Atslēgvārdi:

Uldis Osis, The 'Capital', Part II 21

Mr. Osis persists in his misunderstanding of what ‘capital’ is (link to previous blog). According to him, the 1st level of the Latvian pension system entails savings and alleged accumulation of capital. This time Mr. Osis shows some ‘empirical evidence’ to back his words - namely a report from the VSAA (State Social Security Agency), which says that Mr. Osis’ “pension capital is 164683.94 Ls”. His article (in Latvian) is here.

Iesaki citiem:

This little debate is becoming a bit surreal. If Mr. Osis claims that my notions of what constitutes savings, investment, and capital are “a messy construction of economic terms”, I can only refer him to a principles level textbook. Based on what Mr. Osis has written so far, I am not sure he has a sufficient grasp of these concepts. For example, consider the following paragraph from his latest article [translation mine]:

“As an additional argument Mr. Dombrovskis in his critical composition states that the Latvian pension system is based on the so-called pay-as-you-go (PAYG) principle. In Latvian, it means that we all regularly pay for something, like taxes from regular incomes. I don’t know why Mr. Dombrovskis mentions this to deny the existence of pension capital. Of course, we all pay taxes from our incomes, including the social tax, which, indeed, can be interpreted as PAYG. But this absolutely doesn’t explain anything about the pension capital and does not reveal its essence. It is the same as, for example, you pay your operator for talking on a mobile phone (PAYG), but it has only technical connection with the mobile phone itself (capital). But from economics of finance point of view there is no connection whatsoever. This superficial approach to economic and financial concepts and their mutual interrelationships can lead to absurd conclusions and complete misunderstanding of the topic under consideration [emphasis mine].”

I have to admit that, at first, I couldn’t understand what Mr. Osis was trying to say, in spite of re-reading this paragraph several times. Except, of course, the fact that the last sentence is probably addressed to me. Taxes? Mobile phones??! But then I began thinking like this. What if someone has no idea what a pay-as-you-go pension system is? What is the first thing this someone does? Right... And so I punched “PAYG” into Google and inspected the first page of results... Do it yourself and you will see that it explains quite a lot. What can I say? A superficial approach can lead to a lot of misunderstanding, indeed. Mr. Osis has a great point there.

I guess I should not have presumed that just saying “PAYG pension system” will mean everybody will understand what I am talking about. So, just to be on the safe side. This here should take care of the terminology. This wikipedia article on pensions and World Bank’s primer on pension reform are good starting points.

Now that the confusion with a PAYG pension system has been (hopefully) cleared, lets proceed to the empirical part of Mr. Osis argument - the VSAA “pension capital”. As I said earlier, Latvian pension system is a ‘pay-as-you-go’ or unfunded one. Within a broad class of PAYG systems, it can be classified as a ‘notional account’ system (see previous reference). Such a system usually maintains individual accounts where contributions are recorded and (sometimes) a notional ‘interest’ is credited every year. However, these balances are IMAGINARY (hence the word ‘notional’) in the sense that they do not represent funds or investments. ‘Notional accounts’ system is a mere actuarial benefit formula, which is subject to the budget constraint imposed by the availability of social tax revenue. Again, there is no savings, investment and, therefore, no capital in this system. If the tax revenue (unexpectedly) falls, then the participants of this system will find out the difference between ‘imaginary’ and ‘real’ the hard way. I am terribly sorry to be the one to break such news on Mr Osis (and possibly many others), but that ‘pension capital’ that they think they have is not exactly what they think it is.

The bottom-line is this. The mere act of saying that a pumpkin is a coach, and mice are horses will not, unfortunately, make the pumpkin a viable means of transportation. However, this may have really pretty real effects when residents of the fantasy land will (inevitably) wake up to the harsh reality. Same with the pension system. It was rather unfortunate for the lawmakers to call pensions ‘capital’. If even Mr. Osis managed to get himself so thoroughly confused, what about all the ordinary pensioners? What will be their reaction when their imagined coach will turn into what it really is - a pumpkin?

Iesaki citiem:
Creative commons c6ae3e51884b139b45a669ce829ac99646bf0ceb328fc95963f1703a58a032d0 CREATIVE COMMONS LICENCE ĻAUJ RAKSTU PĀRPUBLICĒT BEZ MAKSAS, ATSAUCOTIES UZ AUTORU UN PORTĀLU PROVIDUS.LV, TAČU PUBLIKĀCIJU NEDRĪKST LABOT VAI PAPILDINĀT. AICINĀM ATBALSTĪT PROVIDUS.LV AR ZIEDOJUMU!

