Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a quotation record.
00:00:00uh, there was a clear intention, there was a clear,
00:00:03clear reasoning, maybe now for
00:00:07this context it's important to mention the very first
00:00:10thing that clearly indicated what could
00:00:14happen. No one, absolutely no one, despite
00:00:17the debate being heated, controversial at times,
00:00:21and very, very, to put it mildly, ugly,
00:00:25mhm, no one disputed the assessment of the situation, no one
00:00:28disputed the need for
00:00:31intervention in that area. These our proposals,
00:00:34however, were smoothly rejected, as you saw.
00:00:38And already, perhaps the first concrete
00:00:41indication that this is coming soon is something
00:00:45that perhaps is not generally known to the public, mhm, because we
00:00:49are after the parliamentary
00:00:53in mind the debate on these two laws and their proposed amendments,
00:00:56very quickly, very quickly at the beginning of July,
00:01:00we simply sat down and wrote two new legal
00:01:03proposals, where we primarily
00:01:06took into account everything, although little was said about the merits,
00:01:10but we took into account everything that we considered reasonable
00:01:13and necessary in order
00:01:17of service. Have people to improve these laws. We added a few more things that we thought
00:01:21were necessary, so two complete new legal proposals,
00:01:25but with the same, let's say, the same concept, following
00:01:28the same idea. Then something very unusual happened
00:01:32and I, I would dare to say,
00:01:34incorrect. Namely, according to the rules, if these legal
00:01:38proposals are technically in order, the Speaker of the Parliament
00:01:42must include them in the agenda within 30
00:01:45days. The Speaker of the Parliament includes
00:01:48all legal proposals that regularly arrive
00:01:52on the agenda in a significantly shorter period, after only a few days.
00:01:56There is no reason to wait. However, he did not include ours in the agenda.
00:02:00In response to our inquiry as to why he did not include it, he
00:02:04actually resorted to some
00:02:07procedural, some procedural
00:02:11we talk about the situation, about trick, saying that he has the right to wait
00:02:1330 days, with the stipulation that those 30 days cease
00:02:17to be counted on July 15th when
00:02:19the work of the Parliament ends, when the work of the Parliament ends. In other words, our
00:02:23legal proposals were put on hold, so that the
00:02:27government could, in the meantime, come in with its own. There you go. That's
00:02:30approximately that political
00:02:33the first, your pension is context. Content-wise,
00:02:36as I said, we need to see what
00:02:38exactly it says.
00:02:40Uh, maybe the most
00:02:44important thing
00:02:46is that there are a few questions that should
00:02:50be addressed first. First of all, to whom do these
00:02:54government's proposed amendments apply? The prime minister
00:02:57mentions how many? 2000.
00:03:00So, it's not clear to whom all of this
00:03:03will apply. Several things are particularly important
00:03:06here. For example, if these pensions
00:03:10are increased, uh,
00:03:13a fundamental question is whether they will only be increased
00:03:17prospectively, that is, only for those who will be retired,
00:03:20or will this increase also apply to
00:03:24those who are already retired? That's
00:03:26the first. Secondly, there's the question of
00:03:30disability pensions, which is not adequately resolved in
00:03:34the current regulations, because in fact we need
00:03:38to differentiate, we need to differentiate between two types of disability
00:03:41pensions. One are those that arose where,
00:03:45where, of course, the inability to work, or
00:03:47disability, arose as a direct
00:03:50consequence of participation in war operations, and the second
00:03:54are those disability pensions that arose, so to speak, from
00:03:57work, when the veteran returned
00:04:00to his job, worked, I don't know, perhaps for many
00:04:04years like all citizens, perhaps he ended up in some, some
00:04:08health condition that required it, but which is not a direct
00:04:11consequence of participation in the war, okay. And the third thing that is very important
00:04:15to somehow understand, and we haven't yet
00:04:19seen how it's written and how it's conceived, is the question of family
00:04:22pensions, and again there are somehow two
00:04:26categories, because one are family pensions
00:04:30that arose, whose whose,
00:04:33whose rights arose
00:04:36immediately after the war due to fallen
00:04:39veterans in war operations, and the other is, of course,
00:04:42what happens in the general population, that is, family
00:04:46pensions after the eventual death of
00:04:50an insured person, or pensioner. Now, these
00:04:53are all a series of questions that these laws need to regulate,
00:04:57and it's hard to comment on anything more specifically. Clearly, the
00:05:00part that interests me, since it was part of your proposals,
00:05:04that moment was interesting to me. You say the current system
00:05:08has actually punished those veterans who
00:05:12did not go into that privileged pension early, but continued to work
00:05:16after the war. How do you think their status
00:05:20should be regulated, and are there
00:05:22any other actors in Croatia who have pointed out and
00:05:26noticed such a
00:05:30discrepancy in this particular population?
