N1HRV — broadcast
20260806 100000 UTC
524 transcript segments
Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:19] Dear viewers, good day to you, I am Marin Laruš Kovački, you are watching
[00:00:23] N1 television news, here's what
[00:00:24] we highlight.
[00:00:29] Uskok announced. results of expertise in the case of illegal
[00:00:32] waste disposal in Gospić, which confirm serious environmental
[00:00:36] pollution. Experts warn that the pollution has already caused permanent
[00:00:39] consequences, and without urgent remediation, further spread and threat to
[00:00:43] human health is imminent.
[00:00:46] A big concession to Tehran is underway, Iran could gain control over
[00:00:50] maritime traffic through the Strait
[00:00:52] of Hormuz.
[00:00:55] Zlatko Dalić decided to take over as coach of the
[00:00:58] United Arab
[00:01:00] Emirates.
[00:01:05] Due to public interest, Uskok published the results of environmental
[00:01:08] protection expertise in the case of illegal waste disposal in
[00:01:12] Gospić, in which the married couple Šimcek is suspected. The published
[00:01:15] findings confirm that the area of the industrial complex in
[00:01:19] Bilajska street is significantly polluted. According to the expertise
[00:01:22] of the Geotechnical Faculty, large quantities of waste of various compositions
[00:01:26] were found on the site, including hazardous ecotoxic
[00:01:30] waste. Analyses showed extremely high concentrations
[00:01:33] of harmful substances such as copper, zinc, lead, and antimony.
[00:01:37] Experts state that soil pollution has occurred and that pollution
[00:01:40] has spread beyond the landfill itself. Mechanisms
[00:01:44] of pollutant transfer through soil, air, and vegetation have also
[00:01:47] been confirmed, with the possibility that the pollution has affected
[00:01:51] groundwater. The conclusion of the expertise is that it is a locally
[00:01:54] significant, very progressive contamination that has already
[00:01:58] caused permanent changes in the environment.
[00:02:00] It is warned that without remediation, the landfill will remain a permanent source
[00:02:04] of pollution with possible consequences for the environment and human
[00:02:07] health. Additional findings confirmed earlier conclusions about
[00:02:11] the possible impact of illegally dumped waste on groundwater.
[00:02:14] vode.
[00:02:19] It is the peak of the heatwave. Croatia
[00:02:22] of service. Did people expects predominantly sunny, extremely hot weather today, with temperatures
[00:02:24] in most parts of the country reaching between 34 and
[00:02:27] 39°C, which is why a red warning
[00:02:31] is in effect for all of Croatia today. In the afternoon, with cloud development,
[00:02:35] local thunderstorms are possible primarily in mountainous areas and in
[00:02:38] the interior of Istria and
[00:02:41] Dalmatia.
[00:02:45] And Hungary is turning off ornamental lighting in all state
[00:02:48] institutions at night because record low water levels of the Danube are forcing
[00:02:52] the country to shut down its only nuclear power plant that uses
[00:02:55] the river for cooling, bringing electricity supply capacities to
[00:02:59] their limit. Hungarian companies and households
[00:03:02] are reducing electricity consumption this week after the government's appeal
[00:03:06] to reduce pressure on the
[00:03:08] grid.
[00:03:13] Iran, according to a possible agreement with Oman, could take control
[00:03:17] of ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Israeli
[00:03:21] Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the latest American
[00:03:24] proposal for the Gaza Strip, stating that Israel will not
[00:03:28] accept a plan that does not guarantee its security. Netanyahu said
[00:03:31] that the proposal of the Donald Trump administration is unacceptable and that
[00:03:35] Israel has submitted its
[00:03:38] the first, your pension is objections to Washington, although the plan envisages a gradual withdrawal
[00:03:41] of the Israeli army after the complete disarmament of Hamas.
[00:03:44] The Israeli Prime Minister emphasized that the survival of Israel is not a subject
[00:03:48] of negotiations. Meanwhile, Hamas claims to have accepted the proposal
[00:03:52] and called on the United States to put pressure on Israel to
[00:03:56] reach a ceasefire agreement. cease-fire.
