While Gloria Inés Ramírez, Minister of Labor, made a new call yesterday to the political parties, Congress and, in general, to all Colombians to move forward with the health and pension reforms, the concerns and concerns of the country’s business sector around these two government initiatives continued to grow, even more so after the presentation of the latter was known, which was filed last Tuesday in Commission VII of the Legislature.
(Also read: Entrepreneurs in the country insist on further adjustments to the pension reform bill)
The Government has been clear in indicating that it is not willing to negotiate the threshold of three minimum wages that are part of the contributory pillaras well as the fact that not all the resources that are transferred from private funds (AFP) to Colpensiones by this new scheme can be saved.
“The Government established a threshold of four salaries and it was lowered to three, but from there it will not move,” said Ricardo Bonilla, Minister of Finance, who says that other issues can be negotiated, but not in that aspect because considering That level does not create difficulties.
(You may also be interested in: Pension contributions will not be able to finance government plans: presentation of the reform)
But those are precisely two of the points that generate the most concern for the private sector, for which all its artillery is focused on seeking greater clarity about the impact that these will have on public finances and the country’s economy.
The letter sent to the senators presenting the pension reform project on Monday of this week, by the National Trade Council (CGN), was also added to a meeting yesterday of the pension funds (AFP) with the Minister of Finance, seeking approaches on those thorny issues.
Santiago Montenego, president of Asofondos, as well as the Anif and Fedesarrollo economic study centers, and some production sectors have insisted that the project has positive aspects, such as the unification of the two mechanisms, the expansion of the solidarity pillar and the increase in the subsidy (some 223,000 pesos), the elimination of a large part of the subsidies for high pensions and the creation of the contributory pillar, which is an improved version of the Periodic Economic Benefits (Beps).
However, they insist that the pension project should not be separated from the labor reform, so they insist that this project must be adjusted, which seems to attack job creation and stimulate informality to the extent that it will increase labor costs by 20 percent.
Montenegro is concerned about the handling that Colpensiones will make of the more than 20 billion pesos that will arrive each year from the transfers made from the AFPs, which can be saved in their entirety, but as the Government has reiterated, they will be used to pay current pensions, which is very dangerous and they have made it known.
The other issues that raise doubts
But they are not the only ones who have insisted that the reform requires greater adjustments in these fundamental issues.
Referring to the presentation filed on Tuesday of this week, Luis Fernando Mejía, director of Fedesarrollo, said that with this it is clear that the more substantive elements are pending discussion and modification, especially in two fundamental ones. The first, the threshold up to which it is considered that the contributive public pillar that is in three wages must function, since it is maintained and puts the sustainability of the medium premium system at risk, impacts the AFPs, national savings and the Own government.
The other aspect, he says, is the savings fund, which Although it shows some definitions in the paper, because some guidelines are given in terms of investment, it is still difficult to understand what the level of savings will be. “It does not change much compared to what was proposed in principle and guarantees that all new flows of contribution resources must be saved and not used for current spending.”
The country’s businessmen gathered in the Trade Union Council have similar suspicions and have informed the Government and congressmen of this through various communications.
In the letter sent this week to the speakers of the reform, they point out that there are three concerns that concern them in the solidarity pillar and they have to do with the origin of the resources to cover that payment, how protection for the elderly will be guaranteed and if that pillar is contemplating within the estimates of the pension liability.
Confronted with the contributory, they are concerned about the impact of the proposed three-salary threshold, when one can think of this as part of a salary.
They are also concerned about the issue of daily contributions, in which there is no greater clarity about its application, as well as the impact of the reform on pension insurance and life annuities, among other aspects.