00:05:33Well, so, like this:
00:05:35so, when we look at that
00:05:39category of veterans, those veterans who went
00:05:42into retirement according to general regulations, meaning those who returned to their jobs
00:05:46after the war, and the problem with that,
00:05:50the problem is, uh, well,
00:05:53to put it very simply, the problem is that
00:05:56the Law on Croatian Veterans offers them certain
00:06:00benefits in terms of pension calculation, mhm, but they
00:06:03are not entitled to the pension supplement that the general population has,
00:06:07and more or less that somehow balances out,
00:06:11and... and the numbers clearly
00:06:14show that the average pension of the general population and
00:06:18the average pension of that category of veterans who
00:06:22continued to work is more or less the same, for more or less the same
00:06:25length of service on average, which is about 31 years
00:06:29pointed this out before? Well, sporadically, I think, but
00:06:33no one organized, no one made an effort to do something
00:06:36about it. We were in contact with, I mean,
00:06:40all of us in our surroundings... Many of us and our
00:06:44families, we have people who
00:06:47continued to work after participating in
00:06:51the Homeland War. I mean, they didn't ask
00:06:55for anything, but we all knew very well what the situation
00:06:59was like, and people were more bothered by that feeling
00:07:02of injustice, because somehow in the public space it's
00:07:05mostly, mostly believed that
00:07:08veterans' pensions are high or even very
00:07:12high for our circumstances. And that is
00:07:14possibly, possibly true for one category
00:07:17of veterans, for those who retired immediately after the war, by no means
00:07:21for those who continued to work. The fact that
00:07:24this announcement comes yesterday to commemorate
00:07:28Operation Storm, in the context of this
00:07:31ignoring, as you say, of your proposals by
00:07:34the Parliament, do you believe
00:07:37that there will actually be some change in government
00:07:40policy here, or is it still some... uh, perhaps
00:07:43more populist approach to this topic? Well, I
00:07:47would dare to say that this is largely a forced
00:07:50move. As I said, our argumentation, I mean,
00:07:54we can discuss, as you asked earlier, we can discuss the
00:07:58modality, how to improve the material status of this
00:08:02group of veterans, how to intervene in the law
00:08:05to increase these pensions, that can be discussed. It seems that the government
00:08:09has a different idea than we had in our
00:08:12laws, but that is perfectly legitimate. The prime minister announced
00:08:15something like a pension supplement, so something that will be,
00:08:19how can I say, an integral part of the pension, rather than
00:08:23some kind of supplement, all right, modalities can
00:08:26be discussed, but I would say
00:08:29that this forced move was perfectly clear,
00:08:33perfectly clear from all, how can I say,
00:08:36all indicators, from our contacts. We went through,
00:08:39in our campaign we went through maybe
00:08:4310 or 15 major Croatian cities, everywhere the echo was
00:08:46the same, everywhere we received
00:08:49extremely, how can I say, extremely strong,
00:08:52open, undivided support for the idea
00:08:56that this issue needed to be opened, uh,
00:09:00the argumentation, as I said, was never
00:09:03defeated, and it seems to me that the government had no other choice
00:09:07but to, as it unfortunately happens in our
00:09:11political milieu, uh, not to
00:09:14uh, constructively
00:09:17agree to a discussion about a proposal that
00:09:20came from the opposition, as it has never done before,
00:09:23but to crush that proposal,
00:09:27let's say, then quickly repackage it and present
00:09:31it as its own. If that government
00:09:34proposal announced by Prime Minister Plenković
00:09:36is put to a vote, if
00:09:40its modality and and the whole story around
00:09:44that proposal are, in your
00:09:47view, correct, will you support
00:09:50it? Well, I think there is no doubt that we will support every
00:09:54proposal that goes in that direction. Ultimately,
00:09:57we simply believed that it was necessary to do so.
