(Dong-A Ilbo Signed Column on the Basic Pension) [Today and Tomorrow / Jung Im-soo] A One-Year Basic Pension (Posted September 18, 2026)

(The Pension Future Forum assesses

this column to be timely

and to correctly grasp the core

of the issue; therefore,

it is posted under the Forum's media

reports section.)

When President Lee Jae-myung raised issues regarding the Basic Pension this January, saying it "seems a bit strange," many reacted with surprise.

Since 2008, when the Basic Old-Age Pension—the predecessor to the Basic Pension—was introduced, successive governments have all focused solely on increasing payment amounts to win the favor of older people.

However, President Lee suggested, "Even people with a monthly income of 2 million-some won receive 340,000 won," adding, "Since the problem of elderly poverty is serious, should we not do it in a 'more for the lower, less for the upper' manner?"

By pointing out the problem where even well-off middle-class older people receive the same amount as long as they are within the 'bottom 70% by income,' he played the Basic Pension structural reform card for the first time.

In a July presidential office work report, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the ministry in charge, also stated that it "is creating an overhaul plan to change the payment criteria under the 'more for the lower, less for the upper' principle."

'More for the Lower, Less for the Upper' Failed, a Reform That Started with a Bang and Ended with a Whimper

However, the final overhaul plan announced earlier this month was nothing more than a case of starting with a bang and ending with a whimper, where 'more for the lower' was merely a gesture and 'less for the upper' had vanished.

The overhaul concept of gradually reducing high-income Basic Pension beneficiaries by changing the payment criteria from the bottom 70% by income to the standard median income disappeared entirely.

To gain the pretext of having achieved 'more for the lower,' the only change is giving an additional 30,000 won per month to low-income older people in the bottom 30%.

One-third of them are poor older people whose livelihood benefit is reduced by the same amount even if the Basic Pension increases, making it embarrassing to even call this 'more for the lower.'

The Ministry of Health and Welfare even caused a commotion by announcing an advance briefing to explain the overhaul plan for the 27th of last month, only to abruptly cancel it one hour before the event.

Then, a few days later, it quietly slipped a one-page final overhaul plan into the announcement materials for next year's budget.

There is still no responsible explanation from the government as to why the "more for the lower, less for the upper" overhaul was scrapped or what will happen starting the year after next.

How did the Basic Pension become a one-year scheme?

President Lee, who had personally raised the issue of reform, recently and abruptly made the issue of Basic Pension benefits for foreigners a point of contention.

It appears to be an attempt to divert the controversy surrounding the retreat of the overhaul to an irrelevant matter.

The reason why the Basic Pension reform failed is predictable.

With the presidential approval rating having fallen to the 30% range, the government could not have ignored the public backlash.

Amid deteriorating public sentiment over the real estate tax overhaul plan, some analyze that the government feared dissatisfaction not only from older people who would not receive or would receive less of the Basic Pension, but also from those in their 50s and 60s awaiting pension benefits.

While approval ratings were falling, there were numerous policies besides the Basic Pension that were either reversed or postponed just before their announcement.

"Give-and-Take-Back" Welfare Is Difficult, but Public Deliberation Must Begin

Unlike the National Pension, the Basic Pension is funded entirely by taxes paid by all citizens without any payment of contributions.

It is a structure in which rising expenditures inevitably shift the burden to future generations.

If the current structure is maintained, the number of older people receiving the Basic Pension will surge from the current 7.3 million to 13.3 million by 2050.

The state funds spent on this have already exceeded 23 trillion won, and estimates suggest they will swell to 66 trillion won by 2050.

This means that unless the system shifts toward reducing the target recipients and focusing support on older people in poverty, it is not sustainable.

This overhaul plan has further increased the burden of an unsustainable system. Last year's National Pension reform, which raised both contributions and future benefits, failed to alleviate the burden on future generations; if young people are now also saddled with the Basic Pension time bomb, their anger will grow even fiercer.

It is hypocritical for the government, which pushed through the Yellow Envelope Act or the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act despite public opposition to rally its supporters, to retreat in the face of a truly necessary reform.

Looking at it another way, the one-year Basic Pension overhaul also means that the government has bought one more year to discuss the direction of reform.

The government must promptly create a forum for public deliberation to coordinate interests between classes and generations and reach a social consensus on the Basic Pension that looks decades ahead.

While nothing is as difficult as 'give-and-take-back welfare,' this is not the time to delay any further.

Jung Im-soo, Head of Policy and Society Department

https://n.news.naver.com/article/020/0003749051?sid=110