The Minister of Inclusion and Social Security, José Luis Escrivá, is convinced that the pension reform is here to stay for many years, because it is well done and also has the support of Brussels. Faced with criticism from the CEOE and warnings from the PP that it will change it if it reaches the Government, Escrivá replies that “it is a reform for many years and that it provides a lot of peace of mind and certainty to pensioners.” He has also added that “when a reform is well done and well designed, and with sufficient support, it tends to last”, recalling in the past that it is included as one of the milestones of the recovery plan, which adds an added difficulty for its potential modification.
The reform approved today provides for three new income systems to offset the increase in expenses and also the entry into retirement of the bulk of the baby boom generation in the 2040s. These are the increase in the maximum contribution bases, an additional contribution through the Intergenerational Equity mechanism (MEI) and the solidarity quota that will be applied to the part of the salary that exceeds the maximum contribution base.
In this field, Escrivá has specified that the so-called pension piggy bank, the reserve fund that will feed the MEI, will add between 120,000 and 130,000 million at the beginning of the 2040s. It is a saving that will be used to gradually disburse from 2032, to overcome the additional effort that the largest number of pensioners will require from the system until 2050.
Escrivá has also marked the difference between the situation of pensions in Spain and that of France, with a large social movement protesting the goal of Paris to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64 years. Basically, the minister considers that France pays for not having done their homework on time. “France has an unsustainable system and now it has to approach an approach via cuts that generates social resistance,” Escrivá said, comparing it with the Spanish reform that is based on an increase in income.
It is the formula chosen by the Government, to increase income, which is applauded by the unions, but criticized by employers, who consider that the increase in contributions will place an excessive burden on companies.