00:10:01The other thing is how it will be done. We will, there is absolutely no
00:10:05dilemma, be extremely engaged in that
00:10:08discussion. When we see the legal text,
00:10:11there will probably be an opportunity to talk about it much more
00:10:15concretely. If we need to submit
00:10:18amendments, or file amendments,
00:10:21if we need to do some additional analyzes,
00:10:25to propose eventually some corrections,
00:10:28but so we don't have that problem, we don't have that
00:10:32problem that we would
00:10:36take a negative stance towards a proposal
00:10:39just because it came from the government.
00:10:42So it was with the Law on Reconstruction, so it was with a whole series
00:10:46of laws, so it was, of course, with all the other
00:10:50previous examples where the government de facto copied some legal proposal
00:10:54from the opposition. So, Parliament is not a place where
00:10:57one should be stubborn or,
00:11:00I don't know, act in defense
00:11:03of one's stubbornness or politicize in such
00:11:07a way. If, therefore, that proposal goes in the direction we
00:11:10believe it should go, the announcement seems, from
00:11:14the announcement it seems that it will be so, our support
00:11:17will come. Before we move on to the entire
00:11:20pension system, I have to ask you
00:11:23- How, how do you see
00:11:26the political, is it politically
00:11:30and fair to
00:11:33increase veterans' pensions
00:11:36separately as a special category, while there is a segment of citizens
00:11:39with full employment history, who receive
00:11:43pensions of a few hundred
00:11:45euros? That is a very, very
00:11:48difficult question, that
00:11:50is, of course, a very difficult question.
00:11:54Uh, believe me, we specifically thought about that question a lot
00:11:58when we were preparing those legal proposals and when we were enacting
00:12:02them. The answer is this: both are necessary.
00:12:05Uh, I will remind you of the following: in our
00:12:09pension system, so when
00:12:11we look at all our retirees,
00:12:14you have approximately,
00:12:17940,000
00:12:19retirees,
00:12:21uh, whose pensions are, first of all, who retired according to
00:12:25the Pension Insurance Act and whose pensions are determined according to the Pension
00:12:28Insurance Act. This is the basic group that we
00:12:32most often have in mind when
00:12:36the difficult situation of our retirees and about the state of our
00:12:39system. Besides them, however, you have another, I don't know,
00:12:43250,000 or something similar,
00:12:46uh, retirees who are
00:12:49retired in 19 groups
00:12:53who are retired according to special regulations,
00:12:56or whose pensions are determined according to special regulations. Two of
00:13:00these groups are veterans, but of course there
00:13:03you have a whole spectrum of various special groups,
00:13:07such as, I don't know, former political officials,
00:13:11members of parliament, while that
00:13:14notorious law on parliamentary pensions was
00:13:17in force and so on and so forth. Our position from the beginning
00:13:21was the following: in fact, one must specifically
00:13:24address the status of, let's say, these basic,
00:13:27fundamental groups of pensioners, uh, because, because it
00:13:31is, it is the image of the system.
00:13:34The status of each of these groups must be resolved separately, and that
00:13:38solution must not, should not, by no means, be
00:13:42uniform for everyone, because each of these 19 special groups has its
00:13:46own specificities, its own reasons why their pensions are
00:13:50calculated specially. The real concern is how to increase
00:13:53pensions. We believed
00:13:57and advocated for it years ago
00:14:01in our election programs, in all public appearances, that it is
00:14:04generally necessary to raise
00:14:07the overall level of these pensions, it is necessary to raise the overall level of these
00:14:11pensions beyond those
00:14:14regular semi-annual adjustments. Now,
00:14:17raising the overall level of these pensions, that
00:14:20is
00:14:22the question of all questions:
00:14:25how? Uh, maybe just this piece of information, so as not
00:14:29to burden the conversation too much with numbers,
00:14:32but in total,
00:14:35for the payment of all pensions this year
00:14:39in the Republic of Croatia and the Pension Insurance Institute,
00:14:42over 10 billion
00:14:45euros are needed, over 10 billion euros.
00:14:49That is more than a quarter of our
00:14:51budget.
