of individual citizens on a voluntary basisare non-state pension funds (financial institutions operating within the legal framework of Russia).

In the process of pension insurance, separate concepts and terms are used:

insured person- a person covered by state pension insurance. The insured persons are citizens of the Russian Federation, foreign citizens and stateless persons;

employers- legal entities, including foreign ones, and their separate subdivisions; international organizations operating on the territory of the Russian Federation (in relation to citizens entitled to state pensions in accordance with the Law of the RSFSR "On State Pensions in the RSFSR"); tribal, family communities of the small peoples of the North, engaged in traditional sectors of management; peasant (farm) farms; citizens, including foreign citizens, stateless persons residing in the Russian Federation, and individual entrepreneurs hiring under an employment contract;

payers of state pension insurance premiums- employers, as well as citizens, including individual entrepreneurs, foreign citizens, stateless persons (hereinafter referred to as citizens), who independently pay insurance premiums to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation;

insurance contributions to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation- mandatory payments for state pension insurance, which payers of insurance premiums pay to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation;

insurance experience of the insured person- total duration of periods labor activity the insured person during his life, for which insurance premiums were paid;

individual (personalized) accounting- organizing and keeping records of information about each insured person for the purposes of state pension insurance.

The pension insurance process is based on a long-term social contract between the active population and those who, due to their advanced age, can no longer work, but who in the past supported the elderly financially (through the payment of insurance premiums).

Tasks of the pension system:

Material security for living and protection from poverty in the event of old age, and in other cases established by law;

Providing a guaranteed post-employment income, which is usually a certain amount, in proportion to the amount of earnings paid immediately before retirement;

Protecting pension income from subsequent declines in real living standards due to inflation.

The economic essence of pension insurance is manifested through its function: providing, through the financial mechanism, the formation and use of the Pension Fund for the purpose of paying pensions to certain social groups of society. The financial mechanism of pension insurance, in our opinion, should be understood as the operation of laws, by-laws and instructions of state financial authorities on the formation and use of the monetary Pension Fund. The monetary nature of the Pension Fund makes it possible to organize its effective functioning, since its formation takes place in the process of redistribution of the gross domestic product of society.

Modern economic science has developed several types of pension systems (having their own specific financial mechanism), which are characterized by certain characteristics and have distinctive features. To key points, which determine the level of efficiency of the functioning of pension systems, include:

methods of their financial support;

the structure of funds, the role of private, professional systems and the role of the state;

relationship between premiums and pension payments.

With all the variety of approaches to building pension systems, as a rule, there are three main ones: character traits:

Methods of financial provision of pension systems - either through state mechanisms for the redistribution of insurance premiums, or through the use of systems of partial or full capitalization of insurance premiums, or using personalized accounts;

Form of organization of pension systems - private, professional (sectoral), state;

The mechanism for determining the size of pensions is based on individual (fixed) calculations or taking into account the established single contributions, and hence the uniform amounts of payments.

Currently, there are two classic pension systems in the world: solidarity and funded. The system of solidarity between generations of employees of wage labor involves the content non-working pensioners at the expense of insurance premiums of younger working segments of the population. The accumulative pension system to the greatest extent implements the principle of social insurance and consists in the return of part of the wages withdrawn from the employee through direct (insurance contributions of workers) and indirect (contributions of employers) deductions for these purposes.

1. The system of solidarity of generations of hired labor.

In this system, the size of the pension, on the one hand, is uniform (the state sets the lower and upper levels of contributions and benefits), which makes it possible to ensure the protection of minimum incomes and achieve social harmony in society. On the other hand, it is associated with the level of earnings before retirement, which suggests the presence of the foundations of social justice. As a rule, under such systems, contributions are used to meet current liabilities, but do not create a basic reserve fund.

Such systems are obligatory, their guarantor is the state. They presuppose a certain degree of solidarity towards workers with the most low level income, using a universal and fixed pension structure; however, they target workers whose wages will rise significantly towards the end of their employment. The positive aspects of such systems include the fact that the state guarantees the payment of pensions, neither depending on the performance of social actors, financial markets, nor on the ability of the management of pension systems to effectively ensure the capitalization (investment) of funds.

2. Accumulative system.

Professional and private pension systems are built, as a rule, on the principles of capitalization of contributions and personalization of pension accounts. At the same time, the levels of insurance premiums and pensions (both employees and employers) are set, which are accumulated in individual accounts in the pension fund. Interest is accrued on them during the working life of the insured, and when the latter retires, they are used to pay pensions (to pay rent). In defined benefit schemes, individual contributions accumulated at a percentage increment (through their capitalization) up to retirement should be consistent with the estimated level of expenditure on the respective pension. pension benefit.

Such systems generally do not benefit from government financial guarantees; they rely on the financial markets to ensure that, under favorable economic conditions, the level of income. As a result, the pension benefit reflects both contributions and interest on the amount of workers' contributions for their working life, and not just earnings in the years immediately preceding their retirement. However, these systems do not have the advantages of universal and fixed benefit systems, which are characterized by a spirit of solidarity with the poor. At the same time, they are characterized by a more visible and controlled nature of the formation of funds. The insured (he is also one of the two subjects of insurance, i.e. the insured) can at any time receive information about the total amount of his contributions (similar to bank accounts) and the interest accrued on it or about the level of benefits due to him.

Unlike systems that use redistributive principles, in private pension systems, premiums must be set at a relatively high level and an appropriate reserve fund is needed.

It should also be noted that such systems, if they do not have access to government bonds with some protection against inflation, do not have sufficient funds to index the amounts of income to the pension fund or the pensions they provide.

The economic community, when comparing pension systems, is more inclined to believe that the funded pension system is considered more progressive, which has a number of advantages:

Independence from demographic problems in the country - the ratio of the number of workers (payers of insurance premiums) to the number of recipients of pensions (pensioners);

Allows to accumulate significant financial resources for their investment in commercial projects;

Increases fairness in the process of pension provision, as it returns to the pensioner the insurance premiums accumulated by him.

Between these two fundamentally different models of pension systems, there are many intermediate options, many of which aim to mitigate the shortcomings of each system and enhance their advantages. This was expressed in attempts to create appropriate organizational and legal structures. In the most generalized form, such structures can be represented as a three-level system, the elements of which complement each other:

) a system of fixed social pensions provided through the system of compulsory social insurance and, where necessary, using subsidies from the state budget for persons who have not "collected" the required insurance experience;

) a system of universal compulsory insurance of pensions, carried out under the control of the state, guaranteeing the provision of pensions, the amount of which depends on the amount of earnings, with the formation of a pension fund on the basis of the distribution of contributions collected from both employers and employees;

) a voluntary system using the principle of full capitalization and single contributions, as an individual or professional, i.e. associated with a particular enterprise or profession, intended for individuals who would like to receive additional pensions (in addition to pensions paid through compulsory state pension systems), and dependent on the earnings of the worker.

Formed in the process of developing the market economy of Western countries, this model of pension provision is based on the following basic principles:

Firstly, it is designed to provide social protection from poverty for all citizens of the country ( social pensions) and above all those persons who, for one reason or another, do not have the opportunity to take care of themselves;

secondly, an important element of the three-tier system is universal insurance, which ensures the "earning" of old-age pensions by the entire active population of the country;

thirdly, the system of additional voluntary insurance is designed to become a tool for workers to achieve greater economic freedom and limit their dependence on the state, which helps each person, if he so desires, to form an additional source of assistance (additional non-state pensions).

The pension systems of many countries often use mixed funding and redistribution models. Pension systems are built in the form of basic and supplementary pensions and old-age benefits. Basic old-age pensions are provided in a number of countries (Netherlands, Luxembourg, Great Britain, Denmark, Ireland) through the payment of the same amount of money to all persons, regardless of the amount of previous earnings. In other EU countries, the amount of basic pensions is linked to average earnings over a certain period of time and may be limited by a minimum and maximum pension.

Supplementary pensions are paid by industry or firm. They reach an average of 10-20% of the basic pension and are not only a way to maintain the income of those who have retired, but also a means of securing personnel at a given enterprise (in the industry).

When calculating pensions, the composition of the family is taken into account (single pensioners, there are children). Almost all EU countries introduced indexation of pensions. The share of workers in the financing of pension funds is on average 30-40% of their total volume. The main part of the contributions is paid by entrepreneurs (partly by the state). The amount of pension contributions for workers ranges from 6-7% (Belgium, Great Britain, Italy) to 12%.

Chapter 2. Evolution of the pension system

2.1 Evolution of pension systems in world practice

In principle, there are four ways to provide material support for the elderly.

Firstly, they can continue to work along with the young, secondly, their family can take care of them, thirdly, the old people can receive a pension, and fourthly, there is an opportunity to live on previously made savings.

Pension provision plays a serious role, in fact, only in developed countries and in a separate part of moderately developed countries. In the rest of the world, society has not yet overcome the traditional approach in which children support their elderly parents, who try to work to the best of their ability. Therefore, the experience of the latter countries is not of great interest to us. Sometimes pension systems there are not so much an important element of the social sphere as a kind of exotic that is of no importance to the population. For example, in Zambia in 1988, more than half of all contributions managed to be used for administrative expenses.

