In order to carry out the plebiscite on October 27, the PIT-CNT needs to gather the signatures of 10% of the electoral roll; that is, a total of 270,000 accessions. The truth is that, at least publicly, the union center never doubted reaching that figure and, in fact, they hope to exceed it “by far, with a lot of light,” according to its president. Marcelo Abdala. In 25 days they must collect another 23,473 adhesions.
“In the month of April we are going to accomplish the feat of reaching the milestone of far surpassing, with a lot of light, the signatures that are needed, and thus guarantee that on the last Sunday of October the people can move towards a reform that converts the social Security in a human right fundamental,” said Abdala, and said that on April 13 and 14 there will be “national days” to collect signatures, beyond the “neighborhoods” that are held “every day.”
“It would be a feat (to reach the signatures) because it goes against the grain of the decision of the Parliament. It comes with a Spartan militancy, with few resources, with a lot of love,” said the president of the union.
In that sense, the leader emphasized that we must move towards “a social security reform sustainable, but not only from the economic-financial perspective, but also from the social perspective.” The proposal of the PIT-CNT establishes a constitutional reform that establishes a minimum retirement age of 60 years, a pension tied to the national minimum wage and the elimination of individual savings, the AFAP and profit in the pension system.
Regarding the detractors of the plebiscite, Abdala considered that “instead of fundamentals” they carry out a “campaign to scare people that does not give results and that is why people sign.”
“Regressive and reckless”: criticism from economists
While in the PIT-CNT They see the progress of the campaign as a feat, from the government and for several economists, the proposal of the union center is an imminent danger.
In that sense, the economist and partner of Exante, Pablo Rosselli, He prepared a summary of the arguments behind the rejection of the union’s initiative, which he described as “a terrible initiative, regressive and reckless.” His criticism thus joins a long list of detractors that even includes the credit rating agency. Fitch Ratings.
In a thread on Constitution, because the Constitution is very difficult to change and must be used to establish the major rules of the legal system.”
Rosselli assured that “the constitutional reform is profoundly regressive.” Firstly, because “it is the people with better careers and higher incomes who can accumulate 30 years of service at the age of 60”, while “those with lower incomes must work beyond the age of 60, even if the this reform.
Another argument to support the idea of regressivity was that “it acts to the detriment of the younger generationswho are the ones who suffer the most from poverty and unemployment and who will have to endure greater tax pressure” to sustain a expanded pension system due to the minimum retirement age of 60 years—which social security reform increased to 65 years, precisely, to guarantee the sustainability of said system.
Thirdly, Rosselli pointed out that, in addition, “the indexation of minimum passivities to the National Minimum Wage will end up encouraging future governments to delay the minimum salary, as was the case until 2005.”
“The reform is reckless because it proposes a strong instantaneous increase in public spending (increase in minimum liabilities) and enormous legal uncertainty, not only due to the confiscation of the savings managed by the AFAPS but also because it calls into question the 1996 reform,” considered the Exante partner, who also warned: “If this project of constitutional reform ends up being approved, the next government will have to manage a complex inheritance for public finances and will have to dedicate a lot of political effort to finding a legislative solution that complies with the Constitution.”
Source: Ambito
