The Government has in the pipeline a pension reform that goes beyond the liquidation of the FGS (Sustainability Guarantee Fund) of the ANSeS, increases by decree and the power of Congress of change the mobility formula.
After the moratorium on pensions and the cancellation of VAT refunds for pensioners with lower salaries, we move forward Unhealthy or premature aging regimes are in the crosshairs (in the case of miners or dockworkers, they retire before the age of 65, depending on the case) and special regimessuch as that of national teachers, national university teachers, scientific researchers, (they retire with 82% of their permanent salary, with a contribution of 13%, instead of 11%) Foreign Affairs, Light and Power and the Judiciary.
All these regimes were challenged by the IMF. In 2018, during the Government of Mauricio Macri, the Ministry of Labour, through Resolution 194/2018, decided to create a “Permanent Technical Commission” with the aim of “reviewing” special or differential pension schemes and “evaluating the situations not yet contemplated”. Alberto Fernández, who had just taken office, also returned to office by incorporating into the Emergency and Solidarity Law the creation of a Commission to propose “the modifications that he deems relevant regarding mobility or the updating of special regimes”.
Even the Armed Forces. and Security have their own regimes that the Government wants to reform and there are 13 provincial funds that have not been transferred to ANSeS which are trying to reach a consensus with the governors to integrate them into the general regime.
Teachers’ regimes, provincial security and Luz y Fuerza They cover 90% of the total beneficiaries of special regimes.
Those already retired or retired from these schemes would retain the “acquired rights”.
In these cases the proposal would be that from now on they retire like the rest of pensioners and pensions, at around 60/65% of the updated salary of the last 10 years, which implies a reduction in salaries for new retirements.
There is also a need to review pensions, especially those for disability. And modify pensions upon the owner’s death (due to widowhood), excluding retired or cohabiting spouses. The exclusion of the widow’s pension already applies to the PUAM (Universal Elderly Pension) in force since 2018.
The retirement age is also expected to be raised, especially for women who can retire at 60, unlike the 65 years required for men. And establish a voluntary pension savings scheme, administered by bodies similar to the former AFJP.
While, in relation to mobility negotiations continue replace increases by decree with a new formula adjustment that takes inflation into account. If approved, it is unclear when it would take effect. Whether from February, based on December CPI or from March, based on January CPI. There is also no clarity regarding the bonuses, whether they would be integrated into the assets or maintained with the same adjustment as the rest of the assets.
In any case, the monthly mobility due to inflation would not be correct the pension debacle between 26% and 56% between September 2017 and December 2023. If it were applied in February based on December inflation, pension benefits would have no recovery as the historic decline suffered in the last 6 years would be maintained for life. If it were applied starting from March, the year would start with a first drop – in January and February – of 30%.
Mobility due to inflation does not take into account any growth in wages and the economy. According to specialist Guillermo Jáuregui, in the last 2 years, pension benefits have lost on average 60 points compared to inflation, double the loss suffered in wages.
Both formulas approved During the government of Mauricio Macri and Alberto Fernández they depressed the assets and other social benefits because in a context of growing inflation they have adjusted pensions and pensions for variables with a delay of 6 months (Macri) or 3 months (Fernández, formula still in force). But in a context of decreasing inflation, such as that expected by the Government, The outcome changes because it would lead to assets being upgraded above inflation, recovering part of previous losses. According to specialists, this is what the government – and also the IMF – want to avoid.
SN
Source: Clarin
