Full text of the speech of the leader of IU to parliamentary Parliamentary Committee.
me begin by thanking, of course, the intervention of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Labour, and saying something was expected but what I can not resist to start my speech, which is that we are not uneasy about the bill to reform the pension system, do we believe that is the only reform possible or, as the Minister of Labour, best possible-but we disagree about that reform.
recognize that a more moderate reform following the intervention of trade unions and through the general strike, but ultimately, it is a cut and in our opinion is not the time of the cut. At present there is no justification for cuts in our public pension system. We as the Government planned two years ago we we have a good public pension system, we think that not only is sustainable in the short term but is sustainable and viable in the medium and long term, and do not share or demographic catastrophe that we are told neither the discourse of overlapping markets also This reform is being proposed.
ladies and gentlemen, at this point I want to remind Malthus, who said that food production was growing arithmetically while population did geometrically, and announced the so-called 'Malthusian catastrophe', ie the disaster social. Furthermore, Malthus did on several occasions and in different periods something that is very similar to what the Deputy Prime Minister Mrs. Just a few months, the catastrophe would occur in 2050, has now spoken of the next decade, a period in which already have an imbalance in the public social security system. A few weeks ago saying that if we did not take action, if not recortábamos our public pension system would arrive in 2040 at a cost of 14 per cent of GDP, well, not now, have risen 3 percentage points of GDP and Vice President and Mrs. Government says that if we do not act in 2040 will reach 17 per cent of GDP. The truth is that this is a lot like me Malthusian catastrophe, disaster proved false and should be inspired only by a brutal prejudice against citizens who joined the company as a political subject.
In this case, Mrs. Vice President and the minister trying to use an incontrovertible fact, as demographic trends, as if it were a threat to our public pension system, as if between the demographic and social reality does not exist technique, no policy existed, in short, like a natural calamity. Ladies and gentlemen, it has long emancipated us from natural calamities, at least relatively, increasingly our decisions may also influence natural disasters, " but in politics it is not only talk about what will happen in terms of population and do so biased. And it's biased to say now that the evolution of the population in our country strong force necessarily cut public pension system, something that seems biased from the point of view of life expectancy.
not go into discussions on life expectancy, there have been many public debates, "but I want to get into one that you made reference and does not correspond to their data. Does not correspond to the data about that life expectancy will continue to grow exponentially over the next years. Their data shows that continues to increase, but that has slowed the increase in life expectancy because there is something called the natural boundary of biological life, which also influences life expectancy. In that sense, announcing only that factor seems biased.
Also, in my opinion is biased to say, and that was the big mistake of previous forecasts as the BBVA-I do not mind talking about authors, "that our Social Security system would be bankrupt today. Well, they forgot two details of immigration and the incorporation of women into the work. You have destroyed before immigration and gives the impression that by 2040 there will be immigration and that either the world will grow equally or would not result in expulsion of immigrants to developed countries-which is saying a lot. Moreover, you are removed from among the entry of women to work, a factor that seems to me important because it reduces the number of children per woman, and that's true, especially in a cyclical at times labor crisis more important, but increasing the number of women who are in the labor market. Therefore, at this point is to find a balance and not only use it in a biased manner to threaten to demographics.
But
demographics plus other factors need not adversely affect the coming years. It seems that, as mentioned before, the Government does not care about economic development or not valued in terms of its potential impact in terms of sustainability or social policies and in particular pensions, as if a minor issue. It seems also a minor issue of job quality, which in our country is very low, which has much to do with quotas and revenue system, and gives the impression that the Government does not care productivity of the economy, which is important, and the Government used in a misleading manner the percentage of GDP.