First, let's look at the pension systems of developed countries. If a Russian, when asked how a pension begins, will probably answer that it is with the regulatory activities of the state, then a citizen of a developed Western country - a European or an American - may look at these things differently. For him, the state also plays a big role, but no less important in ensuring his own old age is the accumulation of money. It can be done in different forms (in particular, it is not the one who saves who can pay contributions), but in any case, we are talking about the use of their own money by older people, and not the earnings of younger generations redistributed in their favor.

Before reaching its current state, the pension systems of the developed countries of the world have come a long way of development. Before the beginning of the era of industrialization and urbanization, the main support in European countries, older people received from their families. But this method of ensuring old age was undermined by the mass migration to urban centers that took place at the end of the last century (in Great Britain much earlier), the result of which was the disintegration of patriarchal families. In addition, economic change, uncertainty and the lack of appropriate financial instruments for savings reduced the ability to plan for old age and make the necessary savings.

The industrial working class began to demand the formation of new methods for solving the problem of secure old age. One of these methods was the formation of mutual aid societies and mutual support funds, in which workers contributed a nominal amount, and then could receive the necessary assistance from them in case of injury, death of the family breadwinner, or decline in working capacity with the onset of old age. However, these funds often suffered from poor management.

In addition, their coverage of workers was very limited. In 1889, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck created the world's first nationwide old-age insurance based on his own system of accumulation of payments, thereby partially withdrawing workers from the influence of the socialists. At the turn of the century, there was a serious debate in European countries whether to create a nationwide pension insurance system, following the example of the German one, or a narrower system that only complements measures taken within the framework of helping the poor. The German approach was supported by the fact that such a system solved the problem of providing for all the elderly, had its own financial base and did not undermine the population's incentives to work and save.

The opposite approach had the advantage that it was much cheaper, since it was believed that not all older people need state support.

In 1891, Denmark adopted a narrow pension scheme, and soon similar schemes appeared in Australia, Ireland, Iceland, France, Great Britain and New Zealand. However, the situation gradually changed, and by the beginning of the Second World War, national pension systems were already in place in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Great Britain, Greece, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the USA, France, Czechoslovakia and Sweden. However, pensions provided only about 15-20% of wages, since the main goal of the system at that time was still the fight against poverty.

However, in the future, the focus was shifted from the fight against poverty to the creation of a welfare state. This led to a gradual increase in the overall level of state pension provision and expansion of the coverage of the population with pay-as-you-go schemes. This result was achieved thanks to the high rates of post-war economic growth and a favorable demographic situation.

New pension systems were formed in Switzerland (1949), the Netherlands (1957), Sweden (1960), Norway (1966) and Canada (1966). In other European countries, as well as in the USA and Japan, there was an active expansion of the use of existing schemes, mainly due to the addition of new, relatively better-earning citizens to the previously covered relatively low-income sections of the population. In favor of the generations retiring in the 1960s and 1970s, there was thus a colossal redistribution of income from working generations.

A significant increase in the level of state pensions in developed countries has led to the fact that the financial burden associated with the maintenance of the elderly has increased significantly. In the early 1990s, government spending on the payment of state pensions was, although varying from one country to another, but on the whole still a very significant share of GDP. For example, in Italy they accounted for 14.2% of GDP, in France - 13.3%, in Germany - 12.3%, in Sweden - 11.3%, in the USA - 6.9%, in Great Britain - 6 .4%, in Canada - 6.0%, in Japan - 5.7%. Such a financial burden, although it is not felt in these countries as painfully as in Russia due to the general high level of economic development, still creates certain problems today. The prospects for the development of public pension systems are becoming increasingly problematic. The most important financial source for the existence of public pension systems are contributions to the social insurance system. They are calculated in relation to the total amount of wages and amount to different countries significantly different value (from 5% in Canada to 27% in Italy). In some countries contributions are paid roughly equally by both the employee and the employer (e.g. USA, Canada, Germany, Japan), while in others the employer bears a substantially greater financial burden (e.g. France, Italy, Sweden). ). In most countries, there is a certain ceiling above which the payment of contributions to the pension system is no longer carried out.

In most developed countries, pensions are indexed to changes in consumer prices. In Germany, France and Japan, indexation also takes place, but the size of the pension is linked not to prices, but to changes in wages.

In the future, as demographic trends reduce the number of workers per pensioner (respectively, the number of payers of pension contributions), the high level of state pension provision may be jeopardized. Some experts predict a reduction in the level of pensions in relation to the level of the average wage. Moreover, the state will have to withdraw a significantly larger share of wages as payments to the pension system in order to somehow support the well-being of pensioners. As a result, a fundamentally different (hardly acceptable) situation will emerge by the middle of the next century.

Complication of the situation awaits almost all countries. To a certain extent, the UK and Sweden are exceptions. It is unlikely that even rich countries will be able to actually go for such a significant increase

withdrawal of part of the income of the working generation. There is a theoretical

the possibility of raising the pension, but this way the problem cannot be solved in principle. Consequently, developed countries face a serious problem of reforming the entire pension system.

In order to understand which path the reform of pension systems can take, one should look at another (non-state) sector of pension provision (more precisely, pension insurance).

In addition to state pension provision, in the developed countries of the world, a system of private pension insurance was also formed, and the latter could be built both on a professional basis and on the basis of individual accumulation. Today, about one third of the citizens of the OECD countries are covered by various systems built on the principle of professional pension insurance for the population.

Professional schemes, unlike state and individual savings schemes, are sponsored by employers, and they can be based both on voluntary contributions from firms and on contributions determined by the terms of collective agreements. They exist with minimal government intervention and are associated with relatively low administrative costs.

These systems enable those people who are ready to work hard and conscientiously to have better pensions in old age. But at the same time, they give significantly different benefits to different workers (depending no longer on a personal contribution, but on where a person works).

Occupational pension systems can be based on an industry principle or on an individual company basis. The first principle is characteristic of European continental countries, while the second can be considered an Anglo-American approach. The pension that will be paid to the worker in the future depends in such systems mainly on the length of service and on the amount of his earnings.

Occupational pension systems in many countries show a steady positive trend, since they do not have the disadvantages of the state pay-as-you-go pension system noted above. There is no problem of redistribution of resources from one generation to another. There is also no problem of the adverse impact of demographic trends on the existence of the system itself.

Some objective boundaries of development that arise in modern world before the distributive model, step aside when society deals with professional systems. As a result, their influence on the economies of developed countries is gradually increasing. Naturally, there remains a significant difference between individual countries in terms of the scale of development of occupational pension systems, but in general, the role of this form of ensuring the life of older generations is becoming increasingly important. Moreover, this process affects both countries that are traditionally characterized by a similar approach to the pension business, and countries where the scale of funds is relatively small. In particular, this phenomenon is reflected in the increase in the assets of pension funds.

Occupational pension systems in the developed countries of the world are today becoming the most important source of long-term capital both for the economy of this country and for neighboring countries. In contrast to the resources that are concentrated in pay-as-you-go pension schemes, the assets of professional systems are used relatively freely and regardless of the political goals set by one government or another. As a result, investments are actively going to the private sector and, on average, yield significantly higher returns than public pension funds.

During the 1980s, returns in almost all countries became positive, which also ensured high positive returns throughout the entire twenty-year period (1970-1990). The best results were achieved in the UK during the 1980s, as there was a good stock market, and a significant proportion of their assets were invested in securities by the pension system. In the US, things also did well throughout the 1980s.

However, they did not fare as well in pension funds as they did in other institutional investors, such as mutual funds. The Swiss pension system had the lowest return.

Fast development professional pension systems, of course, does not mean their uniform impact on the whole of society. First of all, pension insurance covers workers with the highest earnings. First, this is because pension insurance affects, first of all, large corporations, where the income of employees is, on average, higher than in small companies. Second, the corporations themselves sometimes extend pension insurance only to senior employees who receive significant salaries. Part-time workers are not covered by the insurance. As a result of these and some other factors, a situation has arisen that the additional non-state pension in developed countries is more important for people with relatively higher incomes.

The experience of developed countries is not the most relevant for Russia today, although data on a relatively small percentage of older people who work because of a lack of funds to ensure their lives are very tempting. But there are too many things that distinguish us in terms of building a system of social protection for the elderly.

2.2 Evolution of the Russian pension system

The pension system of Russia, like any form of socio-economic relations, has gone through certain stages of its development, starting from the introduction of this type of social insurance into the Russian system of social security of the population and its development to modern forms.

Pension provision in Russia originates from the well-known reforms of Peter I, an integral and very significant part of which was the reform of the civil service and the establishment of the Table of Ranks. According to the Table, the monetary content of officials was determined, including salaries, dining and apartment (rental) money, which was the basis for calculating pensions.

The origin of pension provision begins with the appointment of pensions by Peter I to officials of the Naval Department, then it spreads to officials of other military departments, civil and court officials, and finally, the clergy, since the church was not separated from the state and the ranks of church dioceses were subject to pensions.

An important stage in the evolution of this type of pension provision is the coverage of all government officials and the development of the General Charter on pensions and lump sums for officials and their families, which was approved on December 6, 1827 by Emperor Nicholas I.

