Official statements have been increasing recently about the necessity of taking action to prolong the sustainability of the Social Security Institution before reaching the so-called “break-even point”… an economic term that seems technical and neutral… but in reality it carries social and living dimensions that affect every Jordanian home.

For about three years… there have been successive statements and news paving the way for expected amendments under the title of “sustainability”… speech repeated… numbers put forward… and warnings insinuated… as if public opinion is gradually preparing to accept a new reality…

But society does not need psychological preparation as much as it needs complete clarity and frank transparency, such as:

(How big is the real challenge?) (And what are the scenarios presented to the decision-maker?) (What is the direct impact of each option on the citizen who deducts from his monthly income in compliance with the law?)..

When a citizen is asked to work longer years under the pretext of sustainability… he has the right to ask: Do we protect the guarantee… or do we only protect the numbers?!!

When the government talks about the “break-even point,” it, as well as the media, is supposed to address the citizen in understandable language and provide him with a simplified explanation of the economic terms the government provides.

Not every citizen understands what the term “break-even point” means economically, despite its importance.

Here the government and the media leave this term without simplification or explanation. People have the right to be fully informed about the laws and decisions that affect their rights, not to leave them with numbers and reports stripped of their realistic context.

The “break-even point” is the stage at which the institution’s revenues equal its expenses… that is, when the collected subscriptions become equal to the benefits disbursed without achieving a surplus… and after that, if obligations increase or revenues decline… financial pressure begins.

But the issue is not purely mathematical.

The real question is: (How do we prevent reaching this point?) And who bears the cost of treatment?)

(Will the “move” be only by amending the ages?)

Recent government statements talked about legislative measures to ensure sustainability… Among what is being discussed is extending the retirement age to 65 years for males and 58 years for females… in addition to tightening some conditions for early retirement…

Here also a legitimate question arises!!

If a citizen is asked to work longer years…what will he get in return?!!

Will retirement benefits actually increase?!!

Will health insurance for retirees be enhanced?!!

Will the unemployment gap for those over fifty be addressed?!!

Will the insurance and social services provided to subscribers improve?!!

Raising the retirement age in stable economies is usually met with an advanced social services package… but in an economic environment suffering from high unemployment and accumulated living challenges. The equation becomes more sensitive and complex.

What is also more worrying and complex is that (private sector) employees face a challenge that cannot be ignored. It is practically impossible for most companies to allow their workers to continue until the age of 58 for females and 65 for males. According to the proposed law, these people will be forced into early retirement, which means that they will receive security benefits prematurely, thus directly reducing their retirement entitlements.

The citizen here is not just a number in the accounting tables… but a party bearing the burden of an amendment that was not based on his reality… so that he is between two difficult choices… either abiding by the law and losing a large part of his financial rights… or searching for alternatives that are often not available… and this gap between the legal text and the reality of the labor market clearly highlights… how much any unilateral amendment burdens the citizen before it protects the fund.

Therefore, we are not an economy with huge surpluses… and we are not in a labor market that easily absorbs those over certain ages… and therefore any amendment must be part of a comprehensive vision… not a single financial measure…

The citizen is not responsible for the estimates. The citizen is committed to the monthly deduction according to the law.

Citizens do not manage investments.

It does not conduct studies (accounts of the financial sustainability of the guarantee)… nor does it formulate policies.

Hence, any financial imbalances, future gaps, or structural challenges must be addressed within an integrated reform framework, not by burdening the participant alone with the burden of the equation.

Social security is not a privilege, but rather a contractual right based on trust between the state and the citizen.

Any amendment to this contract must be balanced, fair and transparent.

Sustainability is not reduced to raising the retirement age or amending the texts.

Sustainability means… maximizing the efficiency of security fund investments… enhancing transparency… publishing the numbers clearly for public opinion… expanding the subscriber base by creating real job opportunities… combating insurance evasion… and opening a frank national dialogue about future scenarios… so where are we in terms of actual sustainability!!!!

As for the “break-even point” that the government talks about, it is not just a number in a financial report… but rather a moment to test public policies and their justice.
Because the real reform is the one that protects the fund and preserves the dignity of the participant at the same time. As for any path that is reduced to prolonging the years of work without a clear social reward, it will remain a legitimate question.

The citizen is a partner in financing… but he is not a party in management.

His insurance rights are not a margin that can be adjusted whenever expectations change… because social security was created to be a safety umbrella… and any reform must strengthen this umbrella, not narrow it.