Childless people over 30 will have to pay twice as much. MPs will address this.

• A petition was submitted to the Sejm, which, among other things, calls for the imposition of double pension contributions on people who do not have children.
• - The introduction of an increased contribution could bring significant financial benefits to the pension system - points out the author of the petition.
• - Furthermore, the additional financial burden could indirectly encourage having more children - we read in the justification of the petition.
• The Parliamentary Petitions Committee will consider this proposal at its next meeting, on Tuesday, July 22.
• The Parliamentary Office of Expertise and Regulatory Impact Assessment has already spoken out against including the proposed solutions in the regulations.

On Tuesday, July 22, the parliamentary committee on petitions will consider a petition requesting that the amount of pension insurance contributions be made dependent on the number of children.

The author of the petition demands a change in the regulations regarding the amount of pension insurance contributions.

It calls for "the introduction of regulations in the pension insurance system that would take into account the need for an additional burden of insurance contributions (...) for childless persons after the age of 30 and a moderate increase in contributions for married couples with one child who are also at that age."

The solution proposed in the petition assumes:

• imposing a double pension contribution on people who do not have children;
• imposing a 50 percent higher contribution on married couples with only one child, with the possibility of exempting people who present a medical document from these additional charges.

The justification for the petition indicated that the pension system is based on generational replacement, and childless people, by not contributing to the future increase in the number of "contributors", naturally burden the system.

In the petitioner's opinion , introducing an increased contribution could bring significant financial benefits to the pension system . Furthermore, introducing such an additional financial burden could indirectly encourage people to have more children.

Furthermore, the petitioner points out that "people with more than one child incur significant costs for their upbringing and education." Childless people, who do not incur such costs, could participate in the system more fairly by paying higher contributions, the petitioner points out.

The Sejm's Office of Expertise and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BEOS) has already spoken out against including these proposed solutions in the regulations. Experts point out that childless people already meet their obligations to the system by regularly paying contributions.

- It is impossible to agree with the thesis that "people who do not have children at the age of 30 'naturally burden the system'" because the institution obliged to pay pension benefits, as a rule, implements them only after the insured person reaches retirement age

- lawyers note.

And they add: - However, taking into account the long-term consequences of a specific insured person not having children at a certain age seems to go beyond the framework of the above-mentioned intergenerational contract - argues BEOS.

Moreover, parliamentary legislators point out that "the proposal to increase the amount of pension insurance contributions formulated in the petition raises doubts as to the proposed subjective scope ."

"It was assumed that the obligation to pay the increased contribution would apply to childless individuals over the age of 30, as well as to spouses of that age who also have one child. It was assumed that individuals who presented medical documentation confirming infertility would be exempt from these additional costs, " the Office noted.

It should be noted that a significant number of children in Poland are currently born out of wedlock. Therefore, adopting such a regulation would mean that unmarried people with one child would not be subject to the obligation to pay increased contributions , while married parents would be.

- we read in the opinion of the Parliamentary Office of Expertise and Regulatory Impact Assessment.

- It seems that such differentiation has no substantive justification, because the criterion indicated in the petition would be having children, not being married - emphasize the lawyers.