Komentāri (21) secība: augoša / dilstoša

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Jautajums 26.03.2011 12:09
Un vai kads kadreiz atzis, ka nav iespejams nokonsolidet pensijas tada apmera, lai tas butu pietiekami, jo darbspejigie atstaj valsti (normals vienotas valutas zonas fenomens - tapat ka cilveki aizbrauc no Latgales uz Rigu), taa to var turpinat bezgaligi, liidz izmaksaas 10 latus katram vai veel mazaak.

Nedevalvesana bija nepareiza, tapat ka zviedru banku glabsana uz Latvijas cilveku rekina bija bezatbildiba, jo nelava piemeroties reaalajam algu limenim, tagad notiek tas, kam janotiek - darba deveji spiesti celt algas, lai cilveki neaizbrauc un lidz ar to vel vairak mazinaas konkuretspejai. To pierada ari eksporta raditaji, kas jau gandriz pusgadu ik menesi krit (statistika, ka lielais pieaugums, ir maans, jo vienkarsi salidzina 2 raditajus, labak salidzinat eksporta attistibu ar periodu pirms 6 menesiem, bus pavisam cita situacija), korupcijas pieaugums utt.
Ekonomikas likumi darbiba, nekas ipass, pat starptautiskas organizacijas savos papiros to neslepj, ka bija nepareiza riciba ar sagaidamam sekam.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Armands Strazds / RTFL 26.03.2011 08:49
Dear Mr. Dombrovskis,

twenty years after independence, why are we facing this situation of demographic collapse and attacks on pensioners? Why are pensioners being victimized ("blackmailing" us as Rungainis
says) for the faults of Latvia's policymakers and bankers? This strikes me as particularly cruel and odious. Pensioners' contribution was not at all IMAGINARY (your term re pension accounts), it was real. Pensioners are the people who built
Latvia's schools, apartments, power grids, roads, bridges, etc. Now they are being blamed for the country's ills? The bankers, by contrast, have
contributed nothing and even caused great harm, yet it is pensioners that are to blamed?
Isn't it time to consider different policies (keynesian)? How many have to be impoverished before there is change?

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

grr > to grr 26.03.2011 07:20
>>>well, if you want to rise stakes - welcome. Yet I am not sure the case of pensioners will win morally. No way. But then the discussion shall be much more difficult to conduct. Clash over values is very difficult terrain for reasoning.

Questions of the distribution of income are in its essence an ethical issue. And I think the case of pensioners wins easily once we realise that cutting pensions means people will die, while raising taxes (and shifting them towards the rich) means someone will not be able to buy a nice car. At least, it wins for anyone with a minimum of compassion.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

grr > Bomzis 26.03.2011 07:15
>>>pensions have risen more than 40% on average since 2008 while wages are down 9%.

Which is only just because most pensions were so low (also relative to wages) in the first place.

>>>all pensions are not small, it was reported the other day that the highest one is 4.500 lvl a month, an outlier for sure

An outlier it is. According to CSB, a total of 9157 pensioners were receiving more than LVL 400 in 2010. On the other hand, around 20 thousands were receiving under LVL 100, 87 thousand - between 100 and 150, and 272 thousand were getting 150-200 LVL per month. Iztikas minimums was LVL 166 in 2010. That kind of says it all.

>>>the size of the pensions as a % of GDP have exploded and the main reason why some argue that its unsustainable.

Again according to CSB, expenditures on pensions were 8.1% of GDP in 2009, up from 5.1% in 2007 (the lowest point). In 2001 they added up to the same 8.1%, and in 1999, they numbered 10.7%. Hardly an explosion, especially considering the increase in the number of pensioners relative to the number of workers.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

grr > V Dombrovsky 26.03.2011 06:50
>>>Not myself, not, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else, suggests to condemn people to death.

And yet if people die as a result of government policy, this means that the government has condemned them to death. This does not have to mean that people are executed - it is enough to simply deny them the means of existence. For example, the peasant victims of the Soviet famine of 1932-33 have not been shot - they died because the government took away the grain on which they relied for survival, just like old people rely on their pensions today.

