Ankara's Debt Dispute with SGK

Ankara's Debt Dispute with SGK

t24.com.tr

Ankara's Debt Dispute with SGK

Ankara's mayor disputes the SGK's claim that no agreement exists on the city's large social security debt.

Turkish
Turkey
PoliticsHealthLabour MarketTurkeyGovernmentDebtDispute
Social Security Institution (Sgk)Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi (Abb)Turkish Ministry Of Labor And Social Security
Mansur YavaşVedat Işıkhan
How much has Ankara's debt to the SGK increased in 2024?
Ankara's debt to SGK has significantly increased from 4.5 billion TRY in March to 8.8 billion TRY in September 2024. Yavaş's attempts to utilize legal provisions for debt deferral have failed due to insufficient collateral and non-compliance with legal requirements.
What were Mansur Yavaş's arguments concerning the debt?
Yavaş claims that a collective attack on municipalities is underway, citing rejected applications for debt relief and an ultimately unsuccessful proposal to settle part of the debt. He further states that they reached an agreement for 250 million TRY payment.
What is the SGK's position on the debt collection process?
The SGK emphasizes that its debt collection practices are applied equally to all debtors and are not a targeted attack against Ankara. The institution is committed to collecting outstanding social security contributions to fund pensions and healthcare services.
What is the main point of contention between the SGK and Ankara's mayor?
The Social Security Institution (SGK) denies claims by Ankara Mayor Mansur Yavaş that a mutual agreement of 250 million TRY was reached regarding the city's debt. The SGK asserts that no such agreement exists and that debt collection procedures are not a political attack.
What actions has the government indicated it will take regarding municipal debts?
Minister Vedat Işıkhan stated that municipalities failing to address their debts, including Ankara, will face legal action including seizure of assets. He highlighted Ankara's significantly increased debt over the past seven months and the lack of proactive payment measures by the municipality.