[00:04:06] Two Israeli soldiers were killed in southern Lebanon, the Israeli army announced,
[00:04:10] while at least one person was killed in Israeli retaliatory attacks,
[00:04:13] according to the Lebanese Ministry of Health. Yesterday, the Israeli
[00:04:16] army launched attacks in southern Lebanon in response to what it
[00:04:20] called Hezbollah's violation of the truce. Israeli local
[00:04:24] media reported that two soldiers were killed and four wounded when
[00:04:29] increase also apply to an explosive device detonated in the area where they were operating in the south. The Lebanese Ministry
[00:04:32] of Health announced that one person was killed and twelve were wounded in the Israeli
[00:04:36] attack. The outbreak of settlements coincides with the latest round of negotiations
[00:04:40] between Israel and Lebanon in Rome. The two countries agreed in June
[00:04:44] on a security arrangement with the mediation of the United
[00:04:47] States, with the aim of mitigating hostilities along
[00:04:50] the border. Israel, however, said that it would maintain a security zone in
[00:04:54] southern Lebanon to remove the threat of the Iranian-backed
[00:04:57] Hezbollah group. Iran.
[00:05:02] Today, Japan commemorates the 81st anniversary of the American
[00:05:05] nuclear attack on Hiroshima, which was the first such attack in history.
[00:05:09] On August 6, 1945,
[00:05:12] when the USA dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city, thus accelerating the end
[00:05:16] of World War II. By the end of that year, about
[00:05:19] 140,000 people died from the explosion and from injuries and illnesses caused
[00:05:23] by radiation. About 50,000 people from
[00:05:26] 123 countries, including survivors,
[00:05:29] paid tribute with a minute of silence at the Peace Memorial Park in
[00:05:33] Hiroshima, after the peace bell rang at 8:15
[00:05:37] local time, at the time the bomb
[00:05:40] was dropped. The bomb weighing about 4 tons killed everyone within
[00:05:43] 500 meters and destroyed 90% of the city. Three days
[00:05:47] after Hiroshima, the US dropped a bomb on Nagasaki,
[00:05:51] killing about 74,000
[00:05:53] people.
[00:05:59] Zlatko Dalić is returning to the Middle East. After nine years on the bench of the Croatian
[00:06:02] national football team, the former coach will take over
[00:06:05] the national team of the United Arab Emirates. According
[00:06:09] to 24sata, Dalić will soon travel to Dubai,
[00:06:13] where he is expected to sign a multi-year contract with the local football
[00:06:16] association. He accepted the new engagement after a vacation and talks with
[00:06:20] his family, having previously stated that he was more attracted to coaching than
[00:06:23] club work. His debut on the Emirates' bench is expected at the end
[00:06:26] of September at the Persian Gulf Cup. He is expected to bring
[00:06:30] some of his associates with whom he worked for years in the Croatian
[00:06:34] national team to his coaching staff. Dalić already knows football in the Emirates
[00:06:37] well, where he successfully managed from 2014 to
[00:06:41] 2017. Financial conditions are also one of
[00:06:45] the reasons for his departure. According to media reports, Dalić's
[00:06:48] annual salary in Dubai could amount to around 5 million
[00:06:52] euros.
[00:06:56] FIFA apologized to its members for mistakes in the withdrawn
[00:07:00] proposal to sell part of the commercial rights for the World Cup. After
[00:07:03] a crisis meeting in Morocco, the leadership of the organization once again expressed
[00:07:07] full support for President Gianni Infantino. In a statement after
[00:07:11] the meeting, FIFA admitted that the proposal should have been presented and managed
[00:07:14] differently and announced a revision of the entire
[00:07:17] process. A letter of apology was sent to the members of the FIFA Council and all
[00:07:21] national football associations. The controversial plan
[00:07:24] envisioned selling a 20% stake in a new body that would
[00:07:28] manage the commercial rights for the World Cup, which was intended
[00:07:31] to raise about 4.2 billion
[00:07:34] dollars for football development. The proposal was withdrawn last week after
[00:07:37] sharp criticism from UEFA and numerous FIFA members who
[00:07:41] accused it of lack of transparency and poor
[00:07:44] management. Despite the criticism, the leadership of the umbrella football
[00:07:47] organization said that it still has full confidence in Infantino
[00:07:50] and announced that it will take all necessary measures to protect
[00:07:54] the reputation of the organization.
