A key policy challenge facing Japan’s future is how to finance steadily growing social security spending to maintain a system vital for the aging and shrinking population.

The burden of social security costs to be borne by the people should be one of the principal topics for debate during campaigning for the July 10 Upper House election.

But the political parties’ platforms make few specific proposals concerning this conundrum. How long do they intend to continue pretending that this is not a burning issue?

Proposals to enhance public support for children as well as for families with young children are among all the parties’ main campaign promises.

The ruling Liberal Democratic Party, for example, promises “substantial measures” to tackle the problem of low birthrates and support families raising children.

The main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan has adopted the child support policy slogan of “children first.”

As the nation’s declining demographic trend has defied policy efforts to reverse it, there is no doubt about the importance of expanding child care support.

Even if such measures turn out to be effective, however, the nation’s working population will continue contracting until the 2040s.

In the meantime, the baby boomers will all be 75 or older in 2025, accelerating the aging of the population.

As a result, the total amount of social security benefits paid out by the government will balloon from some 130 trillion yen ($955.84 billion) today to 190 trillion yen in fiscal 2040, according to one estimate.

There are two major options for tackling the problem.

One would be focused on curbing social security spending by cutting benefits and increasing payments by beneficiaries.

The other would boost the revenue source by raising taxes and social insurance premiums.

Both the ruling and opposition parties are calling for increasing the financial burden shouldered by well-to-do elderly people and helping senior workers continue working as long as they can so that they will remain contributing to the social security system.

These steps are necessary and important but will not be enough to secure the long-term financial sustainability of the social security system.

Increasing the burden on elderly citizens excessively could make necessary health care and nursing care services inaccessible for some beneficiaries or impose heavier burdens on income earners in nursing care or financial support for elderly family members.

The government will increase the ratio of out-of-pocket payments for health care services to 20 percent for people aged 75 or older with incomes of a certain level or higher in October.

But it had to limit the scope of people covered by the new requirement in consideration of the fact that many elderly people depend on limited pension benefits.

It is unreasonably optimistic to claim that the problem can be solved by simply increasing the burden on the elderly.

Looking back on the history of the issue, the government and the ruling coalition have consistently avoided debate on how to strike a balance between benefits and burdens, engaging in wishful thinking about economic growth.

But the gap between growing social security spending and tax revenue is only widening. There is no room for any more delay in grappling with the challenge.

Despite this dire situation, the ruling coalition has made no specific proposal to deal with this problem. It should be accused of neglecting its responsibility as the governing camp.

Many opposition parties are calling for higher taxation on the wealthy while proposing to cut or scrap the consumption tax.

But how is it possible for this inconsistent approach to secure financing for swelling social security expenditures?

There can be many answers to what is the best balance between benefits and burdens.

Some countries provide handsome social security benefits while imposing heavy burdens on the public, while others have a system based mainly on self-help principles.

The problem is that Japan belongs to neither group.

Political parties have the responsibility to offer their visions for the future of the social security system and present options for building a public consensus on the issue.

--The Asahi Shimbun, July 8