the draft reform to the system of pensi ones recently announced will not be an easy process. It is striking that even executives of the AFP have spoken already, expressing reservations about the proposals containing the current system the project, notwithstanding the Reformation maintained virtually unscathed.
What ambivalences, omissions and simplifications and disconnect with the real world of work containing the project? On the basis of the fact that we do not know the details of the implementation, we can nevertheless identify: 1: insistence on treating the contributions of 10% and 4% as if it were two different things. Really one: 14% quote. Therefore it is not understandable that contributors can choose who manages 10% and 4%, who manages separately. Worse still: you can choose who manages 4%, but you have to pay another Commission, unless it determines that your same AFP manage 14%. And if the AFP have already announced their intention not to charge additional Commission by 4%, there are real possibilities of competition?
2: Contribution pension solidarity (APS): here it is possible to identify one of the deep project shortcomings because, again, it is not effective is is effectively corrected the extensive damage done to the middle class. The creation of the solidarity basic Pension (PBS) in the first administration of Bachelet, was a social advance important, but sold under a wrong name. Property, is not a pension. It is a bonus. Forecast means to foresee. In fact you can not perceive a pension, in the security sense, who has not provided, or who has not quoted. Many people who are autofinanciaron a pension in the AFP system currently receive a less than PBS. They had better not quoted. They would have received their full salary, as fees for example, and would receive the PBS. The improvements announced in the APS are marginal and in any case is taken care of the abandonment to the half of the population layers have been subjected since the 90’s onwards.
3: Bonus by years of quotes: this announcement will surely be one of those who generate more rejection. Simply because unknown a reality today: the average number of years of contributions both of men and women, at the time of retirement is less than the minimum requirements that the project sets to access this benefit. And those who meet or exceed the minimum obviously have better pensions. In simple terms: is a regressive incentive.
4: Incentives to postpone retirement age: here clearly there is a clear disconnect with the real world. First, it is difficult to find a job at age 40. Secondly, in a society like those referred to as referents ideals (OECD) both working hours as skilled workers to retirement age will in opposition to proposed. Mercantile mentality fails to display that people need a rest while you can enjoy it. Extend the working life of the elderly on the other hand, exacerbated the problem of youth unemployment, long one of the highest. Also propose a 14% raise quote, and simultaneously to create “incentives” to postpone the retirement age, sounds at least redundant. Or is it that there is no confidence that 14% is enough?
Poured in this op-ed content is the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial line nor the counter position.