And ladies and gentlemen, is not the same today, 8 percent of GDP in the pension system that 14 per cent in 2040, which today can be equivalent to 250 to 100 in terms of production. Therefore, there is the same and in my opinion can not be used in a biased manner. But above all, what is different is that there is no demographic Dictat; not about demographics, it is democracy. That is, it is discussed here with you how much you plan to spend Spain to social policies. Gives the impression, because you want to stabilize at 8 or 9 percent, it said it a few days ago, now seems more-pension spending, we're going to spend the same. They say it aims to balance spending on the public pension system, but I must say that we are far from spent as the rest of our European Union, as well as in purchasing power of income, on pensions and social matters; we are very far in social spending over the European Union.
What is the commitment of the Government? It seems that the government's commitment is to consolidate or stall social spending in our country as a factor of competitiveness of the English economy, ie the factor of competitiveness of the English economy are all factors in the past: precarious employment, low output social, say that even a low incorporation of technology. All of this is the factor of competitiveness on the bet the government and so we have to stabilize or stall spending. We certainly do not share.
In that sense, in relation to the Pact of Toledo, and we gave the Government our disagreement with what we call the continuous pushing the Pact of Toledo who have lived and have been on the verge of destabilizing at parliamentary level. The Government announced and took a decision that, in our opinion, breaks the stability and break the trust of citizens in a good public pension system. First, the government broke with something as fundamental as the adjustment of pensions, which was practically in the DNA of the Toledo Pact. Certainly, the government announced a reform which drew a single element symbolic break with the retirement at age 65. It is a little thing, almost 100 years ago this question was instituted 65 years as retirement age is not a little thing, I think it was 1919.
The Government has set two goals and was the poses along with other measures that have been said here, which are all in the sense of a brutal hack to the public pension system in our opinion unacceptable. Had to be the unions, and we welcome the presence of unions in the negotiations and in negotiations, which deal with these measures the Government. I want to side with the unions, first, that instead of enforcement in this area has concert or social consensus, it seems a significant advance in my group seems a significant advance. Moreover, the unions have achieved something that was not clear, it may still be struggling to consolidate the system of the Toledo Pact, which had two main elements, one MP, but a social one, and some were determined charging by the way the Pact of Toledo, absolutely determined, those who said that Parliament had no nothing to say and that unions either, and that they had to say were the experts. However, trade unions, in my opinion, have made the consolidation of the Toledo Pact. Then
unions have modulated, have moderated the worst efforts of the Government. My group wants to mean it, he means that the Government intended the application of the 67 years of retirement age, with some exceptions in arduous jobs, and unions have opened the possibility, in this draft is well-retirement with a fork will mean that 50 percent will retire at 65 and 50 percent will retire at the 67, others have already talked about them and I will not delve into this matter, but we deem important. As it seems important to also address the proposed period for calculating the lifetime employment or automatic calculation period has also been produced by the modulation unions important in this matter and that computation period, all information about it affects those with lower trading career, that has not been touched although it was the Government's proposal that went to the European Communities. To us this issue seems remarkable.
Similarly we also highlight the contributions, though partial, which are made regarding what can be called maternity or paternity, I agree that it is not a unilateral issue that has to be an issue with room for fathers and mothers. On the other hand, also with regard to young people, the measures taken by the Government.
In any case, ladies and gentlemen, while valuing the contribution of trade unions, we believe it performs a hard cut and cut. We could say it runs a cut that anticipates future cuts in relation to the public pension system and if before, without negotiation, would be around 25 percent of the average pension, currently about 13 or 15 by percent of the average pension as a whole. It is therefore a significant cut.
We, in this sense, do not give up defending our proposals in Parliament, compared to defend the retirement age in relation to the calculation period, also in relation to the most affected, while knowing that Parliament did not exactly enjoy a very favorable balance of power. I am honest and know what is in these moments. So this is what we do, but we notice also that, with the strength we have, hardened in defense that things may get worse or do not return to the initial proposal to cut brutal claimed by the Government. In that sense the activity will my group.
