Boys, foremost, thank you very much for entering the blog and discussion without insults and foundations. On the other hand, I also ask you promotes 678 as "eliminate the middlemen" to get information. We
by point:
Above all, remember, look, that Project South abstained from voting. Not accompany the project from Group A because we had an own opinion that we put explicitly available to view and modify both the New Meeting FPV.
For Without Gods: not share what you raise. I would like to stress again that 82% is not for everyone. Read the project. And as for the amount of retirement there is a cap would not allow that. And if it happened, it would be so few, that could be controlled.
By signing CTA-CGT: We accompanied the rally called only by the Bureau of Pensioners of the CTA. What is described in some media does not necessarily express what happened. Alejandro
: What problem you got with Larosa? On the other hand, you must have escaped, because a national and popular companion wanting to do harm to your country, you seem very nearly in Group A.
Tomas Munzer: Several things. On the one hand, we had a minority opinion but it is not wanted and that is why we proposed a new meeting and the Front for Victory, after listening in commission recognize that our project was more focused, I saw it in a whole and to change what they wanted. However, we got to the office building with a minority. We have made a quorum, as did the FPV in the Senate the other day, because retirees of the organizations they represent, we asked to give the discussion. Finally, we launched our project never debate. Within the compound, who had negotiated with the majority opinion and not get to put our basic changes not accompanied in the voting.
To Diego: May you read it. Again I clarify if not understood. We did not vote that project. We did not vote that project.
Finally:
Waterfront presidential veto of the bill passed in the Senate is essential to consider that:
1) Of the 5,491,049 retirees covered by the pension system 74% of them is claiming to have a minimum of $ 1,046, and even many of the 2.5 million who had access to retirement by the moratorium are charging well below this value (given the assumed debt discount) in a context where individual the basket for a retiree does not drop below $ 2,250. This data is compelling that must come first in considering the current debate. Are pressing needs of retirees who can not be ignored when considering the decision of the President to veto the bill passed in the Senate.
2) What did the president veto? The project allowed the President vetoed:
a) Take the current minimum having $ 1046 to $ 1426.80 and $ 1508.80 upgrade to from January 2011. This is what the project proposed in Article 1 to set the minimum pension in 82% of the minimum wage.
b) Take 42% of retirees have minimum, allowing for 37% of them have had an average of $ 1,800 and 5% of those with a credit average of $ 5,000. This is what was achieved from the application of the criteria set by the Supreme Court in rulings Badaro and Sanchez.
is a project that far from being finished as a pension reform was a start toward solving the serious problems that accumulates the current pension system, which therefore remains unchanged, is becoming a system that ensures assets misery, producing significant adverse effects that impair the pension system itself, to the extent that low evasion encourage pension assets, and open the door to privately funded individuals seeking to resolve the situation of the population greater purchasing power.
It is clear that the serious problems that have accumulated in the pension system in force is not resolved through the adoption of the bill passed the Senate, since there was a comprehensive reform, but a palliative to the situation in line with promoting an essential debate on the Argentine pension system. In this context, the attitude of the President to veto the project in record time completely, without even evaluating the option of veto (which would have allowed for example to adopt the point)-setting to have at least 82% of the minimum wage and veto option b) - not willing to contemplate the decisions by the Supreme Court) are shown the absence of political will by the Government to address the pension debate that our society demands.
3) To justify the veto, the President has engaged in a series of ZONCERAS that deserve mention:
a) first associated the project with the bankruptcy of the state. I argue that, beyond the presidential inauguration, it can only be classified as stupid to see that the cost of the project ($ 30,000 million of net financing needs for 2011) represents only 5.5% of Consolidated Public Expenditure (estimated at $ 550,000 million). It is ironic and revealing at the time of conception of the Government, to pay pensioners is associated with the bankruptcy of the state while paying the creditors (by a similar amount in 2010 for $ 25,000 million, financed from reserves) is present as giving certainty and confidence in the economy. Taking this argument to the extreme, if improving the situation of pensioners is the failure of the State, then keep pensions misery becomes the strength of it, so in this context is no more postponement and hardship for retirees while state shows a budget surplus or rather, excess resources, which are intended for other purposes, such as payments to creditors in 2010.
b) In his historical account, the President forgot the reductions in employer contributions issued by Menem and Cavallo in 1993. Yes agreed the return of Alfonsin and 1984, but to justify the argument that neoliberal and nineties "contributions can not be restored because it means increased unemployment, lower financing the pension system less retirement pay." Zoncera this worthy of convertibility and obtuse about the dreadful experience of that stage. In fact, when contributions declined passed what the President said: rising unemployment, underfunded pension and salary reduction.
c) zoncera noted that the project intended to liquidate the ANSES FGS. The project noted that the Fund could not exceed the value of a benefit year. Nowhere gets deadline for that to happen, not unless you have to sell off those assets.
d) Finally, at the end of his argument, the President forgot, to mention the sectors for which fight for better living standards of pensioners. In fact, the governor ended his speech calling for "workers, students, teachers, businessmen" to defend their living conditions. Retirees were absent at the close of the presidential speech. All forgetfulness that is worth a thousand words about the place of retirees in vision official.