[00:07:58] But despite all this, more and more national organizations are turning away
[00:08:01] from Infantino. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stated that he has no confidence
[00:08:05] in
[00:08:05] him.
[00:08:12] your chief operating officer, uh, your fellow
[00:08:15] board members, uh, something of consequence that you're even considering, let
[00:08:19] alone proposing, uh,
[00:08:21] that
[00:08:24] that's fatal, uh, should be fatal, uh, and you
[00:08:27] lose confidence, uh, in that individual, they have their
[00:08:30] own procedures for making those determinations, but certainly I don't
[00:08:34] have confidence in, uh, Mr. Infantino, after this
[00:08:38] point, I, uh, given given what transpired, and given the
[00:08:41] nature of what..."
[00:08:45] That's all for the news, stay tuned to N1 program, our portal N1
[00:08:49] info HR and social networks. The next news overview is at 2 PM.
[00:09:30] On this topic, in the meantime, Damir Bakić from the "Možemo" party joined
[00:09:33] me in the studio. He is a member of parliament and a representative
[00:09:36] in the city assembly, otherwise a person who deals with
[00:09:40] the issue of pensions, the pension system.
[00:09:50] commenting on this announcement by Prime Minister Andrej Plenković about
[00:09:53] this increase. How do you see it? Maybe
[00:09:57] especially, let me immediately add the context, your party had a proposal in
[00:10:00] June, something similar, so let's see if there are any
[00:10:04] discrepancies here regarding what kind of proposal this is. That's right, so there is that
[00:10:08] context, but let's go maybe from the end. So we, as
[00:10:12] basically the entire public, first heard about this yesterday at the celebration in
[00:10:15] Knin from Prime Minister Plenković. And
[00:10:19] so maybe for starters, let's just say we actually still
[00:10:23] don't know all the details of that proposal, so it's a bit
[00:10:26] ungrateful to talk about it more precisely, more exactly, what
[00:10:30] will happen now, what is actually being offered, what will be
[00:10:34] written in those legal proposals,
[00:10:37] however, I would say that
[00:10:41] the proposals for amendments to these two laws will reach parliamentary
[00:10:44] procedure, the government's proposals for amendments, I would say
[00:10:48] that this is not a surprise for us, we actually expected
[00:10:51] something like that. So far, experience, also in a
[00:10:55] broader context in Parliament, especially with these
[00:10:58] laws, has in many ways
[00:11:01] indicated that something like that would happen.
[00:11:04] Briefly, a few words about the
[00:11:08] context, so, we really prepared two legal
[00:11:11] proposals which regulate or
[00:11:15] try to improve and
[00:11:18] advance, increase the pensions of those veterans who
[00:11:22] continued to work after the war and who were then retired
[00:11:25] according to or will be retired according to the law on pension
[00:11:28] insurance,
[00:11:30] uh, there was a clear intention, there was a clear, clear
[00:11:33] explanation, maybe now for
[00:11:37] this context it is important to mention the very first
[00:11:40] thing that clearly indicated what could
[00:11:44] happen, nobody, absolutely nobody, despite
[00:11:47] the discussion as it was, stormy, controversial at
[00:11:50] times and very, very,
[00:11:53] to put it mildly. "Mhm, nobody disputed
[00:11:57] the assessment of the situation, nobody disputed the need for
[00:12:00] intervention in that area. These proposals of ours, however, were
[00:12:04] flatly rejected, as you saw, and
[00:12:08] already perhaps the first concrete indication that this
[00:12:11] is coming soon is something that may not be sufficiently
[00:12:15] known to the public at all, because we
[00:12:18] , after the parliamentary debate on our two
[00:12:22] laws, on the proposals for their
[00:12:25] amendments, very quickly, very quickly,
[00:12:28] at the beginning of July, we simply sat down and wrote two
[00:12:32] new legal proposals, where we primarily
[00:12:36] considered everything that, although little was said on the merits,
[00:12:40] but we considered everything that we believed was reasonable
[00:12:43] and necessary to improve these laws.
[00:12:47] We added a few more things that we thought
[00:12:51] were necessary. So, two completely new legal proposals,
[00:12:55] with the same, let's say, the same concept, following the same
[00:12:58] idea. Then something very unusual happened and
[00:13:02] I, I would dare to say unfair. Namely, according to
[00:13:06] the rules, if these legal proposals are
[00:13:08] technically in order, the Speaker of the Parliament must include them in
[00:13:12] the agenda within 30 days.