00:14:55Of those 10 billion euros, 6 billion are collected from
00:14:58contributions, and four must be
00:15:01directly, let's say, aided by budget
00:15:04money. To raise the pension level by only
00:15:08one percentage point, by only one percentage point, which actually
00:15:12every individual pensioner will not even feel,
00:15:15means 100 million euros annually. It is obvious that this is a very non-trivial
00:15:19question. Now there are,
00:15:22of course, various modalities. Some things the government has already
00:15:26announced, and
00:15:29we have some objections and perhaps
00:15:32some proposals that would improve
00:15:36these measures or follow or
00:15:39expand them. One is, of course, the announcement
00:15:42of the abolition of taxes on pensions, the other
00:15:46is what has now somewhat fallen into the background, but I think it is
00:15:50very, very unfairly resolved, that is the question of the right to work after
00:15:53retirement. I don't know, we can return to both,
00:15:57we can, and generally, of course, there is also the question
00:16:00of adjustment. We recently changed the adjustment formula again,
00:16:03that is, of course, a question of budgetary possibilities for some
00:16:07extraordinary increase in the level of general pensions, I say
00:16:10these fundamental groups of retirees. These are some
00:16:14key questions and
00:16:16uh, by no means, how can I
00:16:20say, it would be by no means good to
00:16:23address only the issue of pensions of one particular group without
00:16:27having
00:16:30system as a whole, especially its fundamental, most important
00:16:34part. Tell me, did you have anything else to say?
00:16:38Taxes and and work from
00:16:40retirement.
00:16:43Well, let's first take work from retirement. So, that's
00:16:46a new thing. We had
00:16:49until a year, a year ago, something like that,
00:16:52a legal solution according to which
00:16:55su
00:16:57retirees,
00:17:00old-age retirees, were allowed to work up to
00:17:0350% of their working hours
00:17:06without their pension payment
00:17:08being interrupted.
00:17:10Now, demographic trends are what they are, the situation in the
00:17:14labor market is what it is, pensions are
00:17:17what they are. There was clearly a need to allow retirees,
00:17:21or to consider regulating the
00:17:25issue of their full-time work, and the
00:17:28legislator allowed it. Such a law was passed
00:17:31in Parliament. Retirees who are in
00:17:35old-age retirement can now work full-time
00:17:38and continue working or get re-employed,
00:17:41of course, if they want to,
00:17:45but, but the way is that they are entitled
00:17:48to only half of their pension, and
00:17:51they have whatever salary they have, a full salary, they have whatever salary they earn, a salary earned
00:17:54plus half of the pension, but only half of the pension. Look, you
00:17:58worked until the age of 65, it doesn't matter whether
00:18:01your pension came from the first or the second pension pillar,
00:18:05especially if it came from the second pension pillar. Even if it came from
00:18:10fully earned. Perhaps some
00:18:14parameters in the law have changed,
00:18:17perhaps contribution rates have changed, perhaps
00:18:20calculation formulas have changed, but the fundamental
00:18:23agreement remained the same: you work until 65,
00:18:27you pay contributions for the pensions of
00:18:30current retirees, after 65, your
00:18:34pension is due, which is completely
00:18:37earned, and there is absolutely no logic
00:18:41and no argument that
00:18:43if you continue, if you want to, if you can
00:18:47work, it doesn't matter if you work because it
00:18:50makes you happy or if sheer necessity forces you to, that
00:18:53someone will now take half of your pension for the time you work. That
00:18:57is absolutely unfair. We
00:18:59and not just us, not just our party in Parliament, pointed
00:19:03this out with arguments, but there was no understanding, nor were there
00:19:06counter-arguments. So, that's something that needs
00:19:09to be energetically, energetically changed. That's the first
00:19:13thing. The second thing is pension tax. We have been advocating for this
00:19:16for at least three or four years, very strongly,
00:19:19very energetically, and now it is finally being announced. But again, it seems to
00:19:23me we have gone from one extreme to the other.
00:19:26The announcement is that taxes on pensions will be completely
00:19:29abolished.
00:19:32That might not make much sense,
00:19:34because it is absolutely necessary
00:19:38to abolish taxes on pensions up to a certain
00:19:41threshold, up to a certain limit,
00:19:43and simply
00:19:47uh the financial situation
00:19:50of retirees is such that it is completely
00:19:53unacceptable for a retiree to now pay tax on, for example,
00:19:57700 euros of pension,
00:20:01because 600 euros is
00:20:05uh a personal deduction, so a non-taxable part.
00:20:08That someone who receives a pension of 650 or 700 euros
00:20:11per month pays taxes,
00:20:15just as it doesn't make much sense for
00:20:19a retiree who has a 3,000 euro pension,
00:20:21and there are many
00:20:24such, I mean, there aren't many proportionally, but there are
00:20:28quite a few, to pay, that is, to no longer
00:20:31pay tax on a pension, which is also income.
