Ismael Bermúdez
07/13/2020 - 21:45
- Clarín.com
- Economy
- Economy
Arguing that during an emergency there is a greater need for mobility that guarantees sufficiency, stability and proportionality of pension assets, Chamber II of the Federal Chamber of Salta resolved that until Congress passes a new mobility law, the increases in Retirements and pensions by decree cannot be lower than the rates set in the rent law that establishes 50% inflation and 50% RIPTE (formal wages), recently passed by Congress.
Thus, in the judgment, the judges Alejandro Castellanos, Mariana Inés Catalano and Guillermo Federico Elías, in the "Calvia case, Roberto Daniel s / various adjustments", do not resolve to apply the suspended formula but fix a third variant as a floor for increases by decree , minimum that must be applied to all the beneficiaries of the system.
From the sentence it appears that the rates of the rent law must be compared with the increases by decree of the first semester of this year or of all of 2020 or at the time of the liquidation of the assets in the terms of the sentence.
It must be remembered that the increases by decree of March and June were added to 19.9% for the lowest pensions and 10.2% for the highest salaries, replacing the suspended formula of 23.72% that corresponded to the second semester of 2019. From the ruling follows the claim to the Legislative Branch to resolve the lack of application of the accrued increases of the second semester of 2019.
In the foundations of the sentence, the chamber mates maintain that the Government did not explain why in March it granted a 2.3% increase plus a fixed amount of $ 1,500 and in June an increase of 6.12%, nor did it explain the methodology of said increases. . And they add that in the recent decree 542/2020 the Government indicated that one of the central objectives of the increases was "to maintain the sufficiency of benefits", while acknowledging that "any mobility scheme must guarantee some real stability in benefits Social security in different macroeconomic contexts ”.
For chamber maids, this "reveals a kind of contradiction , since if the objective pursued is to maintain the sufficiency of benefits and attend to mobility as a synonym of real stability of assets, the suspension of the current regime is not explained - Law No. 27,426-, which contemplates a combined index integrated by 70% by an inflationary variable and, therefore, mainly caters to alternatives linked to the cost of living ”.
The judges recognize that the economic emergency situation is indisputable , ratified by the drastic reduction in productive and collection activity due to the pandemic. “However, there is an evident contradiction in the justification for the suspension of the mobility law, given that in the absence of stability in the economy and its indexes, it is when a mobility formula that provides a periodic update is most necessary and automatic. It is in times of crisis when constitutional guarantees become operational ”.
In this case, the chamber maids observe the lag verified between the percentage -8.56% - received by the retired Calvia and the combined index of 23.7% in force until the suspension, which “reveals a situation of insufficiency that prevents legitimizing the referred increase ”.
At the same time, they point out that Congress sanctioned the rental regime, establishing combined and balanced guidelines to determine the adjustment of the rental fee . "In the case of a benefit related to access to housing, retirees and pensioners cannot be excluded from those indices that can be reproduced in the pension mobility system."
The chamber maids recognize the mismanagement of the system that meant the lack of a correct administration of resources by the authorities who were in charge of the Administration of the country for several decades. But they question the imposition of "a second contributory effort, based on a distorted criterion of solidarity, which does not distinguish between those who jointly fulfilled their contributions and those who did not contribute in any way, thus discouraging the contribution and contribution to the system."
They also say that the Government decided to suspend the mobility formula to " prioritize the increase in the benefits of lower incomes" , as "a measure that exceeds those adopted through the suspended indexes". However, they add, that prerogative was not fulfilled, since the lowest assets have also suffered a detriment in relation to the mobility that would have corresponded to them, while the increases of the special regimes were not affected, despite the fact that they are the of greater amount.