[00:13:15] The Speaker of the Parliament includes all legal proposals
[00:13:19] that regularly arrive on the agenda
[00:13:22] in a much shorter period of just a few
[00:13:25] days. There is no reason to wait. However, he did not
[00:13:28] include our proposals in the agenda. To our
[00:13:31] inquiry as to why he did not include them,
[00:13:33] he actually resorted to a parliamentary
[00:13:37] procedural trick,
[00:13:39] saying that he has the right to wait
[00:13:43] 30 days, with those 30 days ceasing
[00:13:46] to count on July 15, when
[00:13:49] the work of the Parliament ends, when the work of the Parliament ends. In other words, our
[00:13:53] legal proposals were put on hold, so that
[00:13:56] the government could in the meantime come in with its own. So that's
[00:14:00] roughly that kind of political
[00:14:03] context.
[00:14:06] In terms of content,
[00:14:08] as I said, we need to see what exactly it says.
[00:14:12] Uh, maybe it's most important that,
[00:14:16] maybe there are a few questions that I would, that
[00:14:20] should be addressed at the beginning. First of all, to whom do these
[00:14:24] government's proposals for legal amendments apply? The Prime Minister
[00:14:27] mentions how many 200,000 were mentioned yesterday? So,
[00:14:31] it is not clear to whom all this will apply.
[00:14:34] A few things are then particularly important, for
[00:14:38] example, if these pensions
[00:14:41] are increased, uh, a fundamental
[00:14:45] question is whether they will be increased only in advance, i.e., only
[00:14:49] for those who will only be retired, or will this
[00:14:54] those who have already retired? That is
[00:14:56] the first. Secondly, there is the question of
[00:15:00] disability pensions, which is not adequately resolved in
[00:15:04] the current regulations,
[00:15:06] because actually we need to distinguish, we need
[00:15:09] to distinguish two types of disability pensions: one is those that arose,
[00:15:13] where, of course, the inability to work, i.e.,
[00:15:16] disability, arose as a direct consequence
[00:15:19] of participation in war operations, and the other are those
[00:15:22] disability pensions that arose, so to speak, from work,
[00:15:26] when the veteran returned to his
[00:15:30] job, worked, I don't know, maybe for many years like all
[00:15:33] citizens, maybe got into some kind of
[00:15:36] health condition that required it, or,
[00:15:40] but which is not a direct consequence of participation
[00:15:42] in the war. Okay, and the third thing that is very important to
[00:15:46] somehow understand,
[00:15:48] we haven't seen yet how it's written and how it's envisioned, that's the question of family
[00:15:52] pensions, and again there are somehow two
[00:15:56] categories, because one are family
[00:15:59] pensions that arose, whose
[00:16:02] right to which arose immediately after the war
[00:16:06] due to veterans killed in war operations, and the other are
[00:16:10] , of course, what happens in the general population, so family
[00:16:14] pensions after the eventual death of the
[00:16:18] insured person, i.e., the pensioner. Now, these are
[00:16:22] all a series of questions that these
[00:16:24] laws need to regulate, and now it's hard to comment on anything more specifically.