4) On the other hand, the Conservative Opposition Chant was not to be incorporated throughout the full funding that the project demanded (which is why it opposed the refund of employer contributions for large firms) giving the excuse necessary for the officer to hide behind and justify the veto. It is good to clarify that the Conservative Opposition Chant is the excuse, and nothing else, for the official veto. If the President had wanted to get the necessary funding by way of refund of employer contributions for large firms, what can and what can be done with the dictation of a simple decree, as Menem and Cavallo used to reduce a decree in 1993. Repay the employer contributions for large firms is an option that the President has available but chose not to use it. Also here a display order of preferences and priorities revealed by the presidential veto.
5) In fact, both the Conservative Opposition Chant as the ruling ZONCERAS are two sides of same coin: Indeed, so different, both options follow the logic of delaying the needs of retirees. On the side of officialdom, and beyond the presidential outburst about the "state failure", the truth is that the veto of the President with the strategy current fiscal ANSES has transformed into a box of resources to finance the Treasury's financing gap.
6) Specifically, the proposal vetoed by the President, which served to improve the situation of pensioners, becoming a palliative in line to move the necessary security reform integral, had a cost:
a) $ 20,000 million with the current minimum wage.
b) $ 30,000 million with the minimum wage in January 2011.
response to this need for financing, the resources available are:
a) has a surplus ANSES financial year 2010 of $ 14,078 million and the 2011 budget envisages a surplus of $ 21,531 million.
b) The refund of employer contributions for large firms to present (September 2010) can expand revenue by $ 25,406,000. Taking into account the growth assumption of 22% in revenue projected by the Budget 2011, would place these resources in no less than $ 30,996 million.
Therefore, it is clear that all conditions exist to meet the urgent needs of retirees. Not doing so is a political decision that the President and the ruling party has taken in terms of privileging profitability of large firms and maintenance of the surplus in the ANSES fundamental bound to pay the creditors
by point:
Above all, remember, look, that Project South abstained from voting. Not accompany the project from Group A because we had an own opinion that we put explicitly available to view and modify both the New Meeting FPV.
For Without Gods: not share what you raise. I would like to stress again that 82% is not for everyone. Read the project. And as for the amount of retirement there is a cap would not allow that. And if it happened, it would be so few, that could be controlled.
By signing CTA-CGT: We accompanied the rally called only by the Bureau of Pensioners of the CTA. What is described in some media does not necessarily express what happened. Alejandro
: What problem you got with Larosa? On the other hand, you must have escaped, because a national and popular companion wanting to do harm to your country, you seem very nearly in Group A.
Tomas Munzer: Several things. On the one hand, we had a minority opinion but it is not wanted and that is why we proposed a new meeting and the Front for Victory, after listening in commission recognize that our project was more focused, I saw it in a whole and to change what they wanted. However, we got to the office building with a minority. We have made a quorum, as did the FPV in the Senate the other day, because retirees of the organizations they represent, we asked to give the discussion. Finally, we launched our project never debate. Within the compound, who had negotiated with the majority opinion and not get to put our basic changes not accompanied in the voting.
To Diego: May you read it. Again I clarify if not understood. We did not vote that project. We did not vote that project.
Finally:
Waterfront presidential veto of the bill passed in the Senate is essential to consider that:
1) Of the 5,491,049 retirees covered by the pension system 74% of them is claiming to have a minimum of $ 1,046, and even many of the 2.5 million who had access to retirement by the moratorium are charging well below this value (given the assumed debt discount) in a context where individual the basket for a retiree does not drop below $ 2,250. This data is compelling that must come first in considering the current debate. Are pressing needs of retirees who can not be ignored when considering the decision of the President to veto the bill passed in the Senate.
2) What did the president veto? The project allowed the President vetoed:
a) Take the current minimum having $ 1046 to $ 1426.80 and $ 1508.80 upgrade to from January 2011. This is what the project proposed in Article 1 to set the minimum pension in 82% of the minimum wage.
b) Take 42% of retirees have minimum, allowing for 37% of them have had an average of $ 1,800 and 5% of those with a credit average of $ 5,000. This is what was achieved from the application of the criteria set by the Supreme Court in rulings Badaro and Sanchez.
is a project that far from being finished as a pension reform was a start toward solving the serious problems that accumulates the current pension system, which therefore remains unchanged, is becoming a system that ensures assets misery, producing significant adverse effects that impair the pension system itself, to the extent that low evasion encourage pension assets, and open the door to privately funded individuals seeking to resolve the situation of the population greater purchasing power.