00:20:34A worker with 100 or 1500 euros...
00:20:37pays tax on pension. So, that question
00:20:41of taxing pensions should, I would say, be resolved
00:20:44more subtly, releasing 90-plus percent of
00:20:48retirees from that tax.
00:20:51But fine-tune the system.
00:20:55I would say, we have that tool, and that is called personal deduction, that is
00:20:59possible. Fine-tune the system in such a way that
00:21:02we actually avoid those obvious injustices, so that the entire
00:21:06system, when we look at salaries and pensions
00:21:09and income
00:21:13from self-employment, is made coherent. This way we
00:21:17make piecemeal changes and then
00:21:20we create various imbalances and
00:21:24significant injustices. And finally, just one more thing
00:21:28- generally, the abolition of taxes on the vast majority
00:21:31of pensions is necessary and we welcome
00:21:35it. We must be aware that over half
00:21:38of our retirees will not feel a direct benefit from it,
00:21:42unfortunately, because their pensions are lower than 600
00:21:46euros, because they are actually lower than that tax
00:21:50threshold, and the real question is how to help, how
00:21:53to help them.
00:21:56We can come back to that. What I would like to talk about now
00:21:59is the pillars of the pension system. How
00:22:03I understand it, you don't consider the second pillar unimportant,
00:22:06you said for it, that's right, you said that it's a kind of personal
00:22:09property of the insured and you claimed that it was
00:22:13systematically undermined for years
00:22:17- as long as it exists.
00:22:20Some politicians and analysts advocate
00:22:23abolishing the mandatory second pillar and
00:22:26transferring all those, right, 20% contributions in
00:22:30the second pillar to be transferred to the first. So, from the
00:22:33pension contributions, which is generally
00:22:3620% of the gross salary, 15%
00:22:39goes to the first pillar and only 5% to the second. So,
00:22:43about three quarters of the contributions go to the first pillar,
00:22:46first, first five to the second, okay. However, the assets of these
00:22:50mandatory pension funds are, of course,
00:22:54very large.
00:22:55That
00:22:58is a big question. I think that it is
00:23:02a constant question that naturally has its, how can
00:23:06I say, waves in terms of visibility
00:23:09in public discourse. Sometimes that question
00:23:12fades, then it intensifies
00:23:15again, the discussion about it. It's an absolutely
00:23:18legitimate question, because it is indeed true
00:23:22that we cannot be, overall,
00:23:25and
00:23:27the beginning was 2002, so, 24
00:23:30years, we cannot, overall, be satisfied
00:23:34with the performance of that second pillar.
00:23:37So, the point is that, the point is that
00:23:40that second pillar
00:23:43should ensure
00:23:45that our
00:23:48pensions are higher
00:23:52than they would be if we had never introduced
00:23:55the second pillar. I mean, that's, that's
00:23:58the basic line of the whole
00:24:01discussion. So, the second pillar was introduced, and
00:24:04the key argument was that the first pillar is unsustainable,
00:24:08demographically unsustainable.
00:24:11That it is demographically unsustainable is shown by
00:24:14the previously cited data that out of
00:24:17the necessary 10 billion euros... Only six
00:24:20billion euros come from contributions, and as many as four must
00:24:24be directly transferred from the budget. So, the
00:24:27idea was to actually introduce a second pillar where
00:24:30our quarter of our pension
00:24:34contributions would be invested, accumulated,
00:24:38and ultimately result
00:24:42in some, some part, of course, then the pension is in two
00:24:46parts, right? Some part of the pension
00:24:50that would, that would actually help our overall
00:24:53pension be higher than it would have been
00:24:56without the second pillar. Currently, the situation is such that it is not
00:25:00the case. It is not the case. How do we know it is not
00:25:04the case? Well, it is not the case,
00:25:07obviously, because our
00:25:09legislation
00:25:12provides, so
00:25:15the possibility that every insured person at the moment when
00:25:19they retire
00:25:21chooses,
00:25:24uh, has the right to choose whether they will receive that, let's say,
00:25:28newly designed pension, partly from the first, partly from the second pillar, based on
00:25:31their accumulated contributions, or
00:25:34whether they will to opt out that
00:25:38his money invested in the second pillar returns
00:25:41back to the first pillar so that he receives a pension from the first pillar as if
00:25:45the second pillar had never
00:25:47existed.