[00:16:28] Clearly, the part that interests me, since it
[00:16:32] was part of your proposals, that moment was
[00:16:35] interesting to me. You say: the current system has actually
[00:16:39] punished those veterans who did not retire early
[00:16:43] with a privileged pension, but rather continued to work
[00:16:46] after the war. How do you believe their status should be
[00:16:50] regulated and are there
[00:16:52] any other actors in Croatia who have pointed out and
[00:16:56] noticed such a discrepancy in this specific
[00:17:00] population? Okay, so,
[00:17:03] uh, like this, so
[00:17:07] when we look at that category of veterans, those veterans who
[00:17:10] retired under general regulations, meaning those who returned
[00:17:14] to their jobs after the war,
[00:17:16] the problem with that is,
[00:17:20] the problem is that, uh,
[00:17:23] to put it very simply, the problem is
[00:17:26] that the Law on Croatian Veterans offers them certain benefits
[00:17:29] in terms of pension calculation, mhm,
[00:17:33] but they are not entitled to a pension supplement that the general
[00:17:36] population has, mhm." "And more or less, that somehow then
[00:17:39] evens out, and it is undoubtedly
[00:17:43] shown by the numbers. The average pension
[00:17:46] of the general population and the average pension
[00:17:50] of that category of veterans who continued to work is more or less
[00:17:53] the same, for more or less the same average length of service, which is somewhere around
[00:17:56] 31 years
[00:17:59] point this out before? Well, sporadically, I think so,
[00:18:03] but nobody organized it and nobody made an effort to do anything
[00:18:06] about it." "We were in contact with, I mean,
[00:18:10] all of us in our circles, many of us even in our
[00:18:14] families, we have people who, who
[00:18:17] continued to work after participating in
[00:18:21] the Homeland War. I mean, they didn't
[00:18:25] ask for anything or demand anything, but we all knew very well what the
[00:18:28] situation was, and people were more bothered by that feeling
[00:18:32] of injustice, because somehow in the public space, it is
[00:18:35] mostly the belief that veteran
[00:18:38] pensions are high or even very
[00:18:42] high for our circumstances. This is perhaps
[00:18:45] true for one category of veterans, for those who
[00:18:48] retired immediately after the war, but by no means for those who continued
[00:18:52] to work. The fact that this announcement
[00:18:56] comes during yesterday's celebration of Operation Storm,
[00:18:59] in the context of this, let's say, ignoring, as
[00:19:02] you say, your proposals by Parliament, do
[00:19:05] you think that there will really be
[00:19:08] some change in the government's policy or is it still
[00:19:11] perhaps more of a populist
[00:19:15] approach to this topic? Well, I would dare to say that this
[00:19:19] is largely a forced move. As I said,
[00:19:22] our argumentation, I mean, we can discuss, as you
[00:19:26] asked earlier, we can discuss the
[00:19:28] modality of how to improve the material status of that
[00:19:32] group of veterans, how to intervene in the law
[00:19:35] to increase those pensions. That can be discussed. It seems that the government
[00:19:39] has a different idea than we had with our laws, but that
[00:19:43] is completely legitimate. The Prime Minister announced something like a pension
[00:19:47] supplement, so something that will be, how can I say,
[00:19:50] an integral part of the pension, rather than just some
[00:19:53] kind of supplement. Okay, the modalities, the modalities can
[00:19:57] be discussed, but I would say that this is a forced move. It was
[00:20:01] perfectly clear, perfectly clear from
[00:20:04] all, how can I say, all indicators. From our
[00:20:08] contacts, we went through maybe 10 or 15 major
[00:20:11] Croatian cities in our campaign, and everywhere the response was
[00:20:15] the same, everywhere we received
[00:20:17] extremely, uh, how can I say, extremely strong,
[00:20:21] open, undivided support for
[00:20:24] opening this issue,
[00:20:27] uh, the argumentation, as
[00:20:30] I said, was never refuted, and it seems
[00:20:33] to me that the government had no other choice but to,
[00:20:37] and unfortunately that's how it is in our, let's say,
[00:20:41] political milieu,
[00:20:43] not to
[00:20:47] constructively agree to discuss a proposal that came
[00:20:50] from the opposition, as it never did, of course,
[00:20:53] but to crush that proposal,
[00:20:57] then quickly repackage it and present
[00:21:01] it as its own. If that government
[00:21:04] proposal, which Prime Minister Plenković
[00:21:06] announced, is put to a vote, if
[00:21:10] its modality and the whole story surrounding that
[00:21:14] proposal are, in your view, correct,
[00:21:18] will you support it? Well, I mean, there's no doubt that we
[00:21:22] will support every proposal that goes in
[00:21:25] that direction. Ultimately, we
[00:21:28] simply believed that it was necessary to do so. Another
[00:21:31] thing is how it will be done. We will, there is absolutely no
[00:21:35] dilemma, be extremely engaged in that
[00:21:38] discussion. When we see the legal text, there will probably
[00:21:42] be an opportunity to discuss it much more specifically.