It is clear that the serious problems that have accumulated in the pension system in force is not resolved through the adoption of the bill passed the Senate, since there was a comprehensive reform, but a palliative to the situation in line with promoting an essential debate on the Argentine pension system. In this context, the attitude of the President to veto the project in record time completely, without even evaluating the option of veto (which would have allowed for example to adopt the point)-setting to have at least 82% of the minimum wage and veto option b) - not willing to contemplate the decisions by the Supreme Court) are shown the absence of political will by the Government to address the pension debate that our society demands.
3) To justify the veto, the President has engaged in a series of ZONCERAS that deserve mention:
a) first associated the project with the bankruptcy of the state. I argue that, beyond the presidential inauguration, it can only be classified as stupid to see that the cost of the project ($ 30,000 million of net financing needs for 2011) represents only 5.5% of Consolidated Public Expenditure (estimated at $ 550,000 million). It is ironic and revealing at the time of conception of the Government, to pay pensioners is associated with the bankruptcy of the state while paying the creditors (by a similar amount in 2010 for $ 25,000 million, financed from reserves) is present as giving certainty and confidence in the economy. Taking this argument to the extreme, if improving the situation of pensioners is the failure of the State, then keep pensions misery becomes the strength of it, so in this context is no more postponement and hardship for retirees while state shows a budget surplus or rather, excess resources, which are intended for other purposes, such as payments to creditors in 2010.
b) In his historical account, the President forgot the reductions in employer contributions issued by Menem and Cavallo in 1993. Yes agreed the return of Alfonsin and 1984, but to justify the argument that neoliberal and nineties "contributions can not be restored because it means increased unemployment, lower financing the pension system less retirement pay." Zoncera this worthy of convertibility and obtuse about the dreadful experience of that stage. In fact, when contributions declined passed what the President said: rising unemployment, underfunded pension and salary reduction.
c) zoncera noted that the project intended to liquidate the ANSES FGS. The project noted that the Fund could not exceed the value of a benefit year. Nowhere gets deadline for that to happen, not unless you have to sell off those assets.
d) Finally, at the end of his argument, the President forgot, to mention the sectors for which fight for better living standards of pensioners. In fact, the governor ended his speech calling for "workers, students, teachers, businessmen" to defend their living conditions. Retirees were absent at the close of the presidential speech. All forgetfulness that is worth a thousand words about the place of retirees in vision official.
4) On the other hand, the Conservative Opposition Chant was not to be incorporated throughout the full funding that the project demanded (which is why it opposed the refund of employer contributions for large firms) giving the excuse necessary for the officer to hide behind and justify the veto. It is good to clarify that the Conservative Opposition Chant is the excuse, and nothing else, for the official veto. If the President had wanted to get the necessary funding by way of refund of employer contributions for large firms, what can and what can be done with the dictation of a simple decree, as Menem and Cavallo used to reduce a decree in 1993. Repay the employer contributions for large firms is an option that the President has available but chose not to use it. Also here a display order of preferences and priorities revealed by the presidential veto.
5) In fact, both the Conservative Opposition Chant as the ruling ZONCERAS are two sides of same coin: Indeed, so different, both options follow the logic of delaying the needs of retirees. On the side of officialdom, and beyond the presidential outburst about the "state failure", the truth is that the veto of the President with the strategy current fiscal ANSES has transformed into a box of resources to finance the Treasury's financing gap.
6) Specifically, the proposal vetoed by the President, which served to improve the situation of pensioners, becoming a palliative in line to move the necessary security reform integral, had a cost:
a) $ 20,000 million with the current minimum wage.
b) $ 30,000 million with the minimum wage in January 2011.
response to this need for financing, the resources available are:
a) has a surplus ANSES financial year 2010 of $ 14,078 million and the 2011 budget envisages a surplus of $ 21,531 million.
b) The refund of employer contributions for large firms to present (September 2010) can expand revenue by $ 25,406,000. Taking into account the growth assumption of 22% in revenue projected by the Budget 2011, would place these resources in no less than $ 30,996 million.
Therefore, it is clear that all conditions exist to meet the urgent needs of retirees. Not doing so is a political decision that the President and the ruling party has taken in terms of privileging profitability of large firms and maintenance of the surplus in the ANSES fundamental bound to pay the creditors
0 comments:
Post a Comment