Alberto Fernandez

The journalist and economic analyst, Ishmael Bermudezspoke in Fontevecchia modeby Net TV Y Radius Profile (FM 101.9), and highlighted that “with Alberto, the average and highest pensions can have a fall of 40%”. In turn, he stressed that “ANSES has a huge deficit” and “the IMF says that pension spending must be lowered”. The comparison with the management of Mauricio Macri.

What do you understand about the modifications in the retirement formula proposed by the Government?

I understand that on August 10 the salary index and the mobility formula will be complete for the quarter that starts in September. From what Sergio Massa said, there will be a bondsuch as those that have been granted with Alberto Fernandezbecause the data that could be announced on Wednesday will be well below inflation and, therefore, there would be a major retirement loss and they are going to try to compensate it with a bonus for the lowest assets. The formula will be maintained. As it is below inflation, since it has no guarantees against price increases, they give a bonus that is not integrated into the credit. It is for the only time and compensates, in part, the higher inflation.

Is there a certain hypocrisy in accepting that, in order to correct the fiscal deficit, retirees will end up losing?

The problem is very serious. Retirees have been losing since September 2017 because, with the previous formula, they had raises below inflation. In the last two years of the government of Mauricio Macri they lost 20% against inflation. Then came the increases by decree in Alberto’s first year. They were made in such a way that the minimum pension received more than the average and highest salaries. In that year, pensions increased between 24 and 35%, and inflation was 36%.He means that the average and highest pensions lost almost 9 points. In 2021, the formula was tied with inflation but, since it is corrected every three months, within the quarter itself there was a very important retirement loss. There was also a bonus awarded. This year, in the first quarter, retirees received 12.13% and lost to inflation. Then they gave them 15% and they also lost, that’s why they received a bonus of 18 thousand pesos for the lowest pensions. Now the pension formula would be giving between 15.5 and 16 percent, and they would lose against inflation. What has happened in the course of these years is that the retirees with the lowest assets had a lower loss than the average and highest assets, who lost as in the war. They lost 30% of their purchasing power in the last five years.

Retirees and pensioners: how to process ANSES credits of up to 240 thousand pesos?

Behind the loss, is there some hidden purpose?

There are two ways to lower pensions. One is the one applied Cavallo and Patricia Bullrich in 2001, which they tried to do nominally at the time of the outbreak of convertibility. The other way is to give raises below inflation to lower spending on social security, which is what is happening with Alberto Fernandez.

Of that 30% that they lost, how much corresponds to Macri and Alberto Fernández?

With albertmedium and higher pensions can have a 40% drop.

Between the fall of Macri, plus the one you estimate with Alberto, what would be the loss of the purchasing power of the measured pensions?

It can be between 35 and 40%. It would be necessary to do the fine calculation well because some data are missing. With Macri, the drop was 19.5% and with Alberto we are going to have one of more than 20%. The accumulated will be more than 40%.

Retirees, pensioners and ANSES beneficiaries: how much will the September increase be?

Our generation has a memory of contribution-based retirement. That paradigm was broken with the idea that retirement is a right for everyone, regardless of their contributions. How are those funds distributed?

All pension systems start with a huge surplus because a mass of contributors is incorporated, without beneficiaries. That’s why it’s called collective capitalization system. With that surplus at the beginning, well managed, it should give returns to finance the incorporation of retirees who are contributing. In Argentina, with the enormous surplus of pension funds, the Government took the funds, gave them debt securities and so on. it went by liquefying the surplus of the boxes. In addition, on the part of Cavallo there was a reduction and elimination of employer contributions, and the system became more deficient. With the AFJP, the public system lost the equivalent of 8 billion dollars. Now we have reached this situation where retirement payments are mixed, both for those who have contributed 30 years or more, with those who did not have contributions due to unemployment and informalities, and who ended up retiring with the moratoriums in the same way as those who contributed . ANSES has a huge deficit and that has to be financed by general income from the Treasury. The problem is that the IMF says that pension spending must be lowered and, from the Government, the way in which they do it is by granting increases that are lower than inflation, in order to reduce the amount allocated to social security from the public budget.


You may also like

Leave a Reply