[ad_1]
Officialism and opposition analyze formulas to reduce pension damage if a second withdrawal from pension funds is approved, through the replacement of savings.
While the opposition bloc would bet on a common fund of a solidarity nature, in Chile Vamos they are debating between the option of a loan or a direct transfer paid by the State.
This Wednesday the processing of the bill that seeks to allow a second withdrawal from the pension funds, a new 10%, is resumed, and if the most repeated argument to promote this initiative was that “the Government is late”, the constant refusal of La Moneda has made support grow in opposition, but also in Chile Vamos.
However, on this occasion, edges have been opened and the discussion could be a little longer than in the project approved in July. A first barrier was overcome, which was the approval of the idea of legislating, and tomorrow the House Constitution committee enters the debate in particular. This is the detail of each article of the legal text.
One of the arguments of the Executive to oppose this is the damage that it can generate in the pension system. If the second withdrawal is approved, more than 4 million people would be left without savings in their accounts and it would mean taking between $ 18 billion and $ 20 billion of funds.
This, according to the Government, is what makes it unfeasible to go ahead with another important project, the pension reform. The opposition is not unaware of this scenario, but they consider that both projects should talk to each other, and closing the door cannot be the answer.
The head of the PPD bank, Raúl Soto, believes that a compensation mechanism should be incorporated into the pension reform.
“I believe that more than creating a Chinese wall between the two projects, what needs to be done is to create bridges, such as a solidarity fund that allows through state contributions and also the funds themselves that can be mitigated in some way. the negative effect of this withdrawal on the pensions of Chileans or rightly reintegrate “, Held.
In the ruling party there is a similar position, although there are different positions and little consensus. In the UDI, they proposed that the Treasury assume the cost of the withdrawal of funds, which received a slam from the Ministry of Finance, and in National Renovation they will present their alternative tomorrow.
This was confirmed by the deputy of that store, Andrés Celis, who although he pointed out that the spirit being considered is that the State assumes responsibility, there are several alternatives on the table.
“Set as a limit those people who had a salary of up to two and a half million. There are others who want it to be a higher amount, others maintain that no, that there is no limit and that this is a loan that the State makes to the person who finally takes out those funds. There are different alternatives ”, he assured.
And, in fact, in consultation with other RN parliamentarians, the modifications would not be a consensus of the bench, but would go down a lane typical of some deputies.
In the Socialist Party, deputy Leonardo Soto, who is a member of the Constitution commission, He also considers that the compensation formula has to be of a solidary and tripartite nature, as was proposed in the first withdrawal project and there he reproached the ruling party that, on that occasion, refused to approve the mechanism.
“I would hope that we could offer some fund with incentives, compensatory and solidarity. We already presented this proposal in July and unfortunately it was the right wing groups, Chile Vamos, who voted against this position. They voted against it in the Constitution commission and also in both chambers, “he argued.
And when it comes to pensions, The Superintendency reported on Tuesday the consolidated results for the month of October, where there was mixed performance of the multifunds. The most risky were the most affected, A and B fell 1 and 0.37% respectively; while the most conservative, C, D and E rented between 0.15 and 0.56%.
A sample, according to the Superintendency, that instability in the financial markets is still present and that is why portfolios with investments in variable income suffered with the increase in contagion of covid-19 in Europe and also the elections in the US.
[ad_2]
