In a move set to bring a brighter financial outlook to its subscribers, the Social Security Board is gearing up to overhaul the pension and severance pay calculation methods, promising more substantial payouts. This initiative seeks to inject fairness into the system and entice a greater number of people to sign up under the auspices of Section 39 of the social security law.
The particular segment of the Social Security Fund (SSF) we’re talking about here provides a lifeline for those intrepid enough to continue their contributions even after they’ve hung up their boots in the private sector. But not just anyone qualifies — to participate, one must have previously been insured under Section 33, designed for company employees. Additionally, eligibility demands that the individual has been proactive, making contributions for a solid 12-month period, with a brief break from employment not exceeding six months.
Mark your calendars for Dec 11, as this is when Sustarum Thammaboosadee, an esteemed board member, will lead a pivotal meeting. The agenda? To deliberate on fresh benefits for subscribers, including this much-anticipated new pension computation formula. Moreover, they’ll be expanding unemployment insurance coverage, a suggestion that’s already won the nod from the subcommittee diligently researching these calculations. “The findings are in,” Mr. Sustarum affirmed. “And they forecast a sunnier financial future for our social security subscribers.”
Indeed, this reform proposes that pension calculations for individuals insured under Section 39 should consider every single year they spent working diligently as a company employee. In stark contrast to the current model, which relies on the average monthly income from one’s last five years of employment, this new approach seems to promise a more equitable arrangement. Mr. Sustarum puts it succinctly, “The revised method is not only fairer—it generously upsizes the pensions entitled to our social security members.”
The reimagined approach will also bolster severance pay, transforming it from the existing 50% of 180 days average daily income to an encouraging 60% of 270 days. Once the final tweaks were wrapped up by the sub-committee, what’s left now is the green light from the board members to bring this into action.
For those company employees facing the bittersweet milestone of mandatory retirement at 55, there’s a silver lining — they can opt to transition into Section 39. However, Mr. Sustarum acknowledges this will create additional financial pressures on the system. Fortunately, the Social Security Office’s coffers are far from dry; annually, a hefty 200 billion baht flows in courtesy of members’ contributions, dwarfing the estimated one billion baht increment needed for these broader payouts.
Mr. Sustarum assures us, “Not only will this development not destabilize the SSF, but it’s likely to become a magnet, drawing more individuals to subscribe to Section 39 thanks to these hefty enhancements in severance pay and pension.” He postulates that the previous reluctance to join stemmed from perceptions of meager returns. In contrast, he rightly observes, “Where there is fairness, expect a swell in participants.”
This overhaul is exactly what we need to make the social security system fairer. People deserve to get back what they put in after all those years of hard work!
I agree! It’s about time the system recognized the years of dedication from workers. But will this really be sustainable in the long run?
Sustainability is always a concern, but with that massive budget they mentioned, it seems plausible for now. They just need to keep the funds well-managed.
With more money going out, I’m worried about the future stability of the fund. Isn’t this just a temporary fix that could lead to more problems later?
I share your concern, Reed. It feels like a move to win public approval rather than a long-term solution. But it’s definitely an improvement for those of us who need it now.
True, Liam. I suppose it’s a balancing act, but they should tread carefully. Future generations might pay the price if they overstretch.
I’m a bit confused. So is this just for new retirees or does it benefit current ones too? Seems unfair if only new people get these better terms.
From what I understand, it’s for future payouts. I think, based on their prior work, even recent retirees might benefit. Correct me if I’m wrong!
Thanks, Marcus. That makes more sense. I hope current retirees aren’t left out in the cold.
This seems like a desperate attempt to patch up a lagging system. Why not overhaul the entire pensions system to make it more like private investments?
Jane, investing in private markets involves risks that some people aren’t willing to take. SSF offers a safety net that private investments can’t guarantee.
I get that, but shouldn’t people at least have the option? It might motivate more people to invest in their futures.
Possibly, but offering too many options could complicate their financial literacy further. Maybe a hybrid model could work.
This sounds fantastic! Anything that gives more money to retirees is a win. Heck, they deserve to enjoy their golden years without stress.
Indeed, it’s a step forward, but we should also ensure that these funds are available for future beneficiaries. Both current and future stability are crucial.
Wait, does this mean people 55 and older who retire now can get more money too? I need specifics because my parents are about to retire.
Yes, from what I gather, if they switch to Section 39, they can benefit. But they need to have contributed continuously. It might take some financial planning.
Thanks, every bit helps to get them settled into retirement with peace of mind.
What about the people who can’t contribute continuously due to job instability? They are more deserving than some who can afford continuous contributions.
You’re right Max. It does seem unfair. Job instability is a major issue, but maybe some support for those in precarious work situations could be integrated into reforms.
That would be ideal. Everyone deserves a decent retirement, regardless of their employment history.
A reform like this is overdue, but I fear it’s only a band-aid solution to the deeper issues plaguing social security.
If Mr. Sustarum is right, then maybe the increased payouts will attract more people, which could ironically stabilize the system by increasing contributions.
I’ve worked under both sections, and frankly, Section 39 has always seemed like an afterthought compared to others. This change is welcome!
You nailed it, Tommy. Section 39 has been neglected for too long. Let’s hope the reform includes keeping it refreshed regularly.
Absolutely, Bob. Change shouldn’t just be a one-time thing. It should evolve with societal and economic changes.