In the first half of the XIX century. The state-distributive system of pension provision has basically completed the formation of a fairly complex mechanism of its internal regulation, continuously refining and polishing the principles of pension provision for officials and their families, fixing them with a differentiated system of legislative and regulatory acts, taking into account the specifics of public service in various departments and territories of the Empire.

In the future, the development of monetary and market relations, the growth of the state bureaucracy, the increase in military spending, the growing burden of pension costs led to the fact that the state treasury began to experience serious financial difficulties. Under the pressure of these circumstances, the Russian pension system has evolved. Two directions of this process can be distinguished: the essence of the first, aimed at easing the burden of the state treasury, consisted in the introduction by the state of the procedure for deducting a certain percentage of the salary received by an official to the pension treasury fund, which was not previously practiced. This meant that a new - insurance - element of pension provision was introduced into the system - not from the treasury, but from the official's own salary. The amounts of these deductions were minimal and concerned the lower classes of officials; a larger area of ​​reforming the state treasury system of pensions was the establishment for state officials - first military, and then civil and even zemstvo - the so-called emerital funds, the participants of which, according to the Charter specially approved by the emperor, could only be civil servants of military and civilian departments. In financial terms, the cash desks were based on the contributions of officials from their salaries (6-8%) to personal accounts and inviolable capital allocated by the treasury and placed in securities, the income from which supported the market stability of the cash desks and was directed to replenish the personal accounts of their participants. The statutes of the Emeritus Funds regulated their activities, the procedure for membership, the amount of pensions for officials and their families, depending on the length of service (length of service) and the amount of savings in personal accounts.

The treasury-emerital system had undeniable merits. She laid the cornerstones for the creation of a sufficiently effective pension system, formulated the basic principles of its regulation, and timely introduced elements of improvement and reform. Due to its limitations, since it applied only to officials, it left aside other classes of society.

The need for the evolution of the pension system in breadth, which became more and more obvious with the development of capitalist commodity production and market relations in general, led to the emergence of a new direction in the reform of pension provision, which by its nature turned out to be potentially capable of involving broad sections of the population in the emerging market pension system. This direction is represented by the emerging pension insurance and savings-auxiliary cash desks, which began to involve the growing masses of the population, including hired workers, in the sphere of pension provision. Due to the simplicity of the organization, the creation of savings and auxiliary cash desks in practice did not encounter any particular difficulties. However, their opening was allowed only if it was impossible to create a pension fund. The arrangement of insurance pension funds was not a simple matter. To achieve financial sustainability, their activities had to be based on the use of statistics on mortality, disability, and so on. An annual check of the fulfillment of the obligations of cash desks in relation to their participants was also necessary. Therefore, at first it was necessary to carry out a large preparatory work to draw up special tables on the basis of which pensions would be calculated. In the future, the entire system of organizing pension funds and compiling tables for calculating pensions began to be regulated by the state.

Thus, there are grounds for the conclusion that the spontaneous process of the emergence and spread of pension systems in pre-revolutionary Russia was replaced at a certain stage by attempts by society and the state to consciously direct the development of this process along the path of improving the pension system in the country.

An analysis of the evolution of pension systems, especially insurance and savings and auxiliary cash desks of pre-revolutionary Russia, gives grounds for theoretical conclusions that pension provision, performing the functions of social protection of the population, at a certain historical stage began to include an entrepreneurial, commercial component, without which the pension system cannot exist in a market economy.

The main stages of the evolution of the domestic pension system took place in the 20th century. Until 1917, the case of old age was not included in the scope of social insurance. During this period, in Russia, as in most countries of the world, there was a generic form of support for the elderly, based on the fact that the maintenance of the elderly was taken over by members of his family. Only government officials were entitled to state pensions in Russia, and the demand for the establishment of universal pensions was included among the revolutionary demands of the Bolsheviks. IN AND. Lenin argued that workers are entitled to state pensions because they all rich classes and the whole state support their work, and therefore they are no less entitled to a pension than officials who receive it . After the Great October Socialist Revolution, the list of persons eligible for a pension was significantly expanded. In the 1920s. A discussion has begun about the need to consider old age as a separate type of disability that needs pension provision. At that time, social security for the elderly was built not on the basis of age, but on the basis of disability and the onset of disability, based on the principle: "Pharisaic respect for gray hair and wrinkles is a joke alien to proletarian morality. If you are an old man and still able to work - work. And lost the ability to work - get a pension . Which led to a rather low, by modern standards, indicator of the number of pensioners. For example, in the city of Irkutsk on October 1, 1924, there were only 65 pensioners per 1,000 insured persons (the total number of pensioners in Irkutsk at that time was 763 people). At that time, with an average monthly salary in Irkutsk of 41.6 rubles, the monthly pension amounted to 7.5 rubles, i.e. about 18% of wages.

However, the situation was changing rapidly, and by the end of the 1920s, teachers of higher educational institutions were covered by old-age pensions (from 1924 to the age of 65), workers in the textile industry (from 1928), leading branches of heavy industry and transport (from 1929 of the year). In 1929, for the first time, differences were established between disability and old-age pensions, as well as the procedure for paying old-age pensions for those who continued to work.

In 1932, old-age pensions covered workers in all branches of the national economy. As a result of surveys conducted at that time of workers retiring due to disability due to disability, it was found that by the age of 55 most women and by 60 years most men lose the opportunity to continue working. On this basis, in 1932, retirement ages were introduced by law - 55 years for women and 60 years for men. Since then, these boundaries have not changed. In 1936, after the adoption of the Constitution of the USSR, pension provision became universal for workers and employees.

In 1956, the State Pensions Act was passed, regulating the amount of old-age pensions. The new law abolished the payment of old-age pensions to working pensioners, but at the same time increased the size of the pension. As a result, the share of working pensioners has fallen sharply - according to some estimates, from 60% in 1956 to 9% in 1962.

In 1964, the Law on Pensions and Allowances for Members of Collective Farms was adopted, which provided for retirement from 1965 for men from 65 years of age and for women from 60 years of age. In 1968, collective farmers received the right to an old-age pension from the same age as workers and employees. As a result, by the mid-1960s in Russia (as part of the former USSR) a state system of universal old-age pensions for the working population had developed, which was modified many times.

Until the mid-1960s, the demographic argument was not explicitly taken into account when creating a pension system, except for the findings of health studies in the late 20s and early 30s. The aging of the population has not yet been recognized as an inevitable social phenomenon and has not become a fact requiring attention. In 1920, in the USSR, the proportion of people aged 60 and over was 6.2%; in 1925, 5.9%; in 1930, 5.8%; in 1935; - 6.0%, in 1940 - 6.9%, in 1950-7.9%, in 1955 - 8.6%, in 1960 - 9.3%.

Since the mid-1960s, as the aging of the population has developed and the growth of the working-age population has declined, the demographic context has entered the discussion on reforming the pension system. However, the demographic factor was interpreted one-sidedly - as a shortage of labor resources. From this point of view, the consequences of the 1956 decree - a sharp reduction in the number of working pensioners - turned out to be negative. In many ways, therefore, in the future, pension legislation changed in the direction of ever greater material incentives for the employment of pensioners.

Decrees of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of 1964, 1966 and 1969 on measures to increase the material interest of able-bodied old-age pensioners in continuing to work after the appointment of a pension stopped the fall in the share of working pensioners, and then increased it. The share of working pensioners in the total number of all old-age pensioners was 10.1% in 1960, 14.1% in 1965, 20.8% in 1970, 24.4% in 1975, and 30.4% in 1980. A decisive role was played by the decree of 1969, on the basis of which 65% of all old-age pensioners received the right to receive a pension (mostly full) during the period of work. This benefit was introduced as a temporary one, but the recruitment of pensioners was successful and its validity was extended annually until 1979. A special resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR in 1979 consolidated the established practice of receiving pensions and salaries by working pensioners and introduced bonuses to pensions for work after reaching retirement age. This was dictated by low labor productivity in the conditions of an administrative-command economy and, as a result, a shortage of labor resources. pension system). By that time, pension provision in the USSR was carried out in the form of compulsory state social insurance of the working population of the country. Funds for pension insurance were accumulated in the State Social Insurance Fund, through which state social insurance funds were formed and used. The fund was consolidated in the state budget and included in it in terms of income and expenditure. In 1987, the budget of the USSR State Social Insurance Fund amounted to 12.6% of the USSR State Budget - with the USSR State Budget of 435.7 billion rubles, the budget of the USSR State Social Insurance Fund for 1987 was approved in the amount of 55.1 billion rubles.1

The main source of income for the State Social Insurance Fund was insurance premiums paid by enterprises, organizations, institutions in the amount of the accrued wages of their employees. The costs of paying insurance premiums for economic enterprises and organizations were included in the cost of products, works and services, in budgetary institutions - in the composition of estimated appointments.

Enterprises, organizations, institutions paid insurance premiums at tariffs set for the payroll fund and differentiated by sectors of the national economy in the range from 4.4 to 14 percent, including:

Table 1

Rates of insurance contributions to the State Social Insurance Fund

Sector of the national economyInsurance rateAgriculture Culture, education, health care Forestry, paper, woodworking industry Aviation, aviation industry, mechanical engineering, instrument making4.4% 7% 8% 14%

The rate of insurance premiums was significantly lower than the current insurance rate to the Pension Fund of Russia, even the maximum insurance rate was two times lower than the current rate of contribution to the Pension Fund for the main categories of payers.