[00:21:45] If necessary, we will submit
[00:21:48] amendments, if we submit amendments, if
[00:21:51] we need to do some more additional analyses, to propose
[00:21:55] possibly some corrections, but
[00:21:59] so we don't have that problem, we don't have that
[00:22:02] problem of
[00:22:06] taking a negative stance towards a proposal
[00:22:09] just because it came from the government.
[00:22:12] So, that was the case with the Reconstruction Law, that was the case with a whole series
[00:22:16] of laws, that was, of course, the case with all
[00:22:20] previous examples where the government de facto copied a legal proposal
[00:22:24] from the opposition. So, parliament is not a place where one
[00:22:27] should be spiteful or,
[00:22:30] I don't know, act in defense
[00:22:33] of one's stubbornness or politicize in such
[00:22:37] a way. If, then, that proposal goes in the direction in which we
[00:22:40] believe it should go, the announcement seems, based on the announcement,
[00:22:44] that it will be so, our support will come. Before
[00:22:48] we move on to the entire pension system,
[00:22:52] I must ask you,
[00:22:54] how do you
[00:22:56] see if it is politically
[00:23:00] fair to increase veteran pensions
[00:23:04] separately as a special category, while there is
[00:23:07] a portion of citizens with full working years who
[00:23:11] receive pensions of several hundred
[00:23:12] euros?
[00:23:15] That is a very, very difficult question. That
[00:23:18] is, of course, a very difficult
[00:23:20] question. - Believe me, we have
[00:23:24] specifically thought about this question a lot when we were preparing these legal proposals
[00:23:27] and when we were passing them. The answer is, both are necessary,
[00:23:31] uh, I will remind you of the following:
[00:23:34] in our pension system, so when we look at all our
[00:23:38] pensioners, you have
[00:23:40] approximately
[00:23:44] approximately 940,000
[00:23:47] pensioners... uh, whose pensions
[00:23:50] are, first of all, who were retired according to the pension
[00:23:53] insurance law, and whose pensions are determined according to the pension
[00:23:57] insurance law. This is the basic group that we most often have
[00:24:01] in mind when we talk about the state, about the difficult
[00:24:04] state of our pensioners and about the state of our system.
[00:24:08] Besides them, however, you have another, I don't know, 250
[00:24:12] thousand or something similar,
[00:24:14] uh,
[00:24:17] pensioners who were retired
[00:24:21] in 19 groups who were retired under special
[00:24:25] regulations or whose pensions are determined under
[00:24:28] special regulations. Two of these groups are
[00:24:31] veterans, but there you have a whole spectrum
[00:24:35] of various special groups, such as, I don't know, former
[00:24:38] political officials, members of parliament, while
[00:24:42] that infamous law on members of parliament's
[00:24:45] pensions was in force, and so on and so
[00:24:49] forth. Our position from the beginning was the following:
[00:24:52] actually, it is especially necessary to resolve the status,
[00:24:56] let's say, of this basic, fundamental group of
[00:24:58] pensioners, uh, because, because it
[00:25:01] is, it is the image of the system.
[00:25:04] It is especially necessary to resolve the status of each of these groups, and that
[00:25:08] solution must not, should not, in any way, be
[00:25:12] uniform for everyone, because each of these 19 special groups has its own
[00:25:16] specificities, its own reasons why their pensions are
[00:25:20] calculated separately. The real concern is how to increase
[00:25:23] the pensions of the general population. We believed
[00:25:27] and discussed this already several
[00:25:31] years ago in our election programs, in all public statements, that
[00:25:34] generally it is necessary to raise
[00:25:37] the general level of these pensions, it is necessary to raise the general level of these
[00:25:41] pensions beyond those
[00:25:44] regular semi-annual adjustments. Now,
[00:25:47] to raise the general level of these pensions, that's...
[00:25:52] This is the question of all questions
[00:25:55] how, uh, maybe here's just this one piece of information, so we don't
[00:25:59] overburden the conversation with numbers, but...