>>>Certainly not every pensioner will die of any of the reasons you mentioned from, say, a 1 LVL decrease in his pension. If what you say is true, all of the pensioners should have died back in 2006, when their pensions were substantially lower in real terms.

And many of them did die - life expectancy in Latvia is not particularly high - while many others live a rather miserable life.

Of course not every pensioner will die if the pension is reduced by 1 LVL, but there is some marginal effect of a decrease in pensions on mortality rate, and it is surely positive. If we knew it, we would be able to calculate the expected death toll from a cut in pensions.

(As far as I know there have been studies showing the effect of things like unemployment on alcoholism, suicide rate, mortality and the the like - in short, income cuts kill).

>>>As it is, it is mostly the poor who pay these taxes anyway, and businesses seem to have an easy time evading most of the regular taxes.

So the tax burden should be shifted from the poor to the rich - the usual way is through progressive taxation.

And speaking of tax evasion, a few years a go the government has conducted a massive propaganda campaign trying to convince people to pay taxes. The main message was, if you don't pay your social tax, you won't get a good pension. Guess how effective such campaigns will be after the pensions are cut anyway.

>>>And then there are FDI-related risks

FDI isn't everything, we already have a lot of it as a percentage of GDP. FDI brings capital, which is good, but human capital is an important factor as well, and right now it is fleeing the country, partly because people don't feel they have a stable future when they grow old. Cutting pensions would only make it worse. And on top of that we can expect people to leave so that they could earn money to support their parents.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

John W 25.03.2011 14:27
This is a nice line: "The mere act of saying that a pumpkin is a coach, and mice are horses will not, unfortunately, make the pumpkin a viable means of transportation."

I think, however, the analogy also applies to all those who are insisting the taxpayer bails them out when they face what should be private debts.

Of course, when we bail them out the pumpkin becomes a coach..

hmm.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Skepse 25.03.2011 13:16
Nice discussion!
Let's wait now for the part III - another article by Mr. Osis in Delfi next week. Anyone wants to make a bet?

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

HeiHo 25.03.2011 11:24
"Nesaprotu kāpēc Osis jauc naudas plūsmas (esošo pensiju sistēmu) ar reāli uzkrātu kapitālu."

Is easy - because he has Sovjet education in Marxist economics, not real economics education.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

to grr 24.03.2011 21:17
well, if you want to rise stakes - welcome. Yet I am not sure the case of pensioners will win morally. No way. But then the discussion shall be much more difficult to conduct. Clash over values is very difficult terrain for reasoning.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

V Dombrovsky -> grr 24.03.2011 17:50
Not myself, not, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else, suggests to condemn people to death. Certainly not every pensioner will die of any of the reasons you mentioned from, say, a 1 LVL decrease in his pension. If what you say is true, all of the pensioners should have died back in 2006, when their pensions were substantially lower in real terms.

In making it sound like "a simple ethical issue", you are actually going to make things worse for the very people for who you think you're protecting. If things continue this way, I think there are two plausible scenario.
1. Lets not talk about it until it's too late scenario
Here pensions are a sacred cow until the very last day of when a consolidation decision needs to be taken. And then it's very likely pensions. And, given that there is no time to properly think about it, it's likely a simple across the board cut. And then some pensioners WILL die of exactly the same reasons that you've mentioned.
2. Lets raise taxes scenario
As it is, it is mostly the poor who pay these taxes anyway, and businesses seem to have an easy time evading most of the regular taxes. And then there are FDI-related risks from having your taxes substantially higher than either Estonians and Lithuanians. So there are pretty good chances that, by raising taxes you condemn the same pensioners (and everyone else who chooses to stay here) to underdevelopment and sustained misery.

If however, you were to say that there are no red lines than, maybe, after some more careful thinking, you could devise a package that would certainly hurt in the short run, but wouldn't leave anyone dead.
For example,
1. You should start by revising the pensions of those who retired in 2006-2008
2. You wouldn't want to touch single pensioners, who must find it especially hard to pay for the utilities
3. You wouldn't want to touch the pensioners who either don't have adult children (who can support them), or whose children are (verifiably) unemployed.
4. You wouldn't want to touch those whose age is close to the average life expectancy, so they won't live to the moment when things will likely improve following the conclusion of this consolidation saga.