00:25:51It is a fundamental fact that for the vast
00:25:54majority of insured persons this second option is more favorable
00:25:57and people, as
00:26:00a rule, in a large percentage of cases opt for
00:26:04returning completely to the first pillar. Now, the
00:26:07situation is somewhat better in terms of the percentage of people
00:26:11who choose this two- pillar pension,
00:26:15uh, I would say somewhat better
00:26:18for one reason that
00:26:22is very attractive to our citizens
00:26:26and that is that a part of the accumulated funds from the second
00:26:35for many people in the situation we are in,
00:26:39that some that some, let's
00:26:42say, cash of those 20% that you can
00:26:46withdraw, okay, means something, hmm, then
00:26:49people choose the pension, that combined pension from the first and
00:26:52second pillar,
00:26:54uh
00:26:56uh, to a large extent, statistics show this, so I'm not
00:27:00saying this, how can I say, from an impression. "We in the Parliament receive an annual
00:27:03report on the work of mandatory pension funds, we
00:27:07see the situation, the evidence, we see the statistics, how many
00:27:11people chose what and why,
00:27:14uh,
00:27:18what, what to actually
00:27:21say after
00:27:24all,
00:27:26first of all, it is necessary to bear in mind the fact that our second pillar
00:27:30in its fullness has not yet come to life
00:27:33and I think that
00:27:37a fair and complete and comprehensive assessment
00:27:40of the second pillar can be
00:27:44given, deduced and
00:27:48only after those people who
00:27:51have been in that combined system from the beginning of their
00:27:55working career, employment, start retiring,
00:27:59that is not yet the case, in other words, that second pillar in our country has not yet
00:28:03reached full maturity, it is still in some experimental phase, so I wouldn't
00:28:06say experimental, but let's say in growing up, it has not
00:28:09reached its full maturity, it is now in some adolescence,
00:28:1340 years must pass, 40 years must pass, so
00:28:17somewhere in 2042
00:28:2045, then we will have all the elements to
00:28:23objectively assess
00:28:26its full operation, that is the first
00:28:29data, allow me to say just one more thing about other important
00:28:32data, if we are talking about
00:28:36the eventual,
00:28:38eventual dismantling of that second pillar, okay, much is
00:28:42overlooked, a completely,
00:28:45completely clear and undeniable
00:28:48fact, that is that this operation is extremely
00:28:51non-trivial, perhaps even impossible, due to
00:28:55the fact that our accumulated contributions in
00:28:59the second pillar are our private property. That's
00:29:03what the law says, so, the difference is absolutely
00:29:06fundamental compared to the status of our contributions in the first
00:29:10pillar and our contributions in the second pillar. Our contributions in
00:29:13the second pillar are our private savings, literally
00:29:16that's how it should be understood, our private savings with
00:29:20the only difference that we do not have the right to dispose of these
00:29:24savings before our retirement.
00:29:27So, when and if someone advocates for the abolition of the second pillar
00:29:30and the accumulation of funds from the second pillar returning to the first
00:29:34pillar, that very much overlooks the fact that now
00:29:37it is no longer about some transfer from one state fund to another
00:29:41state fund, but it is therefore a question
00:29:44of disposing of the personal property of each individual
00:29:48citizen, and that is something that I think is an extremely
00:29:51non-trivial question, it is not clear how that could be done, so
00:29:55then speculation, by abolishing the second
00:29:58pillar and transferring that money to
00:30:02that first... the first pillar, would it be possible
00:30:06for that to be one of the models for increasing basic
00:30:08pensions? No, the
00:30:11thing is, how can I say, the thing is, the thing is much
00:30:15more complex, because I think
00:30:18in the second pillar, I don't know exactly
00:30:21how much is accumulated, 25 billion, don't hold me to
00:30:23that, I'm not sure how much money,
00:30:26I mean
00:30:30hypothetically, hmm. hypothetically, if
00:30:33we returned all that money from the second pillar,
00:30:37I say, it's impossible, it's impossible, that's our private
00:30:41property, but if someone, if
00:30:43someone,
00:30:45I don't know what word would be appropriate so that it wouldn't be too strong, if someone took
00:30:49all that money and put it into the first pillar, then what could happen, pensions from
00:30:53the first pillar could increase by many percent, and then what
00:30:57next year, what then that year?