[00:26:05] "In total, it
[00:26:07] is necessary to pay all pensions in Croatia this year
[00:26:11] and the pension insurance
[00:26:13] institute needs over 10 billion euros, over
[00:26:17] 10 billion euros, that's more than a quarter of our
[00:26:21] budget,
[00:26:24] out of those 10 billion euros, six billion are collected from
[00:26:28] contributions, and four must
[00:26:31] be directly..." "let's say helped with budget
[00:26:34] money,
[00:26:36] to raise the pension level by only one percentage point, by only
[00:26:40] one percentage point, which actually every individual pensioner will not
[00:26:43] even feel, feel, meaning 100 million euros annually
[00:26:47] that is obviously a very non-trivial question,
[00:26:50] now there are of course various modalities,
[00:26:54] some things the government has already announced,
[00:26:57] and we have some objections
[00:27:01] and maybe..." "some proposals that would improve
[00:27:05] or enhance or
[00:27:08] expand those measures, one is of course the announcement
[00:27:10] of the abolition of tax on pensions, the second
[00:27:14] is what has now again somewhat fallen into the shadows, but I think it is
[00:27:18] very, very unfairly resolved, that is the question of the right
[00:27:21] to work after retirement, I don't know we can return to both, we can
[00:27:24] and generally, of course, there is
[00:27:27] also the question of adjustment, we recently changed the adjustment formula
[00:27:31] again." And that is, of course, a question of budget
[00:27:35] possibilities for an extraordinary increase in the
[00:27:38] level of general pensions, I say these basic groups
[00:27:41] of pensioners, these are some key
[00:27:44] questions and uh,
[00:27:48] by no means, how can I say, by no means would it
[00:27:51] be good to solve only the question
[00:27:54] of pensions of one particular group and not have in
[00:27:58] mind the system as a whole, especially its...
[00:28:02] fundamental, most important part,
[00:28:05] please, did you have something to say, taxes
[00:28:08] and and and work from
[00:28:10] retirement,
[00:28:13] let's go first with work from retirement, so that
[00:28:16] is some novelty, we
[00:28:19] until about a year, a year ago, more or less,
[00:28:22] had a legal solution according to which
[00:28:25] pensioners,
[00:28:27] old-age pensioners
[00:28:29] were allowed to work up to
[00:28:33] 50% of their working hours
[00:28:36] without their pension payments being
[00:28:38] interrupted.
[00:28:40] Now demographic trends are what they are, the situation in the
[00:28:44] labor market is what it is, pensions are
[00:28:47] what they are, there was obviously a need to allow pensioners
[00:28:51] or to consider regulating
[00:28:55] the question of their full-time work and
[00:28:58] the legislator allowed it in the Parliament,
[00:29:01] such a law was passed. Pensioners who are in
[00:29:05] old-age pension can now work full-time
[00:29:08] further, continue
[00:29:11] to work or re-employ themselves, of course if they want to,
[00:29:15] but but in such a way that they only have the right to
[00:29:19] half of their pension, and they have the salary they earn, whatever full salary
[00:29:22] they earn, the salary earned plus half of the pension, but only
[00:29:26] half of the pension, mind you, you worked until you were 65
[00:29:29] years old, it doesn't matter whether your pension came from the first
[00:29:33] or from the second pension pillar, especially if it came from the second pension
[00:29:37] pillar, and even if it came from
[00:29:40] entirely earned, maybe some
[00:29:44] parameters in the law changed,
[00:29:47] maybe the contribution rates changed,
[00:29:50] the formulas for calculation changed, but the basic
[00:29:53] agreement remained always the same, until the age of 65
[00:29:57] you work, you pay contributions for the pensions of current
[00:30:01] pensioners after the age of 65 your
[00:30:04] pension belongs to you, which is completely
[00:30:07] earned and there is absolutely no logic
[00:30:11] and no argument that
[00:30:13] if you continue or if you want to or if you can
[00:30:17] work, it doesn't matter if you work because you
[00:30:20] enjoy it or if sheer necessity forces you to, that someone should
[00:30:23] now take half of your pension for the time you work, that
[00:30:27] is absolutely unfair, we
[00:30:29] and not only us, not only our party in the Parliament, we
[00:30:33] argued this, there was no understanding, but there were no
[00:30:37] counter-arguments either, so this is something that needs to be vigorously
[00:30:40] changed, that is the first thing, the second thing, tax on
[00:30:44] pensions, we have been advocating this for at least three or four
[00:30:47] years, very much, very vigorously, and now it is finally being
[00:30:51] announced, but now it seems to me we have gone from
[00:30:54] one extreme to another, because the announcement is that
[00:30:58] taxes on pensions will be completely abolished.