I may have missed some more measures, but I am quite sure you can reduce pensions in a way that will not produce the effects that you have mentioned

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

bomzis 24.03.2011 16:15
pensions have risen more than 40% on average since 2008 while wages are down 9%. The world bank's suggestion of clawing back the piemaksas that were added to higher level pensions and leaving smaller pensions untouched seems to address your concerns.

all pensions are not small, it was reported the other day that the highest one is 4.500 lvl a month, an outlier for sure, but the fact is that the piemaksas, initially designed to top up small pensions, were added to all pensions by the godmanis government, and this is the reason why the size of the pensions as a % of GDP have exploded and the main reason why some argue that its unsustainable.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

grr 24.03.2011 14:30
Petty squabbles over who said what and who made this or that mistake distract everyone from a simple fact: one way or another, pensions must not be reduced further, because doing so is equivalent to mass murder, as many pensions are already below the subsistence level. Cutting them further would lead to N elderly people dying from lack of food, heating, or medical attention, since some of the pensions are already barely enough to afford these things. If necessary, taxes need to be increased in the interest of redistribution.

This is a simple ethical issue, not an economic one - you cannot condemn people to death for reasons of economic efficiency. It is surprising that this needs to be explained.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Diesel - Kalvim 23.03.2011 13:41
Jums izdevies ļoti precīzs diskusijas rezultātu apkopojums, tāpēc savu komentāru nemaz nerakstīšu:)

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Kalvis 23.03.2011 01:34
"Pay as you earn" - PAYE (un "Pay as you go") - tas ir veids, kā cilvēks norēķinās ar valsti. T.i. maksā sociālo nodokli un arī citus nodokļus no ikviena sava ieņēmuma avansā - nevis gaida, teiksim, 15.aprīli, lai sagatavotu nodokļu deklarāciju un samaksātu nodokļus par visu iepriekšējo gadu. Šai metodei ir priekšrocības (valstij ir regulāri ienākumi, un cilvēkam nav jānervozē par to, vai viņam pietiks naudas, lai nomaksātu nodokļus par visu gadu uzreiz) - bet ir arī trūkumi (jo avansā maksātie nodokļi parasti precīzi neatspoguļo to, ko pēc likuma pienāktos maksāt, tādēļ pat pie Latvijas plakanajām nodokļu likmēm visvienalga ir jāaizpilda nodokļu deklarācijas un jāaprēķina starpība).

PAYE jeb PAYG princips, manuprāt, attiecas tikai uz nodokļa ieturēšanas kārtību. Tas neko nesaka par to, kas notiek ar sociālajām iemaksām - vai tās "noēd" pašreizējie pensionāri, vai arī tās tiek uzkrātas kaut kādos finanšu instrumentos.

Strīds ar U.Osi varētu būt par to, vai 1.līmeņa jeb paaudžu solidaritātes pensijas arī var uzskatīt par finanšu instrumentu - t.i. ka tās ir savdabīgas valsts obligācijas, kuras cilvēks visu darba mūžu pērk, savukārt valsts apņemas tās dzēst pēc kaut kāda koeficienta no pensionēšanās vecuma līdz nāves brīdim.

Manuprāt, mēs visi redzam ar kādu vieglumu tiek mainīti pensiju noteikumi (te uzrodas piemaksas, te pazūd, te rodas indeksācija, te tās vairs nav, te pēkšņi Godmanis izdomā 2.pensiju līmenim novirzīt nevis 10%, bet 2% no sociālajām iemaksām, te strādājošiem pensionāriem pensijas samazina uzreiz par 70% - bet tikmēr citi mierīgi turpina saņemt tūkstošos mērāmas pensijas, utt.) Līdz ar to, nevis abstraktas definīcijas, bet mūsu valsts politiskā un demogrāfiskā realitāte nosaka to, ka pret 1.līmeņa pensijām ir gaužām nepareizi izturēties kā pret valsts obligācijām, kuras tiks apmaksātas atbilstoši pastāvošajiem noteikumiem - un neatkarīgi no tā, cik ir nodokļu maksātāju un kāds ir "dependency ratio". Līdz ar to - mūsu pensijas tiešām ir vairāk ķirbis nevis kariete un vairāk taisnības ir V.Dombrovskim.