I remain convinced, because they share the demographic catastrophe Dictate and much less than the markets, we have a very good public pension system, light years of private pension systems are falling off. I remain convinced that this reform forward at precisely the moment of crisis, a reform that a cut is not the best message of reassurance to the public. In fact, people disagree with this crop, have proven and shown on both the street and in the polls, which disagree with this cut, we find it to ensure the welfare state but causes them great discomfort.
That's the reality. We believe that we could have taken any action that has to do with parametric reforms, but any action that poses no cut, much less a cut traumatic. We were partisans, and we remain supporters of the 65 years of retirement age. In addition, we are convinced that the voluntary retirement scheme that had this country was an effective mechanism, in fact we were the ones who later retirement, ie closer to retirement theoretical retirement at 65 years of our environment in the Union Europe.
So what if it was effective, why take this action? Because we essentially sacrifice market, we sacrifice our public pension system and the success of our market system. Moreover, we believe it can and should avoid pension planning. That's a real problem, but to avoid pension planning can not pay for the sins, ie can not afford those with irregular careers derived from our economic model and work.
In our opinion, young women go wrong, but go a little better than the original proposal of this pension reform will be one of our concerns. Moreover, we will also engage the Government more than in 2006 compared to income. It seems that the Government is very concerned about the costs, but when it comes escapes income as an eel. For example, schemes should be unified when? The government sets a clear timetable for unification schemes, source separation, which could mean 5,000 million euros of revenue to the public pension system.
For example, the minister speaks on the issue of quotas and said that favorable economic conditions there are companies that have increased productivity by multiplying its share by 5, 6, 10. I think that should be considered in income in the public pension system.
miss something that peers have also been raised in the Commission, that is, how far is on the freezing of pensions and if we should go from now to the non-recognition of the revaluation of the public system pension or the use of sui generis approaches for the enhancement of the public pension system. It also had a fear that the negotiation.
Moreover, there are two issues that concern us, and ended with them. Which is about a widow's pension was an orientation of the Toledo Pact that the Government did practically plays, and the orientation of the Toledo Pact was clear: to maintain the subjective nature with regard to pensions for widows, and, Moreover, also the improvement of the widow's pension in certain very specific groups, which have a worse economic situation and family, and that has hardly been addressed.
Then you introduce a subject that, in addition, the unions say is not theirs, but yours. Furthermore, it is only one sentence and I'm not sure what you mean: when you speak of funds to stimulate complementary private pension funds. We know that we do not like. Cost us more than 2,000 million euros in linear terms, year to year, subsidies to private pension funds because ultimately its profitability is minimal and the only interest they have is the tax exemption are tax benefits. You raise this issue and I do not know what mood. We certainly are going to oppose this measure because it gives the impression that a very negative results: first, trim the public system and, moreover, wants to expand the private system. What is the model advocated by the Government? Is the model taxable? Does the Government defends a model for distribution, or is slowly pointing to the so-called multi-pillar model, which is a mandatory part is mandatory Moreover there is another part private individual? This question seems particularly relevant as a laconic paragraph by the Government. We believe that this is an issue that needs to be clarified in the amendment process.
conclude, ladies and gentlemen. As I said, we do not share this cut. We know that it is not a hack, a hard cut through the involvement of trade unions. We do believe that there is an alternative, there is an alternative to the policies regarding the economic crisis. For example, rather than external debt, have a better tax system, and you have left to join euro 30,000 million for its fiscal joys. We do not agree, and in that sense, we do not share the Government's proposals. Moreover, we also believe that there can be a conception in which not only keep the welfare state or 'Midwestern State' that this country, which is betting on this country's short-term, 'ad Calendas graeca' , have a welfare system that is comparable to the rest of the European Union, and that means social policies and a good public pension system with decent pensions than there are today.
for these reasons, the positions of my group, which-end-is not now nor depressed nor elated. If there is something very negative in English politics is the contrast between triumph and disaster. We do not bet on being politicians neurotic, we want to be political in this case we may disagree with the government. We try to change government policy in Congress and in the social pressure, but we will not mess up.