The terms for paying insurance contributions to the State Social Insurance Fund were differentiated depending on the size of the wage fund and other indicators. Enterprises paid insurance premiums twice a month within the terms established for payment of wages for the first and second halves of the month. Budget institutions transferred social insurance contributions once a month simultaneously with the payment of wages for the second half of the month.

Other income included:

compensation to the fund for the payment of benefits for temporary disability in connection with an employment injury or occupational disease that occurred through the fault of the administration of an enterprise, organization, institution;

fines for violation of labor laws, penalties accrued in cases of late transfer of social insurance contributions;

other receipts.

The amount of insurance premiums was planned for the enterprise, organization, institution, district, region, territory, republic, branch trade union based on indicators: the number of employees; the average annual salary of one worker; percentage of social security contributions.

The number of employees for the planned year was calculated taking into account the average annual number of employees in the reporting year, the expected performance on this indicator in the current year, the trend in the number of employees over a number of years, as well as changes in production volumes in the planned year. Similarly, the average annual salary of one worker was calculated. By multiplying these indicators, the payroll for the year was planned. Social insurance contributions were calculated at the established rate from the payroll fund.

The expenditure part of the budget of the State Social Insurance Fund to a large extent repeats the structure of expenditures of the modern Russian Pension Fund, in the Russian Federation the continuity of the organization of pension provision is mainly preserved - in the Soviet period of the history of Russia, the same pensions were paid from the Fund: for old age; by disability; on the occasion of the loss of a breadwinner; for years of service. The age limit has also been preserved for the main type of pensions - old-age pensions: for men - upon reaching 60 years of age and with a total length of service of at least 25 years; women - upon reaching the age of 55 and with a total work experience of at least 20 years.

The main difference between the Soviet State Social Insurance Fund and the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation is that the expenditure part of the Fund's budget includes payments of benefits currently paid from the Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation: temporary disability benefits; allowance for pregnancy and childbirth; childbirth allowance; allowance for children to low-income families and other benefits. As a result, the USSR State Social Insurance Fund has always had a budget deficit, since social insurance contributions (the maximum amount of which did not exceed 14% of the wage fund) did not fully cover the costs of social insurance (which had a wider list of obligations compared to the present) , and the missing share of the funds came from the union budget. In the 1980s, it accounted for about 60% of the Fund's budget.

On the whole, one can state the preservation and transfer of the Soviet model of pension provision to modern Russian conditions. In 1992, a new pension legislation began to operate in Russia, adopted at the time when the RSFSR was part of the USSR. Its main feature was a more pronounced social orientation:

.unification for all categories of employees, including clergy, artists, etc.;

2.expanding the list of preferential categories for earlier retirement;

.introduction of social pensions for persons without work experience;

.setting the size of the pension equally dependent on previous earnings and length of service, as well as many other things related to the form of calculation of pension payments.

However, the main innovation was that the payment was introduced full size pensions to all working pensioners without exception. As a result, to date, the entire elderly population of Russia is supported by the state.

As a result of the new legislation, the composition of the population older than the working age has become almost homogeneous. Among the elderly, there were virtually no dependents of individuals. They continue to be only women aged 55-59 who have never worked and men aged 60-64, since social pensions require an age that is 5 years higher than the official pension.

Along with other well-known socio-economic and political developments, the new law led to a significant increase in the number of pensioners aged up to the official retirement age (women - up to 55 years old, men - up to 60 years old). Thus, in 1992-1993, compared with 1991, the number of early retirees increased by at least 30%. Among them, a certain proportion are early pensioners who appear due to the onset of unemployment: about 1% of the total number of old-age pensioners.

The all-Russian economic instability of the fifth stage of the evolution of the Russian pension system is characterized by an unstable tariff policy of the state in the field of pension insurance - for 8 years in the Russian Federation, the amount of insurance tariffs to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation has changed 5 times, as indicated in Table 3.

table 2

Rates of insurance contributions to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in 1991-2000

Payer categories 1991 1992 1993-1996 1997 1998-2000 after *2000 Employers2631.628282828Agricultural enterprises2620.620.620.620.620.6Entrepreneurs, lawyers5552820.619.2 Employees111110

The system of pension provision that had developed in the USSR by the end of the 1980s, after the start of radical economic reforms (1992), turned out to be unsuitable for the new conditions.

Due to price liberalization real size pension payments in the first months of 1992 fell by more than 2 times. Open and high inflation began. Thus, there was a need, firstly, to compensate (at least partially) for the losses of pensioners and, secondly, to regularly index pension payments.

The government made a decision in principle and at the beginning of 1992 established the same amount of labor pension for all recipients in the amount of 342 rubles per month, and then indexed precisely this value. The main principle on which state regulation of pensions was based in tough macroeconomic and financial-budgetary conditions was an attempt to prevent the average level of pensions from falling below the pensioner's subsistence level. In essence, only this criterion was the basis for making decisions on the frequency, form and size of indexation payments.

In 1993, a new differentiation of pensions was carried out in accordance with legislative acts adopted by the Supreme Soviet of Russia. The principle of calculating pensions that existed in Soviet time. However, this attempt resulted in numerous social costs. Thus, in particular, pensioners of the old years of appointment, that is, persons of the second retirement age who are not able to work and, thereby, replenish their budget, found themselves in a disadvantaged position.

In 1994, they tried to correct this shortcoming by recalculating past earnings from which the pension is calculated. But increasing pensions for those who have had more in the past. high wages, caused dissatisfaction on the part of pensioners who had lower earnings, but received pensions in Soviet times in maximum size.

However, a much more serious shortcoming of the pension system that took shape in Russia in 1993-1994 is related to the problem of the maximum pension. Currently, the maximum pension cannot be more than 3 minimum pensions, and for persons who had unfavorable working conditions - 3.5 minimum pensions. Due to the fact that the size of the minimum pension (without the compensation payment introduced by the decree of the President of the Russian Federation in 1995) is extremely low (at the end of 1996 it was 26% of the official subsistence level of a pensioner), the size of the maximum pension is also low. Taking into account all possible allowances and benefits, the maximum pension (without compensation payment) at that time exceeded the pensioner's subsistence level by only 15%. This leads to the actual elimination of the differentiation of labor pensions. recent years appointments due to the fact that recently almost all persons reaching retirement age present a certificate of wages sufficient for the appointment of a maximum pension.

The compensation payment, introduced by decree of the President of the Russian Federation in May 1995, is the largest (at the beginning of 1997 - 150 rubles a month, reaching 300 rubles by the middle of 2000) for those who receive a pension in the minimum amount and the smallest - for those who have a pension maximum. Thus, the actual minimum pension raised to 85% of the pensioner's living wage, which is a positive step. However, the gap between the minimum and maximum pensions has been reduced to an even greater extent.

Chapter 3. The current state and prospects of the pension system of the Russian Federation

3.1 Analysis of the formation of the revenue side of the budget and the main directions of spending the Pension Fund

A material source of any extra-budgetary fund is the national income. The predominant part of the funds is created in the process of redistribution of national income. The main methods of mobilizing the national income in the process of its redistribution in the formation of funds are special taxes and fees, funds from the budget and loans.

Special taxes and fees set by the legislature. Most of them are traditional and coincide with those that were the same in 2009.

The amount of subventions from the federal budget was set at 74.67 billion rubles. In addition, the budget will transfer 1.58 billion rubles to the fund for a one-time cash payment to war veterans in connection with the anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic war and 99.9 billion rubles - to finance monthly cash payments to federal beneficiaries: veterans; disabled people; citizens exposed to radiation due to radiation accidents and nuclear tests; Heroes Soviet Union, Heroes of the Russian Federation, full cavaliers of the Order of Glory, Heroes of Socialist Labor and full cavaliers of the Order of Labor Glory, etc.

A significant number of funds are formed at the expense of the central and regional local budgets. Budget funds come in the form of gratuitous subsidies or certain deductions from budget tax revenues. Extrabudgetary funds can also use borrowed funds as income. The surplus available from off-budget funds can be used to purchase securities and receive profit in the form of dividends or interest.

The funds of the Pension Fund are formed from:

insurance premiums of citizens engaged in individual labor activity;

insurance premiums of other categories of citizens;

appropriations from the federal and republican budgets of the Russian Federation for the payment of state pensions and allowances to military personnel, their families, allowances for children over 1.5 years old;

voluntary contributions of individuals and legal entities.

According to the Pension Fund of Russia, the system of compulsory pension insurance in Russia was characterized by the following main indicators .

The receipt of funds to finance the funded part of the labor pension in 2009 amounted to 15 billion rubles.

The second component of the pension system in Russia - the system of non-state pension provision - according to the Federal Financial Markets Service, had the following characteristics as of December 31, 2010 .

The Pension Fund of the Russian Federation and the tax authorities are entrusted with control over the timely and complete receipt of insurance contributions to the Pension Fund.

