[ad_1]
The Minister of Labor, María José Zaldívar, reiterated his criticism of the idea of allowing a second retirement since the Pension funds, and pointed out that the measure would not comply with supporting the most vulnerable sectors. In the opposition they asked the Executive to promote new measures of economic support, while in the ruling party the idea of studying this new project continues to garner support.
Finally the debate was opened, and as has been the trend in recent weeks, the discussion diverted to other edges with respect to the pension system, and not only regarding the second withdrawal of 10%.
Among other points, the Chamber Constitution commission discussed the exceptional retirement for people with terminal illnesses, the withdrawal of funds for pensioners with annuity, and that the Justice can make a rescue of savings from the accounts of alimony debtors.
The general discussion, in any case, continues to be framed by the idea that various opposition sectors have raised that the economic needs of many families continue and it is likely that there will be outbreaks that again prevent an improvement in employment figures.
Thats why he deputy DC, Matías Walker, It proposes that the Government should concur with social aid that extends beyond what was initially contemplated.
In this session, the leading role was played by Minister of Labor, María José Zaldívar, which set out the Government’s position on this matter. The position is to oppose it under the argument of regressivity, that is, that this benefits those who have more savings, or more resources.
For this reason, in the opinion of Minister Zaldívar, the proposal also does not fulfill its main objective.
The support that this may have, in any case, is still uncertain. The MP Pamela Jiles He maintained that there would be a political floor to advance, ensuring that he compromised the favorable vote of 14 pro-government deputies.
One of the last to manifest disposition, in fact, was the deputy RN Diego Schalper.
Schalper’s position is to link this debate with the pension discussion and also other points. One of those that has been in the debate is to hand over the attribution of exceptional retirement to annuity pensioners, who are not affiliated to the AFPs and were left out of the first reform.
This is because they sign a contract where they transfer ownership of the funds to the insurance companies, so one of the authors, the deputy Fernando Meza, asked to consider equality before the law.
The Executive’s argument at that point is precisely that it would contravene the right to property. In any case, the minister recommended summoning the CMF to find out their point of view and see the option of advance or partial payments.
Where there is a certain consensus is in terms of terminal diseases. In fact, the UDI deputy, Jorge Alessandri, He urged the Government to speed up a solution along these lines, but in an orderly manner, with criteria of what is considered a terminal illness and what type of payments, to avoid prosecuting the issue.
The most important discussion, in any case, is that of regressiveness. According to the data presented by the minister, in addition to the people who were left without savings, women withdrew an average of 46% of their balance, versus 33.5% in the case of men. While, young people up to 25 years old, withdrew an average of 84.4% of their savings.
[ad_2]