Tīri teorētiski var iztēloties arī tādu sabiedrību, kur demogrāfiskie procesi ir pietiekami stabili un pensijas var aprēķināt atbilstoši ilgtermiņā prognozējamiem noteikumiem, kur tas darbojas līdzīgāk tradicionālam APDROŠINĀŠANAS PAKALPOJUMAM (jo ilgāk dzīvo, jo lielāku apdrošināšanas atlīdzību saņem), nevis līdzīgāk PONZI SHĒMAI. Mūsu valstī tā tomēr ir Ponzi shēma - stabili turas tikai tikmēr, kamēr ir daudz maksātāju un maz saņēmēju.

Domāju, ka par katastrofāli zemo dzimstību visi labi zināja jau kopš 1992.gada (pirmā Godmaņa valdība). Dīvainā kārtā mūsu sociālās apdrošināšanas sistēma šīm izmaiņām ir visai negatava. Pēdējo 20 gadu laikā vajadzēja izveidot ļoti ievērojamu (daudzos miljardos mērāmu) uzkrājumu sociālajā budžetā, lai tiktu pāri "demogrāfiskajai bedrei", kura mūs tagad sagaida. Mēs pēdējo 20 gadu laikā neesam pienācīgi spējuši izmantot savu "demogrāfisko dividendi" - relatīvi labvēlīgu "dependency ratio" (to laika posmu, kad mums bija maz bērnu un salīdzinoši mazāk vecu cilvēku, bet ļoti daudz darbaspējīgā vecuma iedzīvotāju) - Sk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_dividend .

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Jendžs 23.03.2011 00:01
kapitālismā patiešām gadās tā, cilvēki godīgi un smagi visu mūžu strādā un tad viņu uzņēmums bankrotē, tiek pārpirkts neizdevīgi, zaudē konkurences cīņā utt Un viss lielais darbs ir vējā. Ja raugās uz vēsturiskiem dzimstības rādītājiem tad tieši 60to gadu otrā pusē dzimstība slīdēja un nosīdēja zem 2 bērniem uz sievieti. Tikai 80to gadu otrā pusē tā uz nelielu brīdi uzrāpās virs 2 bērniem uz sievieti. Tādējādi pašreizēji pensionāri - 1948.gadā dzimušie un vecāki arī lielā mērā nesagādāja vairāk bērnus, pat mazāk nekā nākošā paaudze. Tas arī ir 'ieguldījums' savā pensijā- pie jebkuras socioekonomiskās sistēmas

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Jendžs Eidim 22.03.2011 23:54
Ludzu aplukojiet to 'trāpījumu'sarakstu, kas veidojas google meklētājā ierakstot PAYG. un salīdziniet ar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYG Ja Osa kungs būtu izmantojis Vikipēdiju, tas vēl būtu labi. Bet vins kā piemērus un ilustrāciju izmanto pirmos google atradumus , kas ir tie piemēri par mobiliem telefoniem.operatoriem utt, kas nemaz nav tipiski lietota līdzība pensiju sistēmas sakarā. Tādēļ var rasties aizdomas, ka Osa kungs vienkārši pats nesaprot neko un izmanto pirmos pagadījušos piemērus no pirmās google trāpījumu lappuses.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

students/finansists 22.03.2011 21:40
Izlasīju abus rakstus un varu vairāk piekrist V.Dombrovska loģikai. Osis pats savā rakstā atklāj, ka 1. līmenis ir tikai "virtuāls" konts, bet 2. līmenis ir reāls kapitāls (vienīgi LV valdības lēmumu rezultātā 2. ir kļuvis simbolisks). Vienīgais, ko VSAA virtuālie konti var garantēt, ir tik pat virtuāla pensija vecumdienās - respektīvi neko. Nesaprotu kāpēc Osis jauc naudas plūsmas (esošo pensiju sistēmu) ar reāli uzkrātu kapitālu.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

G.D. 2 Eidis 22.03.2011 19:59
"Tomēr vēlos pastāvēt uz to, ka Latvenergo, Latvijas Gāzi, Latvijas Mežus,Ventspils un citas ostas, infrastruktūru kopumā radīja patreizējie pensionāri"

Tas ir taisniba. Tachu tas viss nav nekur pazudis. Tas "straadaa" un no taa tiek maksatas pelnjas budzetaa un dazadi citi nodokli (nezinu gan kaa ir ar Ventspili)! Savukart ievakta nodoklu nauda tiek izmaksata pensijaas pensionariem, diezgan liela proporcija salidzinot ar citam valstim.