Since January 1, 1997 on the territory of the Russian Federation, the Federal Law "On individual (personalized) accounting in the system of state pension insurance" came into force (adopted by the State Duma on December 8, 1995, approved by the Federation Council on March 20, 1996)

The purposes of individual accounting are:

creation of conditions for the appointment of pensions in accordance with the results of the work of each insured person;

ensuring the reliability of information about the length of service and earnings that determine the amount of the pension when it is assigned;

creation of conditions for control over the payment of insurance premiums by insured persons.

For each insured person, the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation opens an individual personal account with a permanent insurance number. Each insured person is issued an insurance certificate.

Organizations-employers submit to the bodies of the Pension Fund information on earnings and accrued contributions of the insured person. The information is included in the personal account of the insured person.

The Pension Fund of the Russian Federation accounts for almost 78 percent of extrabudgetary social funds.

The Fund's expenses for the payment of state pensions and other payments from the federal budget will amount to 62 billion 209.9 million rubles.

The budget of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, as the main document that determines the daily life of the largest and most socially significant financial institution in our country, contains many other equally important points for every pensioner. But even the considered problems are undoubtedly close and understandable not only to pensioners, but to all citizens.

The typical rate of contribution to the Pension Fund is 20% of wages. These deductions are divided into the insurance part and the funded part of the pension.

Until 2010, PF contributions were accounted for as an integral part of the unified social tax<#"353" src="doc_zip1.jpg" />

The graph shows that in addition to the fact that the volume of the fund itself increased from 206.44 billion rubles. (for 2008) to 232.00 billion rubles. (for 2009), the volume of deductions to all funds also increased (territorial compulsory insurance funds, federal compulsory medical insurance funds, social insurance funds, insurance contributions to the Pension Fund of Russia by 25.92 billion rubles from 154.51 billion rubles (2008) to 180.43 billion rubles (2009)).

In 2010, arrears, penalties and other financial sanctions, formed as of January 1, 2010, in the amount of 12 billion rubles are provided for. The specified amount includes proceeds from measures to restructure debt on insurance premiums to the Fund, penalties and fines.

The balance of the Fund's budget reserve as of January 1, 2010, in the part not related to the mandatory funded financing of labor pensions, is estimated at 97.14 billion rubles, including:

22 billion rubles - cash;

92 billion rubles are placed in securities, of which:

66 billion rubles - in federal loan bonds with a fixed coupon income (in the currency of the Russian Federation);

26 billion rubles - in securities of credit institutions accepted as repayment of overdue debt on insurance premiums to the Fund, formed before January 1, 2010.

In the revenue part of the budget of the Pension Fund for 2010, income from the placement of temporarily free funds of the Fund is taken into account - in the amount of 3.74 billion rubles.

In 2010, in connection with the transfer of benefits in kind into cash payments, the federal budget provided for the transfer of funds in the amount of 99.9 billion rubles to the Fund to finance monthly cash payments to certain categories of citizens.

The total number of pensioners in 2008 amounted to 38.2 million people in 2009 - 38.3 million people, and in 2010 already - 38.4 million people.

In the long term, it is planned to reduce the permanent population of Russia by 2015, it will decrease by 2.5% (ie by 3.5 million people) and will amount to 144.5 million people.

At the same time, the working-age population will decrease by 9.5 million people. and will amount to 82.4 million people or 56.6% of the total population in 2015. The proportion of the population older than the able-bodied will increase by 2015 to 23.7% against 20.4% in 2009.

The share of the number of pensioners in the total population of the Russian Federation from 25.3% in 2009 to 26.66% in 2015 i.e. by almost 1.4%, the burden of the pension system on employees will increase by 2015, there will be 124 employees per 100 recipients of labor pensions, while in 2009 - 135 people.

The Fund's budget expenditures in the part not related to the mandatory funded financing of labor pensions in 2009 were determined in the amount of 1176.13 billion rubles, which is 125.1% compared to the specified Fund's expenditures established by the budget for 2008 and 146.3 % compared to 2007.

On the whole, the expenses for the payment and delivery of labor pensions in 2010 will amount to 959.12 billion rubles, which is 113.9% of the corresponding expenses of the Fund's budget for 2010.

The total expenses for the payment and delivery of the basic part of the labor pension, financed from the unified social tax and federal budget funds, are provided in the amount of 341.17 billion rubles.

The draft federal budget provides for the maximum amount of subventions to the Fund's budget for the payment of pensions for state pensions, additional payments to pensions, additional material support, benefits and compensations in the amount of 64.99 billion rubles.

The planned volume of current receipts of insurance premiums does not cover the costs provided for the payment of the insurance part of the labor pension, including the costs of their delivery and other expenses.

Covering the current deficit in order to balance the revenue and expenditure parts of the budget in the amount of 82.85 billion rubles will be carried out at the expense of the balance of funds on the distribution component of the budget as of January 1, 2011 (97.14 billion rubles). In this regard, the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation plans to sell all the assets into which temporarily free funds from the Fund's budget were placed.

3.2 Prospects for the pension system under the current tax and pension legislation

Based on the forecast estimates of the macroeconomic parameters of the development of our country, adopted in the Concept of the long-term socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2020, the imbalance of the PFR budget will reach its maximum (1.35% of GDP) in the early 2020s.

At the same time, if in 2010 the imbalance amounted to about 18% of the total funds allocated for the payment of the insurance part of labor pensions, then by 2050 this figure will increase by almost 5 times and exceed 85%. Since the source of covering the missing financial resources under the current pension legislation is the federal budget, we can talk not about the deficit of the pension budget, but only about the financial insecurity of the insurance pension obligations of the state.

At the same time, the growth rate of federal budget expenditure obligations to cover the deficit of the pension system until the mid-2020s will outpace the rate of wage growth in the country, and in subsequent years - even the rate of inflation.

This negative trend is due to many reasons. However, the most significant contribution to the increase in the imbalance of the PFR budget is made by the factor of reducing the share of tax and insurance deductions for the formation of pension rights of insured persons, determined by the current tax legislation.

In the long term, while maintaining the conditions for the formation of pension rights (calculation of insurance premiums), the amount of funds received by the mandatory pension insurance system (the effective rate of insurance premiums), due to the outpacing growth in wages, will decrease from 11.45% in 2011 to 0.59% in 2050, i.e. almost 20 times. The effective rate of contributions to the insurance part of the labor pension will decrease even faster - from 8.8% in 2011 to 0.3% in 2050, i.е. more than 25 times.

The difference in the dynamics of indicators is explained by a constant increase until the mid-2020s. part of insurance premiums diverted to the funded part of the labor pension of persons born younger than 1967, whose share by this date will reach 100% of insured persons of working age.

The responsibility of the state budget to finance the basic part of the labor pension in order to maintain in the long term the average level of social pension at the level of the LHC in the Russian Federation, achieved by 2011, and the corresponding increase in the basic parts of labor pensions will be reduced from 8.7% of the wage fund in 2011 to 2.1% in 2050, i.e. more than 4 times.

State obligations to finance the insurance part of labor pensions will increase, outstripping the growth in PFR revenues, based on contributions to the insurance part of labor pensions and wage growth rates. However, the amounts of current receipts to the PFR budget, according to actuarial calculations, will be reduced due to the planned decrease in the number of people employed. The resulting difference will have to be fully covered by the federal budget in an ever-increasing amount: from 1.5% of the wage fund in 2011 to 4.1% by 2022.

As a result of this trend, by 2050 the financing of the pension system will almost completely move away from insurance principles, since 3/4 of the income will come from federal budget funds rather than insurance revenues. At the same time, the share of budget expenditures for financing the pension system, including the funded component, will decrease from 8.2% of GDP (including 5.5% of GDP for the payment of pensions) in 2011 to 2.1% of GDP in 2050, which is unacceptably low for the world practice of pension insurance.

It is necessary to note another trend due to the current mechanism of indexation of pension rights: the lag of the PFR income growth index per 1 pensioner from the growth rate of the average monthly wage in the country. So, only for the period 2002-2009. the accumulated backlog exceeded 1.5 times. This tendency sharply amplifies in the conditions of financial crisis.

In addition, starting from 2012, the main factors in reducing the growth rate of PFR income per 1 pensioner will not be an increase in the pension burden on the able-bodied population (an increase in the number of pensioners in relation to the number of employees by 1.72 times over the period 2011-2050). ) and not an increase in the volume of insurance premiums diverted to the formation of pension savings for people born in 1967 and younger (2 times over the period 2011-2025), but a more than 25-fold decrease in the effective rate of insurance premiums (due to growth in wages and maintaining the regression scale).

Due to the lag in the growth rate of PFR income per 1 pensioner in relation to the price growth index, index the insurance part of the pension according to this indicator starting from the mid-2010s. can be no more than once a year.

The reduction in income sources of the PFR budget in the current pension system leads to an increase in the scale of the problem associated with maintaining the pension rights of insured persons, which are reflected in the replacement rate: by 2050 it will decrease to 3.4% against 25.6% in 2009 and 36% before the beginning of the pension reform in 2002. This means that while maintaining the conditions for the formation of the pension rights of insured persons, the main principle of compulsory pension insurance is not ensured - the state guarantee of the pension rights of insured persons, the rights of persons with different amounts of estimated pension capital are leveled, inequality increases standard of living between the working and non-working population.

