Each of us, no matter what anyone says, strives to enjoy this world as long as possible; in all toasts and greeting cards there sounds the wish for "long years of life." Let us see whether living long is such a happiness in Ukraine. This question became especially relevant after the introduction of the pension reform, because it is precisely the pension that is the main source of income for elderly people. I will make a correction - this is how things look in civilized, developed countries, where pension payments not only provide a subsistence minimum but also make it possible to live out one's old age to one's own satisfaction: buying nice things, traveling the world, going to the cinema and the theater. Our pensioners have no need to go to the theater - their own government stages such performances for them that, for example, their British or German peers never even dreamed of. Such a performance was the so-called "pension reform" implemented by Yanukovych's government. Why "so-called"? Because, in my understanding, real reforms should improve people's lives and raise their level of well-being. This cannot be said about the pension reform that took place in Ukraine. After the loud statements by government officials and local officials, pensioners should have expected, if not a tenfold increase in their pensions, then at least an increase in their size to a level close to the elementary subsistence minimum. "They wanted the best, but it turned out as always" - this phrase, unfortunately, most accurately characterizes what happened with pensions. True, there is still a question here whether they wanted "the best," because in all the normative acts that underpin the Ukrainian pension reform, a different desire can be traced - to hoodwink people, to create the impression that a great benefit has been done, while preserving the situation as it is. That is, the reform supposedly took place, some people even benefited, the state budget did not lose much - everyone should be satisfied. In reality, very simple mathematics makes it possible to verify that this reform is a big bubble on muddy water. Let us calculate: the government determined the average wage for 2002 as the main figure for recalculating pensions. According to state statistics, this sum was 376.33 hryvnias, but Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 1783 determined that pensions for Ukrainians are recalculated on the basis of an average wage of 306.45 hryvnias. Do you feel the difference? The point is that the basis for the recalculation was the amount of wages without mandatory payments, the so-called "clean money," although always for calculating pensions the amount with accruals was taken. With the help of just this insidious "focus," today's government deprived pensioners of about 20% of pension funds. This is only one, so to speak, "weak spot" of the pension reform. Economic experts consider this reform premature and ill-conceived, although, on the other hand, it is, on the contrary, belated. The politicians who today belong to the "Our Ukraine" faction in the Verkhovna Rada proposed pension reform back in 1996, but only in a package with many other laws aimed at economic growth. At that time all the prerequisites existed for this - a strong hryvnia, sufficient currency reserves, etc. Yanukovych's current associates successfully failed the entire legislative package, obviously in order to propose and implement their own version of "reform," mocking the absolute majority of elderly Ukrainians. Only those who already had no particular grounds to complain about life benefited from the reform - the privileged pensioners from among former party and state bureaucrats. The problem of rural pensioners should be considered separately. Rural residents, earlier, as a result of a certain policy regarding the remuneration of their labor, never earned enough for a pension. The same is observed today: with the introduction of the fixed agricultural tax, which is tied neither to length of service nor to the size of a person's earnings, the deductions from this tax to the Pension Fund are so tiny that a villager will never be able, under such conditions, to earn a normal monthly sum in old age. Accordingly, for villagers the state must adopt a special law and develop a separate mechanism of financial provision. For example, the budget committee of the Verkhovna Rada, headed by "Our Ukraine" member Petro Poroshenko, proposed in this year's budget to additionally allocate 600 million hryvnias to compensate agricultural enterprises for contributions to the Pension Fund. The worst thing about all this is that the pension recalculation was planned as a one-time measure. That is, having deceived people regarding the actual increase in their pensions, the government also took away from them the hope for improvement of pension provision in the future. I want to refute the last thesis myself, because not all political forces in Ukraine are indifferent to the fate of pensioners, in particular not those privileged three percent who had and have a pension more than sufficient, but more than ten million Ukrainians: villagers, workers, teachers. It is precisely they who, through their hard work, most deserve a dignified rest with proper financial provision. It is precisely their interests that the "Our Ukraine" Bloc will protect in court, demanding the annulment of Yanukovych's resolution that "cut" pensions by at least 20%. The interests of these people will also be defended by the regional representation of the "Our Ukraine" Bloc, taking care to protect the right of each individual pensioner to a decent and honest attitude toward him on the part of the state and to dignified provision in old age. We will calm down only when everyone receives what they deserve through honest work, and not the miserable kopecks calculated as a result of the manipulations of officials with unclean hands.