Madrid, February 10, 2011
me begin by thanking, of course, the intervention of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Labour, and saying something was expected but what I can not resist to start my speech, which is that we are not uneasy about the bill to reform the pension system, do we believe that is the only reform possible or, as the Minister of Labour, best possible-but we disagree about that reform.
recognize that a more moderate reform following the intervention of trade unions and through the general strike, but ultimately, it is a cut and in our opinion is not the time of the cut. At present there is no justification for cuts in our public pension system. We as the Government planned two years ago we we have a good public pension system, we think that not only is sustainable in the short term but is sustainable and viable in the medium and long term, and do not share or demographic catastrophe that we are told neither the discourse of overlapping markets also This reform is being proposed.
ladies and gentlemen, at this point I want to remind Malthus, who said that food production was growing arithmetically while population did geometrically, and announced the so-called 'Malthusian catastrophe', ie the disaster social. Furthermore, Malthus did on several occasions and in different periods something that is very similar to what the Deputy Prime Minister Mrs. Just a few months, the catastrophe would occur in 2050, has now spoken of the next decade, a period in which already have an imbalance in the public social security system. A few weeks ago saying that if we did not take action, if not recortábamos our public pension system would arrive in 2040 at a cost of 14 per cent of GDP, well, not now, have risen 3 percentage points of GDP and Vice President and Mrs. Government says that if we do not act in 2040 will reach 17 per cent of GDP. The truth is that this is a lot like me Malthusian catastrophe, disaster proved false and should be inspired only by a brutal prejudice against citizens who joined the company as a political subject.
In this case, Mrs. Vice President and the minister trying to use an incontrovertible fact, as demographic trends, as if it were a threat to our public pension system, as if between the demographic and social reality does not exist technique, no policy existed, in short, like a natural calamity. Ladies and gentlemen, it has long emancipated us from natural calamities, at least relatively, increasingly our decisions may also influence natural disasters, " but in politics it is not only talk about what will happen in terms of population and do so biased. And it's biased to say now that the evolution of the population in our country strong force necessarily cut public pension system, something that seems biased from the point of view of life expectancy.
not go into discussions on life expectancy, there have been many public debates, "but I want to get into one that you made reference and does not correspond to their data. Does not correspond to the data about that life expectancy will continue to grow exponentially over the next years. Their data shows that continues to increase, but that has slowed the increase in life expectancy because there is something called the natural boundary of biological life, which also influences life expectancy. In that sense, announcing only that factor seems biased.
Also, in my opinion is biased to say, and that was the big mistake of previous forecasts as the BBVA-I do not mind talking about authors, "that our Social Security system would be bankrupt today. Well, they forgot two details of immigration and the incorporation of women into the work. You have destroyed before immigration and gives the impression that by 2040 there will be immigration and that either the world will grow equally or would not result in expulsion of immigrants to developed countries-which is saying a lot. Moreover, you are removed from among the entry of women to work, a factor that seems to me important because it reduces the number of children per woman, and that's true, especially in a cyclical at times labor crisis more important, but increasing the number of women who are in the labor market. Therefore, at this point is to find a balance and not only use it in a biased manner to threaten to demographics.
But
demographics plus other factors need not adversely affect the coming years. It seems that, as mentioned before, the Government does not care about economic development or not valued in terms of its potential impact in terms of sustainability or social policies and in particular pensions, as if a minor issue. It seems also a minor issue of job quality, which in our country is very low, which has much to do with quotas and revenue system, and gives the impression that the Government does not care productivity of the economy, which is important, and the Government used in a misleading manner the percentage of GDP.
