Photo/Illutration

In their campaigns for the Oct. 27 Lower House election, all political parties are eager to promote their plans for “what to distribute to whom.”

However, they are not showing much enthusiasm about discussing in detail the vital question of “how much to collect from whom.”

We want to hear credible policy discussions on the long-term financing of the social security system.

What is social security? It is the government's guarantee to ensure that all people, regardless of their financial standings, have access to basic needs and protection against uncertainties through such services as medical care, nursing care, welfare and child care support.

This system of mutual support is funded collectively by everyone. Without the latter, the former cannot exist.

The ruling coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito has pledged to improve the treatment of workers in sectors where the government sets service prices, such as medical and nursing care and welfare.

Wage increases for workers in these sectors can only be funded through taxes or social security contributions.

With an aging and declining population, the social security burden on the younger generation is increasing. To ensure the long-term viability of the social security system, it is essential to decide what to maintain, where to improve efficiency and what to prioritize.

As the parties that have been in power, the LDP and Komeito have a responsibility to speak about these issues in an honest and sincere manner.

On the other hand, the opposition parties should learn from the bitter lessons of the last change of government. The now-defunct Democratic Party of Japan came into power in 2009 promising a "minimum guaranteed pension of 70,000 yen ($465) per month."

However, when the pension finances were actually calculated, it became clear that the benefits for the middle class would decrease under the party’s plan, leading to disappointment among the public.

This time, the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, the largest opposition party, is advocating for increased pensions for the low-income elderly and "expansion of basic services."

However, social security policy measures cannot be evaluated accurately without specific figures on "how much each person will contribute.”

Nippon Ishin (Japan Innovation Party) has proposed to switch to a funded pension system, where people make regular contributions to build up reserves that will pay their future pensions. But what is the party’s plan to cover the huge costs of the transition?

Ishin has also proposed that the elderly bear 30 percent of medical costs under the public health care program. However, while it is good to demand contributions to the program according to financial ability regardless of age, it is crucial to determine the lowest income level the 30 percent will apply to.

Yuichiro Tamaki, leader of the Democratic Party for the People, has made highly questionable remarks concerning social security funding that cannot be overlooked.

During a debate hosted by the Japan National Press Club on Oct. 12, he mentioned revising end-of-life medical care and legalizing dignified death to "reduce social security insurance premiums.”

As his remarks came under fire, Tamaki later clarified that his suggestions were "not for reducing medical costs but amounted to a sloppy explanation.”

But his proposals were grossly ill-thought-out and half-baked, particularly since careful discussions have been accumulated on end-of-life treatment and care.

If such statements arise from a growing perception of taxes and social security insurance premiums as unilateral burdens to be avoided, the situation should be considered serious.

If the decline in political trust causes the scope of mutual support in society to shrink, the costs will eventually be passed on to the citizens.

Instead of inciting a sense of aversion toward tax and social security payments, political leaders should call for an understanding of mutual support as crucial for social security.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Oct. 18