[ad_1]
The commission of The Constitution of the Chamber will begin tomorrow to discuss the project that proposes a second withdrawal of pension funds.
Opposition sectors they pressured the Government to propose an emergency basic income, or they do not rule out supporting the progress of the reform.
There are already more than 15 billion dollars that have been transferred in the first withdrawal of 10% from the AFPs, despite the fact that many administrators are still taking the second installments. Meanwhile, in Congress there are already voices in the opposition that have driven the discussion of a new rescue of the funds.
This Wednesday, the Chamber’s Constitution Committee has contemplated reviewing one of the projects it proposes a second 10%, promoted by the deputy of the PH, Pamela Jiles, under the same conditions that the original constitutional reform was proposed.
There is still no great consensus on the matter and one of the main objections is the balance that exists around the initial process. One of the arguments is that of the almost 9 million members who have received the funds, there are 20% (more than 1 million 800 thousand) who emptied their accounts.
Therefore, they have no savings for their old age and no money to withdraw.
It is the main argument raised in the Executive, where the Minister of Economy, Lucas Palacios, asked for responsibility with future retirements.
“Pensions cannot wait and it is very important not to continue using pensions as if it were an ATM. There are 1 million 800 thousand people who had 0 in their account for their pensions, so that is something that does not seem fair to me. The needs are not only today, but tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. A good government must think about all periods ”, he assured.
In the opposition there are also reservations about this initiative. Most sectors recognize that It is necessary to evaluate well who is going to benefit, but they point out that the pressure is on the Government.
This was explained by the president of the Constitutional Commission, DC Matías Walker.
“Today Chileans are having a hard time, we have a very high unemployment figure and if there is no concrete, timely response from the government, regarding having a universal emergency income for 90% of the population, we know that this instrument is in place. This is an issue that I, as president of the Constitution commission, will open and I will not close, ”he said.
Along the same lines, argued the head of the PPD bench, Raúl Soto, who warned that, as the promoter of the first reform, it would be inconsistent to reject the advance of a second withdrawal, while there are still families that require financial support.
“The important thing today is that we are capable, as a State, of providing significant economic support to vulnerable sectors and the middle class before Christmas. And therefore, if the government does not put on the table a mechanism for the direct transfer of resources, it will be very difficult for us to deny the possibility that Chileans once again have to resort to part of their pension savings “, lament.
In Chile Vamos, they especially criticize those who proposed the first reform as something exceptional, and who denied this premise that it was dangerous to “open this door” that would later be difficult to close.
The deputy from Evópoli, Luciano Cruz Coke, He said you have to be careful to consider where this withdrawal is going.
“If they are doing other projects, such as the tax on the super rich, and there are others such as tax exemptions, what they are looking for is to raise money and here we are going the opposite way. We are generating a tax exemption for those who have the most. So it is not going to be something that this second withdrawal is not going to support precisely those who need it most, but those who have high incomes, exempting them from paying, in addition, another billion dollars, “he explained.
It will be tomorrow then when this debate begins in depth within the Constitution committee, to see if this initiative prospers in the same way as the previous one or not.
[ad_2]