And ladies and gentlemen, is not the same today, 8 percent of GDP in the pension system that 14 per cent in 2040, which today can be equivalent to 250 to 100 in terms of production. Therefore, there is the same and in my opinion can not be used in a biased manner. But above all, what is different is that there is no demographic Dictat; not about demographics, it is democracy. That is, it is discussed here with you how much you plan to spend Spain to social policies. Gives the impression, because you want to stabilize at 8 or 9 percent, it said it a few days ago, now seems more-pension spending, we're going to spend the same. They say it aims to balance spending on the public pension system, but I must say that we are far from spent as the rest of our European Union, as well as in purchasing power of income, on pensions and social matters; we are very far in social spending over the European Union.
What is the commitment of the Government? It seems that the government's commitment is to consolidate or stall social spending in our country as a factor of competitiveness of the English economy, ie the factor of competitiveness of the English economy are all factors in the past: precarious employment, low output social, say that even a low incorporation of technology. All of this is the factor of competitiveness on the bet the government and so we have to stabilize or stall spending. We certainly do not share.
In that sense, in relation to the Pact of Toledo, and we gave the Government our disagreement with what we call the continuous pushing the Pact of Toledo who have lived and have been on the verge of destabilizing at parliamentary level. The Government announced and took a decision that, in our opinion, breaks the stability and break the trust of citizens in a good public pension system. First, the government broke with something as fundamental as the adjustment of pensions, which was practically in the DNA of the Toledo Pact. Certainly, the government announced a reform which drew a single element symbolic break with the retirement at age 65. It is a little thing, almost 100 years ago this question was instituted 65 years as retirement age is not a little thing, I think it was 1919.
The Government has set two goals and was the poses along with other measures that have been said here, which are all in the sense of a brutal hack to the public pension system in our opinion unacceptable. Had to be the unions, and we welcome the presence of unions in the negotiations and in negotiations, which deal with these measures the Government. I want to side with the unions, first, that instead of enforcement in this area has concert or social consensus, it seems a significant advance in my group seems a significant advance. Moreover, the unions have achieved something that was not clear, it may still be struggling to consolidate the system of the Toledo Pact, which had two main elements, one MP, but a social one, and some were determined charging by the way the Pact of Toledo, absolutely determined, those who said that Parliament had no nothing to say and that unions either, and that they had to say were the experts. However, trade unions, in my opinion, have made the consolidation of the Toledo Pact. Then
unions have modulated, have moderated the worst efforts of the Government. My group wants to mean it, he means that the Government intended the application of the 67 years of retirement age, with some exceptions in arduous jobs, and unions have opened the possibility, in this draft is well-retirement with a fork will mean that 50 percent will retire at 65 and 50 percent will retire at the 67, others have already talked about them and I will not delve into this matter, but we deem important. As it seems important to also address the proposed period for calculating the lifetime employment or automatic calculation period has also been produced by the modulation unions important in this matter and that computation period, all information about it affects those with lower trading career, that has not been touched although it was the Government's proposal that went to the European Communities. To us this issue seems remarkable.
Similarly we also highlight the contributions, though partial, which are made regarding what can be called maternity or paternity, I agree that it is not a unilateral issue that has to be an issue with room for fathers and mothers. On the other hand, also with regard to young people, the measures taken by the Government.
In any case, ladies and gentlemen, while valuing the contribution of trade unions, we believe it performs a hard cut and cut. We could say it runs a cut that anticipates future cuts in relation to the public pension system and if before, without negotiation, would be around 25 percent of the average pension, currently about 13 or 15 by percent of the average pension as a whole. It is therefore a significant cut.
We, in this sense, do not give up defending our proposals in Parliament, compared to defend the retirement age in relation to the calculation period, also in relation to the most affected, while knowing that Parliament did not exactly enjoy a very favorable balance of power. I am honest and know what is in these moments. So this is what we do, but we notice also that, with the strength we have, hardened in defense that things may get worse or do not return to the initial proposal to cut brutal claimed by the Government. In that sense the activity will my group.
I remain convinced, because they share the demographic catastrophe Dictate and much less than the markets, we have a very good public pension system, light years of private pension systems are falling off. I remain convinced that this reform forward at precisely the moment of crisis, a reform that a cut is not the best message of reassurance to the public. In fact, people disagree with this crop, have proven and shown on both the street and in the polls, which disagree with this cut, we find it to ensure the welfare state but causes them great discomfort.