The next macroeconomic factor that has a negative impact on the pension system is the planned reduction in the number of people employed: from 48.5 million in 2010 to 39.1 million people in 2050. At the same time, the number of labor pension recipients over the same period, on the contrary, will increase from 37.3 million to 51.7 million people. Thus, the pension burden will increase from 0.77 to 1.32, i.e. 1.7 times.

In the practice of Western countries, in order to preserve the pension rights of insured persons under conditions negative impact demographic and macroeconomic factors, the funded component of mandatory pension insurance is used. At the same time, theoretically, the loss of pension rights of insured persons in the distribution segment of the pension system should be replaced by individual pension savings, which, in the conditions of sustainable economic development, make it possible to achieve higher efficiency.

However, as long-term actuarial calculations show, the amount of funds allocated for accumulation, taking into account the expected parameters of economic development and the profitability of the financial market in the conditions of our country, is insufficient even to preserve the accumulated pension capital and maintain a given target level of replacement of lost earnings.

Actuarial calculations confirm that the funded component of the labor pension will not have a positive impact on the performance of the pension system until at least 2027, when the established retirement age will reach the generation born in 1967 and younger, fully subject to the pension model introduced in 2002.

Even by 2050, the share of the funded component in the total old-age labor pension will not exceed 15%. In this case, the average size of the funded part will be less than 1% of the average monthly accrued wages, i.e. 10 times lower than the established savings rate, even taking into account the real yield of 4%.

Thus, the actuarial forecast shows a deepening of negative trends, which, without the implementation of measures of state regulation of the macroeconomic situation, will not allow stabilizing the financial position of the pension system, which is necessary to bring it into line with insurance principles. Under these conditions, it will be possible to ensure a significant increase in the living standards of pensioners only with a constant increase in appropriations from the federal budget.

3.3 Proposed Mechanisms to Achieve the Targets

The targets for increasing the level of pension provision provide for a different level of well-being for different generations of insured persons (Fig. 1):

for current pensioners and those who fall under the rules of the pre-reform and new system, it is planned to increase the average size of the old-age labor pension to 2.5 LMP;

for those who began their labor activity after January 1, 2002, conditions must be created for the independent formation of an old-age labor pension at the level of 40% of the earnings from which contributions were paid for the entire period of labor activity.

For all generations of pensioners is established binding rule: the level of pension provision, taking into account social support measures, should not be lower than the PMP.

Fig.1. Targets for increasing pension provision

For current retirees and ? For insured persons, ?

Insured persons covered by? ? completely covered by

The rules of pre-reform and new? ? effect of the new pension?

pension systems? ? systems?

?????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????

\? ?/ ?? ?? \? ?/

Bringing the average size? ?? ?? ? Creating the necessary?

Old-age pension? ?? ?? ? conditions for receiving?

To the level that provides? ?? ?? ? labor pension?

Basic needs? ?? ?? ? old age at the level of 40%?

Pensioner (2.5 PMP)? ?? ?? ? lost earnings?

Which one were charged?

Insurance premiums,

Real expression?

??????????????????????????????? ?? ?? ???????????????????????????

????????????????????????????

For all pensioners?

????????????????????????????

Providing a level of pension provision?

Taking into account measures of social support not lower than the value?

PHC in the Russian Federation since 2010?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????

However, these benchmarks are unattainable without changing the existing norms of pension and tax legislation, which was shown above.

It is proposed to introduce the cost of the insurance year at the level of the minimum wage and the principle of payment by the employer of insurance premiums in the amount not lower than this value, regardless of the accrued earnings.

The introduction of the principle of paying insurance premiums in an amount not less than the cost of the insurance year should apply both to insured persons who pay mandatory contributions in the amount of a fixed payment, and to insured persons from among employees whose contributions from earnings do not reach the value of the insurance year. In the latter case, the employer will have to pay for each employee an additional payment to the accrued insurance premiums in the amount that is missing from the cost of the insurance year.

At the same time, the procedure for establishing the cost of the insurance year should be revised in such a way that the payment of contributions in the amount of the cost of the insurance year during the standard duration of the insurance period ensures the formation of an old-age pension not lower than the LMP.

Conclusion

When planning a pension reform, it becomes necessary to take into account Russian specifics in the organization of pension provision.

All over the world, pension systems, characterized by numerous national characteristics, which are due to the processes of historical development and the influence of certain ideas, are currently experiencing a period of reflection and are undergoing constant transformation aimed at improving the functions assigned to them. Therefore, blindly borrowing the experience of other countries when reforming the pension system in Russia is rather unpromising. It seems more productive to analyze this experience in order to identify approaches that make it possible to most effectively solve the tasks assigned to the pension system, not only at present, but also in the future.

The crisis of Russia's pension system is a crisis of a formational nature: the formational changes that have taken place in the country have significantly outpaced the required institutional changes in the pension system. The pension system that continues to exist in its former forms does not correspond to the changed economic, legal and social conditions, and it is doomed to reproduce crisis situations, and itself is an element that hindered the social and economic development of the country

In order to reduce the budget deficit of the Pension Fund, the Government of the Russian Federation is considering options for changing the structure of deductions of funds from enterprises and citizens to the Pension Fund.

Among the transformations, it is necessary to note the formation of a modern structure of social support for the population, the harmonization of the interests of the state, entrepreneurs and citizens, the expansion of insurance forms for protecting the income of Russians.

The study of the pension issue reveals an increasing range of economic, methodological, theoretical problems, the analysis of which is impossible without studying the history of this issue, since the essence of any social process, phenomenon can be identified by studying the genesis and patterns of its historical development. Therefore, we are talking about a comprehensive, systematic study of pension problems that are connected with social, demographic, legal, organizational and management processes, the activities of numerous government departments and scientific institutions.

This study highlights the history of the formation of the pension system in Russia: shows the interdependence of the pension system and the level of economic development; the periodization of its evolution is given; the formation and transformation of forms of social protection of the disabled as a natural-historical process of the development of society are studied; the dependence of the features of the pension system on the historically specific form of ownership and social structure of the Russian (Soviet) society is determined. In its most general form, the pension system appeared to us as an integral element of the economic system. The fundamental differences between the evolution of the pension system in Russia and similar processes in developed countries are formulated. The main reason for this phenomenon is rooted in the fact that it developed in various socio-economic conditions, in connection with which it was recreated three times anew.

The modern period of the creation of a new Russian pension system appears before us in the context of several interconnected short historical stages that fully reflect the problem of the transformation of property and management relations.

The study of the process of the origin and development of pension provision in the Russian Empire allowed the author to conclude that reliable and decent pension provision was created only for government officials and their families, since public service was encouraged and was a prestigious occupation. On the whole, the pension system of Imperial Russia did not apply to the entire population.

It has been established that the state of pension provision, its scope, level of development, specific models are directly dependent on the socio-economic structure of society. Therefore, after the completion of the October Revolution, the imperial power with its Table of Ranks, royal officials, noble privileges, and, accordingly, its pension system were abolished. Having gone through two stages in its development, as a result, for the first time in history, a universal universal pension system was built.

Foreign experience in the evolution of pension systems in three directions is considered: An analysis of the global evolution of pension systems by functional features reveals a common vector of this process - from their centralized distribution options to mixed systems, and from mixed systems to funded ones. As practice shows, at present the most acceptable for many countries is a mixed system.

In Europe, in our opinion, the UK pension system seems to be the most successful. This became possible thanks to the prudent use of available national resources, a balanced solution to acute budgetary problems, taking into account the growing social and demographic difficulties. It is in England that the highest standard of living for pensioners has been achieved.

The American experience gives grounds to believe that in the United States the possibilities of the public distribution system are most rationally used in combination with a huge variety of voluntary private pension schemes. It is noteworthy, however, that the Americans managed to ensure a high standard of living for pensioners only through the distribution system. The Chilean experience of a radical transition to a funded system cannot be considered successful due to the difficulties that this system faces in a market economy with its risk attributes.

In general, acquaintance with the experience of pension provision in the developed countries of Europe and America is of interest in terms of, firstly, paying close attention not so much to specific mechanisms as to the main trend in the development of pensions (ensuring a decent standard of living for the disabled); secondly, to use in the process of formation of the Russian pension system the positive that world practice has given; thirdly, to immediately prevent the difficulties that pension innovations have demonstrated in these countries.

The experience of the CIS countries is shown, where the majority chose a mixed three-tier system as a pension provision model, combining solidarity principles with funded ones.

Thus, the course work presents a holistic picture of the origin, development and transformation of the pension system in Russia at different socio-economic stages of its life; methodological prerequisites for the study of pension categories have been developed; specific ways of solving the problems of pension provision have been identified, etc.

Bibliography

1.Aganbegyan A.T. Socio-economic development of Russia. M., Delo. 2004. - 272 p.

2.Azarova E.G. Law on labor pensions: general provisions // labor law 2003. - No. 13. - P.31-38.

.Aleksandrov A.A. How to apply for a pension. M.: Prior, 2005. - 56 p.

.Aleksandrov D.G. Pension system in Russia: state, problems, prospects. SPb., 2000. - 199 p.

.Andreev B. C. Social security law in the USSR: Textbook. M., 1987. - 310 p.

