Bugante’s ‘amazingly wrong’ arithmetic

Please allow me to react to the numbers and related evaluations presented by Marissu Bugante, vice president for public affairs and special events of Social Security System (“SSS cites specifics to show how pensioner is benefiting,” Opinion, 5/10/14). But before that, let me first revisit some background facts.

First off, I never imagined that my letter, “Retiree’s benefits deserve review after third SSS premium hike” (Opinion, 1/22/14) would spawn a chain of at least three letters between Bugante and myself.  I had thought I was guided in my thesis by nothing but plain truths, to wit: (a) the Constitution and the Expanded Senior Citizen’s Law both mandate regular review of the monthly pension of retired employees from the public and private sectors to conform with currently obtaining realities; (b) from 1981 through 2007, the SSS retirement benefits were improved across the board nearly annually, then have since remained unchanged;  (c) in 2013, the SSS granted generous bonuses to its board members; and (d) in January this year, monthly premiums were increased for the third time this decade.

Even so, when Bugante started explaining the basic reasons why no increase in retiree’s pension might yet be considered now—essentially, with its P1.1 trillion in unfunded liability and funds that actuarial computations say may only last, rather critically, until 2043—I virtually realized I must already rest my case.

Nevertheless, as one could read between the lines, Bugante—in tone, intent and effect—practically said that as a retiree I did not have any reason to complain since “SSS cites specifics to show how pensioner is benefiting.”  With all due respect, I cannot let that pass unnoticed.

The good lady vice president said I am now receiving P3,194.40 as monthly pension, after contributing P28,333.50 in total premiums during my entire working years; and my receipts from pension had summed up to P510,364.80 after the last 14 years. These numbers, she concluded, meant my total receipts from pension was nearly 160 times—repeat, 160 times—my total contributions, in turn a virtually good return in 14 years.

Alas, has she forgotten her elementary arithmetic? Dividing P510,364.80 by P28,333.50 is equal to only 18 times, repeat, 18 times, not 160. And 18 times is definitely not a good return on total contributions after 14 years. Maybe, but just maybe, Bugante divided P510,364.80 by my monthly pension of P3,194.40 to obtain 160 times. I’m sorry, but that evaluation is meaningless! It is a matter of plain common sense that a pensioner will naturally have received 12 times his monthly receipts after one year, 24 times after two years, 36 times after three years, and so on and so forth, or 168 times after 14 years.  How she got only 160, if my assumption is right, is totally beside the point; the point is her presentation was downright ridiculous, irrelevant, unduly misleading and amazingly wrong!

To sum up, I wish to state with all honesty and candor that in all my long years of writing opinion letters to broadsheets, I have never meant to pick up a quarrel with anyone on any issue.  At the end of the day, I always believe in the saying, “Let’s disagree to agree!”

—RUDY L. CORONEL,

[email protected]