That's the reality. We believe that we could have taken any action that has to do with parametric reforms, but any action that poses no cut, much less a cut traumatic. We were partisans, and we remain supporters of the 65 years of retirement age. In addition, we are convinced that the voluntary retirement scheme that had this country was an effective mechanism, in fact we were the ones who later retirement, ie closer to retirement theoretical retirement at 65 years of our environment in the Union Europe.
So what if it was effective, why take this action? Because we essentially sacrifice market, we sacrifice our public pension system and the success of our market system. Moreover, we believe it can and should avoid pension planning. That's a real problem, but to avoid pension planning can not pay for the sins, ie can not afford those with irregular careers derived from our economic model and work.
In our opinion, young women go wrong, but go a little better than the original proposal of this pension reform will be one of our concerns. Moreover, we will also engage the Government more than in 2006 compared to income. It seems that the Government is very concerned about the costs, but when it comes escapes income as an eel. For example, schemes should be unified when? The government sets a clear timetable for unification schemes, source separation, which could mean 5,000 million euros of revenue to the public pension system.
For example, the minister speaks on the issue of quotas and said that favorable economic conditions there are companies that have increased productivity by multiplying its share by 5, 6, 10. I think that should be considered in income in the public pension system.
miss something that peers have also been raised in the Commission, that is, how far is on the freezing of pensions and if we should go from now to the non-recognition of the revaluation of the public system pension or the use of sui generis approaches for the enhancement of the public pension system. It also had a fear that the negotiation.
Moreover, there are two issues that concern us, and ended with them. Which is about a widow's pension was an orientation of the Toledo Pact that the Government did practically plays, and the orientation of the Toledo Pact was clear: to maintain the subjective nature with regard to pensions for widows, and, Moreover, also the improvement of the widow's pension in certain very specific groups, which have a worse economic situation and family, and that has hardly been addressed.
Then you introduce a subject that, in addition, the unions say is not theirs, but yours. Furthermore, it is only one sentence and I'm not sure what you mean: when you speak of funds to stimulate complementary private pension funds. We know that we do not like. Cost us more than 2,000 million euros in linear terms, year to year, subsidies to private pension funds because ultimately its profitability is minimal and the only interest they have is the tax exemption are tax benefits. You raise this issue and I do not know what mood. We certainly are going to oppose this measure because it gives the impression that a very negative results: first, trim the public system and, moreover, wants to expand the private system. What is the model advocated by the Government? Is the model taxable? Does the Government defends a model for distribution, or is slowly pointing to the so-called multi-pillar model, which is a mandatory part is mandatory Moreover there is another part private individual? This question seems particularly relevant as a laconic paragraph by the Government. We believe that this is an issue that needs to be clarified in the amendment process.
conclude, ladies and gentlemen. As I said, we do not share this cut. We know that it is not a hack, a hard cut through the involvement of trade unions. We do believe that there is an alternative, there is an alternative to the policies regarding the economic crisis. For example, rather than external debt, have a better tax system, and you have left to join euro 30,000 million for its fiscal joys. We do not agree, and in that sense, we do not share the Government's proposals. Moreover, we also believe that there can be a conception in which not only keep the welfare state or 'Midwestern State' that this country, which is betting on this country's short-term, 'ad Calendas graeca' , have a welfare system that is comparable to the rest of the European Union, and that means social policies and a good public pension system with decent pensions than there are today.
for these reasons, the positions of my group, which-end-is not now nor depressed nor elated. If there is something very negative in English politics is the contrast between triumph and disaster. We do not bet on being politicians neurotic, we want to be political in this case we may disagree with the government. We try to change government policy in Congress and in the social pressure, but we will not mess up.
Madrid, February 10, 2011
0 comments:
Post a Comment