.Astapov K.L. Reforming the pension system of the Russian Federation // Finance and Credit. - 2002. - No. 24. - P. 47-53.

.Akhtlmov R.E., Gazdaletdinov A.M., Karimov E.Ya. Non-state pension provision: the view of professionals. Ufa. 2004. - 84 p.

.Barabanov A.E. Prospects for the use of the accumulative part of pension funds and collective investment funds. M., 2005. - 85 p.

.Bartenev A. Economic history of Russia. M., 2004. - 443 p.

.Baskakov V.N., Baskakova M.E. About pensions for women and men: social aspects of pension reform. M. e 1998. - 120 p.

.Belikova T.N., Minaeva L.N. All about pensions. M.; Peter, 2006. - 86 p.

.Belousov R.A. Economic history of Russia: XX century. M., 1999. Book 1. - 407 s; M., 2000. Book 2. - 422 p.

.Biryukov B.M. Pensions in the Russian Federation. M.: PRIORIZ - DAT, 2003. - 479s.

.Blekus V.V. Pension institutions and their development in Russia: Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. economy Sciences. Ulan-Ude, 2004. - 18 p.

.Borisenko N. On the concept of financial sustainability of the Pension Fund of Russia // Questions of Economics. 2004. No. 7.114-122.

.Borisenko N.Yu. Problems of Ensuring the Financial Stability of the Pension Fund of Russia. M.: Finance and credit, 2004. - 240 p.

.Extrabudgetary social funds. Peculiarities of payment of insurance payments // Economics and life. 1993. No. 51.

.Volgin A.P., Crying V.I. Income and employment: the motivational aspect. M.: Luch, 1994. - 240 p.

.Volkova Yu.V. UST and mandatory pension insurance subject to changes in legislation. M.: Glavbukh, 2005. - 160 p.

.Voronin Yu. Insurance pension funds in pre-revolutionary Russia // Pension funds. 1996. No. 2.29-35.

.Everything about the basic, insurance and funded parts of the labor pension. M., 2003. - 223 p.

.Gavrilov R.V., Romanov E.A. Reforming pension systems: world and domestic experience. M., 2004. - 114 p.

.Gaidar E.T. The history of pensions, the formation and crisis of the social protection system in the modern world // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. 2004. 13 July.

.Gaidukov M.N. Corporate pension: worthy completion of a career // Economics of Russia. XXI Century. 2003. No. 10.42.

.Golikova L. Business retired // Kommersant. Money. 2003. No. 18.97-99.

.Golikova L. There is no turbidity in the pension market. Honestly // Kommersant. Money. 2003. No. 18.106-108.

.Goryunov I.Yu. Non-state pension funds in modern Russia. M, 2005. - 240 p.

.Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

.Grudtsina L. On pension provision // Lawyer. - 2003. - No. 11. pp.60-64.

.Degtyarev G.P. Pension reforms in Russia. M., 2003. - 278 p.

.Dmitriev M. Where is the pension reform going // Labor Law 1998. - No. 3. - S. S. 9-10.

.Eroshenkov G. Growth of strategic investors: world experience of pension reforms. M.: MAKS Press, 2000. - 176 p.

.Ershova V. Pension business // Financial newspaper (regional issue). 2000. No. 27 (July). 11.

.Ershova V. Settlements with the pension fund // Financial newspaper. 2000. No. 11 (March).8.

.Law "On State Pensions in the RSFSR" of November 20, 1990

.Zakharov M.L., Sevostyanova V.B., Tuchkova E.G. Commentary on the new pension legislation. M., 2002. - 334 p.

.Zakharov M.L., Tuchkova E.G. Social security law. M.: Beck, 2002. - 543 p.

.Instruction of the Ministry of Labor and Social Development of the Russian Federation and the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation dated 03.06.1997 No. 35/44.

.Ishchenko O.A., Permyakov O.V. Reforming the pension legislation of the Russian Federation // Lawyer. - 2003. - No. 6. - P.5-8.

.Keynes J.M. General theory of employment, interest and money. M., 1949. - 398 p.

.The concept of the Government of the Russian Federation "On the reform of the pension system in the Russian Federation" 1995

.Kurnoskina O.T. Labor pensions: questions and answers. M., 2005. - 96 p.

.Kurtin A.V. Some aspects of reforming the pension system of the Russian Federation // Labor Law. - 2002. - No. 4. - P.40-47.

.Lokshina O.V. Pension legislation: main provisions and practice of application // Labor Law. - 2003. - No. 4. - P.15-23.

.Lvov D., Ovsienko Yu. Russian pension system and ways of reforming it // Questions of Economics. 2001. No. 8.111-120.

.Makarov A.V. pension legislation. New pension system - new opportunities. M., 2005. - 160 p.

.Malthus T. Experience on the law of population. Petrozavodsk, 1999. - 139 p.

.Mirkov V.Z. Non-state pension fund of Sberbank // Money and credit. 1998. No. 1.61-64.

.World experience in reforming pension systems: conceptual approaches and practical actions / Ed. ed. L.S. Degtyar. M.: Epikoy, 1999. - 74 p.

.Mikhailenko Yu.A. All about pensions: types, conditions of appointment, size. M.; Omega-L, 2006. - 120 p.

.Mikhalkevich V.N., Fogel Ya.M., Shederova G.S. Pensions and benefits for agricultural workers. Directory. M., 1979. - 88 p.

.Tax Code of the Russian Federation (parts I and II). M., 2005.

.The national economy of the USSR for 70 years. Anniversary stat. yearbook. M., 1987.

.Novikov A.A. Pension systems of Western countries: experience that can be borrowed // Man and Labor. 2005. No. 11.51-57.

.Novikov A.A. The pension issue in Russia. M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 2005. - 264 p.

.New in the pension legislation of the Russian Federation: a collection of official texts and documents. M.: Omega-L, 2005. - 208 p.

.New legislation on pensions / Ed. M.A. Podobed. M.: PRIOR, 2002. - 96 p.

.New pension legislation: With comments. / Compiled by L. Wulf. M.: Sotsizdat, 2002. - 255 p.

.About labor pensions in the Russian Federation. M.: INFRA-M, 2003. - 40 p.

.On individual (personalized) accounting in the system of compulsory pension insurance. M.: INFRA-M, 2003. - 22 p.

.General Charter on pensions and lump-sum benefits for civil departments // SZ. SPb., 1896.T. III. Book 2.

.Ovsienko Yu.V., Rusakov V.P., Sukhova N.N. The pension system in Russia: the current state and ways of reforming. M., 1999. - 47 p.

.Orlov-Karba P.A. All about pension reform in Russia. M., 2005. - 302 p. Otyrba L.V. Social security law. M.: MGIU, 2005. - 58 p.

.Special Charter on Pensions and Lump-sum Benefits Determined by the Charity Committee of Honored Civil Officials // Ibid.

.Pavlenko V.V. Unified social tax (contributions). M.: Unity, 2003. - 96 p.

.Pensions, benefits and compensation: Handbook of a pensioner. Penza, 2003. - 32 p.

.Pensions: State and labor in questions and answers: Conditions, insurance, length of service, sizes, benefits / Ed. - comp.A. Samoilov et al. M.: ACT: Olimp, 2002. - 359 p.

.Pensioners and pensions: what are the obligations of the state to pensioners, the main components of pensions and their differences, to whom and how pensions are recalculated. M.: Profizdat, 2003. - 126 p.

.Pension reform in Russia /Soy. O.V. Kondratiev. Yoshkar-Ola, 2002. - 124 p.

.Pension reform in Russia: causes, content, prospects / Ed. Dmitrieva M.E. - St. Petersburg: Norma, 1998. - S.256s.

.Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire (PSZ). Collection 1. SPb., 1830.T. I (No. 289).524; Vol. V (No. 3098).503-506; Vol. VI (No. 3877). 479-480.

.Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation "On measures to organize individual (personified) accounting for the purposes of state pension insurance" dated March 5, 1997 No. 318.

.Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation "On measures to implement the concept of reforming the pension system in the Russian Federation" dated 07.08.1995 No. 7790.

.Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation "On the program of social reforms in the Russian Federation for the period 1996-2000." dated February 26, 1997 No. 222.

.Program of the Government of the Russian Federation "On pension reform in the Russian Federation" dated March 20, 1998

.Program of the Government of the Russian Federation "Structural adjustment and economic growth in 1997-2000." dated March 31, 1997

.Reznikova E.A. Transition to the market and modern development of the pension system. M.: ERA, 2001. - 71 p.

.Reforms of the pension system: international experience and recommendations for Russia / Ed. ed. P.V. Kryuchkova, A.V. Tabaha. M., 2003. - 70 p.

.Decisions of the party and government of the USSR on economic issues (1917-1986): In 16 vols. T.1.M., 1967.

.Roik V. Pension reform: results and prospects // Pension funds and investments. - 2-3. - No. 2. - S.23-26.

.Roik V.D. Pension reform: results and prospects // Actual problems of non-state pension provision. Issue 3.M., 2003.18-23.

.Roik V.D. Ways of the pension system in Russia // Pension. 1998. No. 9.7.

.Russia in numbers. Official publication. M., 2002, 2003, 2004.

