[ad_1]
In conversations with the opposition. That is the scenario in which the government is today regarding the pension reform and the new withdrawal of 10%, as acknowledged this Monday by the Minister of Finance, Ignacio Briones. “We are talking, it is always good to talk, dialogue is what allows the country to advance (…) We are always looking for the best relations with the opposition or part of it that is constructive, because the country needs it,” he said.
According to sources familiar with the talks, the government has approached opposition senators in recent days to seek an understanding that combines the withdrawal of 10% with the pension reform that is in the Labor Commission. The opposition wants 6% to go in full to individual accounts in the pension reform, while the government wants to limit the withdrawal of 10% for people who have seen their income diminished in the crisis, and who pay high incomes. La Moneda would be open to give more solidarity in order to achieve the above, but they also asked that a third withdrawal does not prosper. And there, the conversations have become more dense and complex, commented in the opposition.
Manuel Marfán: “I am more socialist in heart and mind than many others who are telling the time, forgetting rationality”
The uncertain future of the AFPs and the pension system
However, in the opposition they were distant regarding the possibility of linking both issues. They specify that the government has explored ways to limit the withdrawal of 10%, but they add that there is not much encouragement to reach an understanding.
They explain that the pension reform runs through a path other than the withdrawal of the second 10%, noting that until now they have not received a specific response from the authority on their proposal that the total of 6% go to solidarity.
Moreover, parliamentary sources indicate that this is the issue that worries them, while the withdrawal of 10% considers it a problem for the government with its Chile Vamos sector. They observe that the opposition votes are not enough to gather a quorum of three fifths, therefore, if the government aspires to stop the project, it should speak with its allies. “The government’s problem is ordering your house. He cannot say that he is negotiating with us when matters are very different, ”emphasizes a connoisseur of the conversations.
“The incredible thing is that it has been neglected that retirement was income, because obviously it is income income,” Briones insisted on Monday in Congress.
Senator Ricardo Lagos Weber (PPD), in conversation with Radio Pauta, said that in his opinion linking the withdrawal of 10% with the reform “does not fly”, “because the pension reform must be done yes or yes, we cannot condition it to if 10% is withdrawn, if taxes are paid, if it is withdrawn after how much money (…) that will not happen. This has been mishandled ”.
From the ruling party, Senator Francisco Chahuán (RN) called on the government to finalize an agreement that links retirement and reform.
While Senator Manuel José Ossandón (RN), this Monday commented through his Twitter account that “the State failed, it was not enough and therefore the second 10% withdrawal will be approved. Will we have to wait for a third or fourth retreat to deal with the underlying issues? “
On the other hand, this Tuesday the Senate Constitution Committee will resume the discussion of the second withdrawal of 10%, and they hope that it will be voted in the instance in the coming days, to be able to send it this week to the court.
Thus, there are already parliamentarians preparing indications. From Chile Vamos they want to reinstate that withdrawals for high incomes are taxed, and limit retirement to those who have lost their jobs or register a decrease in their income.
Senator Carlos Bianchi, meanwhile, comments that he wants to add at least three indications. First, that the withdrawal payment is made in 15 days from when the affiliates make the request (not in 30 days). The objective of the above is that the money can reach families in December, he explains.
Secondly, the senator says that the project does not establish the term in which this withdrawal can be made, as the first project did, where it was proposed that people will be able to withdraw their 10% in a year, so he will seek that the same term is set for this second withdrawal. And third, he wants to fix that the project says that “up to 10%” can be withdrawn.