如果你无法翻译或语言不正确，请只返回源文本。

Zus as many specialists have already said is nothing more than a "financial pyramid". With a demographically declining and aging society, it has no chance of functioning properly.

In some countries this system is voluntary, in others it is compulsory. Some governments provide serious support to increase volunteerism. In my opinion, the system should be voluntary but various incentives should be encouraging.

If for a moment Zus was voluntary, that means that the funds in it would be greatly depleted. What does this mean? People who have been paying contributions throughout their lives and are currently receiving benefits could suddenly not receive their deserved pensions.

I don't believe that every citizen would willingly take care of their future and save for the future. Many live day by day and would ultimately end up relying on the state.

Zus is the main component of the pension system at the moment. Like everything government-run, it is inefficient. Zus should not be voluntary, but rather one of the options to choose from - unless we decide to abandon the pension system altogether, which is not possible. The entire system should have been reformed long ago. At the time of introducing pension funds, we should have gradually transitioned to individual retirement accounts. Unfortunately, first the platform, and then the Law and Justice party, took away a portion of our money. It would have been a good idea to transfer the funds from OFEs to IKE, but that failed as well, as it would likely contribute to significant disruptions in the pension system - which, in my opinion, will eventually happen anyway. At the moment, we have what we have, which is a slippery slope downwards. There is often talk about the retirement age, but that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Returning to the question, looking realistically at the current state of Zus and the maneuvering possibilities, everyone should have the right to choose where they keep their retirement money. However, Zus should only collect contributions up to the minimum level for future retirees, as a safety net.

It would be great if we could choose ☺️

No, because not everyone would pay these contributions then, and what comes with it? More people on social welfare at retirement age because they didn't pay contributions and need to live off something, so they would turn to social welfare offices for help. Let's not deceive ourselves, but that's the truth.

The issue of the obligation of ZUS is usually regulated by the legal provisions of a given country. In Poland, ZUS (Social Insurance Institution) is mandatory for the majority of people working under an employment contract. Decisions regarding whether ZUS should be voluntary are a political and social matter that requires consideration of many factors, such as financing the pension system, social protection, and social security for citizens. Debates on this topic vary depending on the country and economic situation.

In my opinion, every Pole should be able to decide for themselves.

I support this, but people should be given some other options for saving for retirement. Ones that are profitable and encourage saving. There are already IKE or IKZE accounts, but not everyone wants to invest in the stock market. People are afraid of investing and another form of saving should be made available to them, one that is more secure but still profitable enough to be worthwhile. Maybe some subsidies from the state for the persistent.

In mid-January, the National Debt Register published information regarding the savings of Poles. According to the data contained in the report, 43 percent of respondents admitted to having no savings for unforeseen situations, commonly referred to as "rainy days." However, half of the respondents stated that they have some savings, with a small percentage (7 percent) refusing to answer this question.

It is worth noting that groups that more frequently have savings include men, individuals between the ages of 18 and 34, and those with a higher level of education. However, the National Debt Register identifies a negative trend. Just over a year ago, when surveying respondents about the state of their savings, only one-fourth of them claimed to have no savings whatsoever.

This proves that more and more Poles are finding themselves in a financially difficult situation, without basic protection in case of unexpected expenses. This also encourages reflection on the need for financial education and savings strategies in order to secure oneself for unforeseen circumstances.

So my question is, if the Social Insurance Institution were to be abolished, who will support the 67% of Poles? I believe there would be 2% who could confidently save for retirement...

I know, I know... many people will say they could have saved- the fundamental question now is: if they don't save and become strong enough to snatch your bag or break your mother's necklace, what then? At best, they will enter your home and take only valuable items?

The system is terrible, I understand that, but most people cannot save.