.Code of Laws of the Russian Empire (SZ). SPb., 1857. V.2. Part 1; 1896. V.3. Book 2, 3, 4; 1908.T. IX. Art.762; 1912. V.3,4. Part 3.

.Social status and standard of living of the population of Russia. Official publication. M., 2003.

.Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

.Decree of the President of the Russian Federation "On Non-State Pension Funds", 1992

.Charter on pensions and lump-sum allowances for artists of the Imperial Theatres, their widows and children // Ibid.

.Charter on pensions and lump-sum allowances for craftsmen, apprentices and artisans of the Imperial Peterhof Lapidary Factory // Ibid.

.Federal Law "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Law "On Non-State Pension Funds"" dated January 10, 2003 No. 14-FZ.

.Federal Law "On State Pension Provision in the Russian Federation" dated December 15, 2001 No. 166-FZ.

.Federal Law "On Employment in the Russian Federation" dated April 20, 1996 No. 36-FZ.

.Federal Law "On Collective Contracts and Agreements" dated March 11, 1992

.Federal Law "On Non-State Pension Funds" dated 07.05.1998, No. 75-FZ.

.Federal Law "On pensions for persons who have undergone military service, service in the internal affairs bodies, and their families "dated February 12, 1993 No. 4468-1.

.Federal Law "On the Procedure for Calculating and Increasing State Pensions" dated February 1, 1998

.Federal Law "On the social protection of citizens exposed to radiation as a result of the disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant" dated May 15, 1991 No. 1244-1.

.Federal Law "On labor pensions in the Russian Federation" dated December 17, 2001 No. 173-FZ.

.Federal Law "On individual (personalized) accounting in the system of state pension insurance" dated 01.04.1996 No. 27-FZ.

.Federal Law "On the execution of the budget of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation for 2001" dated 10.01.2003 No. 9-FZ.

.46. ​​Federal Law No. 10-FZ dated 10.01.2003 "On the Execution of the Budget of the Federal Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund for 2001".

.Federal Law "On Compulsory Pension Insurance in the Russian Federation" No. 167-FZ.

.The size and composition of the population of the USSR. According to the All-Union Population Census of 1979. M., 1984.P. Works of the classics of economic science

.Shestakova E.E. Experience of introducing multi-level pension systems in the states of Eastern Europe: general approaches and features // Labor Law. - 2003. - No. 2. - P.79-85.

Applications

Annex 1. Organizational structure of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation

Pension Fund of the Russian Federation

Board of the Pension Fund Branches by Subjects

Executive management Management including:

Chairman of the Board Branch Manager

First Deputy Chairman Deputy Governor

Vice Chairs Human Resources Specialist

Managers of 12 Branches of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation Information Security Group

Representatives of public, religious legal department

organizations whose activities are related to Accounting

protecting the interests of pensioners, the disabled Economic Department

Department for the repayment of overdue debts

Department for the organization of personalized accounting

Interregional points of personalized accounting

Department of accounting for receipts and expenditures of funds

Audit Department

Department for Coordinating the Activities of Commissioners

Administrative department

Appendix 2. Statistical data of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation as of December 31, 2010

The total number of pensioners served by the PFR38 is 206 million people. Number of people receiving labor pension36.356 mln. of which the old-age labor pension29.019 mln. Number of people receiving state pension1.954 mln. of which social pension1.646 mln. The number of insured persons registered in the personalized accounting system62 million people. Number of persons who have a funded part of labor pension in their personal account42 mln. The number of people who have only the insurance part of the labor pension42 million people. Own funds of NPFs, including pension reserves Total number of NPF members 153.5 billion rubles, including pension reserves 114.5 billion rubles Total number of NPF members 5.5 million people (7.45% of the economically active population) Amount of pension contributions for 6 months of the year 8.3 billion rubles Number of people receiving additional non-state pension 481.3 thousand people (about 1.5% of the number of pensioners)

The Russian pension system is currently in a state of reform and modernization. New institutions are being formed: basic pensions, pension insurance, funded and occupational pensions. This entails a change in the parameters and structure of the pension system, the content of legal relations and requires the creation of new financial and organizational mechanisms. In legal regulation, the ratio of public and private principles is being transformed in relation to issues of property, pension savings, the acquisition and implementation of pension rights, as well as the activities of an expanding circle of subjects. Under these conditions, increased attention is needed to international standards, the observance of which is Russia's obligation, as well as to the positive experience of foreign states.

The economic stability and social efficiency of the pension system are directly affected by both long-term demographic processes and medium-term macroeconomic trends, as well as short-term purely subjective political decisions. In turn, this objectively requires a permanent update of specific legal, economic and organizational conditions for interaction between insured persons, insurers-employers (legal entities and individuals) with the state insurer (Pension Fund of the Russian Federation). The forms and methods of interaction between participants in the pension insurance system depend on numerous factors that determine their development.

In our country, at present, there is a combination of the most unfavorable factors for the pension system: against the background of the economic crisis of the transition period, all parts of the national economic complex are being reformed, one of the elements of which is the state pension system. At the same time, the country is entering an era of deep demographic crisis. At the same time, the primary task of the state within the framework of the pension insurance system is to maintain the purchasing power of pensions regardless of changes in economic and socio-political conditions, especially during periods of unstable economic and social development.

At present, the size of pensions in Russia, including those for old age, is quite low. Very often, the level of material security in old age does not correspond to the contribution of the employee during his working life.

All these factors increased the need to reform the pension system of the Russian Federation in order to better adapt to specific economic conditions.

This makes my thesis work particularly relevant.

Today, the face of the Russian pension system is gradually changing: the market for supplementary pension provision is developing, and the sector of state pensions is being transformed. In 2002, the personification of the savings of the country's working population was carried out; in 2003, Russian citizens received the right to choose a management company, and in 2004, a non-state pension fund. Giving citizens the opportunity to influence the size of their pension by managing it funded part is the most significant moment of the ongoing reform. For the first time, the population was asked to share responsibility for their future with the state.

The axiom of the new pension system in Russia is the following statement: the well-being of old age is a personal problem for every person. The state is only responsible for the basic part of the pension. The size of the insurance and funded parts form the personal earnings of citizens. The higher the official earnings of a person, the more he will accumulate funds for his future pension.

For citizens retiring after 2012, pensions will consist of three parts: basic, insurance and funded. It is the funded part of the pension, which began to form for this category of citizens since 2002, that people will be able to invest.

The aim of the work is to analyze the modern pension system of the Russian Federation and the directions of its reform.

In accordance with the goal, the following tasks of the work were set:

1. To study the theoretical issues of the formation of the pension system of the Russian Federation;

2. Consider the essential characteristics of the pension system of the Russian Federation;

3. To study the principles of formation of the pension system of the Russian Federation;

4. Consider the legal support of the pension system;

5. Conduct an analysis of the pension system of the Russian Federation: sources of income for the budget of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation and directions for spending the funds of the Pension Fund;

6. Conduct an analysis of the activities of the non-state Pension Fund in Russia;

7. Consider foreign experience in the formation of pension systems and the possibility of its adaptation in Russia;

8. To study the prospects for the development of the pension system of the Russian Federation.

The structure of the thesis consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a list of references and six appendices.

The first chapter highlights the theoretical issues of the formation of the pension system of the Russian Federation.

The second chapter analyzes the pension system of the Russian Federation: sources of income for the PFR budget and directions for spending the Pension Fund.

The third chapter contains an analysis of foreign experience and the possibilities of its adaptation in Russia, and the prospects for the development of the pension system of the Russian Federation are determined.

The modern pension system is a set of legal, organizational, managerial, financial and economic relations between employees and individual entrepreneurs, other categories of citizens whose activities are aimed at generating income (or material benefits), on the one hand, employers, on the other hand, and as well as all other categories of citizens not participating in economic activities, and the state - with the third. These relations are designed to ensure the implementation of long-term state obligations for the provision of pensions to all citizens.

The organizational, managerial and financial activities of the pension system are based on the constitutional and legislative rights of each citizen to receive material security upon the onset of the age established by law or another insured event that entails the inability to work. This type of material support for citizens during the period of old age or another reason for disability is called a pension.

According to its socio-economic content, the concept of a pension (and in the case of compulsory pension insurance, a labor pension) is a special form of cash payment to citizens, which must adequately compensate for the amount of earnings or other regular income from labor or other socially useful activities that were spent for reasons the onset of their legally established age (old age), disability, loss of a breadwinner, or on other grounds also provided for by law. Thus, the concept of a pension has a combined financial and insurance and social and labor nature, which fundamentally distinguishes it, on the one hand, from banking, corporate and other methods of obtaining cash income in the form of dividends that depend only on the amount of capital, and on the other hand, on various kinds state social benefits that depend solely on social needs (neediness) or on special merits to the state.

In accordance with the current pension legislation of the Russian Federation, labor and state pensions are currently assigned and paid (social pensions, pensions to civil servants (for length of service) and military servicemen, war veterans and widows of the dead, disability pensions from military injuries and from general diseases affected by nuclear and chemical disasters, etc.).

The grounds for mandatory pension provision are:

Reaching the appropriate retirement age (old-age labor pension);