Tachu par nozheloshanu, ar to ir par maz. Jo taas ari praktiski ir vienigas lietas, kas strada. Visa rupnieciba, kolhozu lauksaimnieciba, pakalpojumu sektors tiesham izradijas normala pasaule nekonkuretspejigs un vienkarshi nomira (nevajag te tikai sakt par "iznicinashanu", pat gribedams neviens no RAF nevareja uztaisit normalu mashinu, kaa to redzam pec LADA 20 gadu pieredzes). Bet tagad mums tie pensionari, kas tiesham pec butibas, pavadija savu dzivi diezgan bezjedzigaa darba, arii ir jauztur... Tur nevar vinjus nosodit, jo tadi bija laiki un nekada izvele jau nebija, tachu tie ir fakti. BTW, Latvijas Mezhi gan man liekas ir pamata agrarreformas rezultats, nezinu, ko tur kads ir "radijis" padomju laikos.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Andris_2 22.03.2011 19:30
L 22.03.2011 18:32 ...vai vispār Latvijā cilvēki tiek mudināti veidot uzkrājumus...lai gan tas būtu ļoti svarīgi...
-------
Un kādi būtu tie argumenti, ar kuriem piemēram mani mēģinātu pārliecināt?!
Man šobrīd ir 50, pirmo algu saņēmu pirms 36 gadiem - visu krāto - visādos variantos un pat muļķīgi bieži - 100% esmu zaudējis. Pat paliekot bez darba man nokrāps vairākus simtus mēnesī pret to, ko man 20 gadus solīja, ja es apzinīgi maksāšot nodokļus. Muļķis būdams to arī esmu darījis.
Tikai ātri pārvērstais jebkādā mantā, instrumentā - jebkurā notērējumā - nav licis pārmēru vilties.
Pārliecini mani iekrāt atkal !

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

L 22.03.2011 18:32
Iepriekšējam komentētājam pašam vajadzētu kārtīgi iemācīties savas "mītnes zemes valodu", tad būtu skaidrs, ka nav tāda vārda- "paTreizējs". :)
Lasot par pensiju tēmu, nāk prātā tas, ka patiesībā latviešu tautai ir izdevīgi neskaidrot, ka cilvēku iemaksas neaiziet viņu pašu pensijai, jo, ja tas tiks skaidrots, manuprāt, ir skaidrs, ka liela daļa to uzskatīs par lielu absurdu un netaisnību, tāpēc meklēs iespējas aizbraukt/saņemt naudu aploksnē. Latvijā nav īpaši attīstīta apziņa, ka jārūpējas par citiem sabiedrības locekļiem (šai gadījumā- pensionāriem). Zinot šī brīža situāciju, domāju, ka daudzos šādi izskaidrojumi radītu naidu un agresiju pret valsti un pensionāriem.
Tas gan nenozīmē, ka neko nevajadzētu skaidrot. Tieši otrādi, vai vispār Latvijā cilvēki tiek mudināti veidot uzkrājumus privātajos pensiju fondos? Nē, lai gan tas būtu ļoti svarīgi!

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Eidis 22.03.2011 17:40
ĻOTI PRIECĀJOS, KA AUTORS STUDĒ vIKIPĒDIJU.
Tomēr vēlos pastāvēt uz to, ka Latvenergo, Latvijas Gāzi, Latvijas Mežus,Ventspils un citas ostas, infrastruktūru kopumā radīja patreizējie pensionāri, lielu daļu šo vērtību nokampa dažādi kampēji,daļa vēl pieder valstij - sabiedrībai kopumā. Stokholmas vasaļskolas "gudrajam" derētu pārtraukt demagoģiju un kārtīgi iemācīties arī savas mītnes zemes valodu.

Citi autora darbi
Vjaceslavs 165x152

(Un)real money 45 Autors:Vjačeslavs Dombrovskis

Article research 1e4ac20bb63aee5492853c84556a2de54571efc0425d62b84a0cec8d841f82ac

Is anything wrong with higher education in Latvia? 1 Autors:Vyacheslav Dombrovsky

Vjaceslavs 165x152

On Luzhkov 17 Autors:Vjačeslavs Dombrovskis