Portal de Cartagena

www.portaldecartagena.com

• Home
• Business
• Hotels
• Restaurants
• News
• Advertisement

We have all seen, heard or read the claims of the Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migration about "bringing the real retirement age closer to the legal age", that is, increasing the average age at which people have to retire, in most cases out of necessity, by tightening the requirements to access the anticipated one, apart from 'encouraging' active aging between 4 and 5% more.

Subsequently, in various interviews, he has distinguished between voluntary early retirement (JAV) and involuntary (JAI), pointing out the former as the only one that would be affected by this measure.The tightening of pension reductions is a new tightening of the screw for the most disadvantaged that would go on the side of applying the reduction per quarter in advance to the amount of the pension (remember, between 1,625% and 2% per quarter, ¡¡ up to 32% reduction of the pension forever!), instead of the regulatory base as up to now, which "would fundamentally affect the highest and maximum pensions, the most benefited with the current reduction system" but also it would, to a lesser extent but it would, to low or very low pensions.If the current situation is not corrected and not precisely in the sense that Escrivá wants, the unemployed aged 50 or over who can no longer find another job will be condemned to live with the subsidy of € 430 / month for too many years, from from 52 to 67 from 2027, 15 years, or to accept an Early Retirement out of necessity from the age of 63 with strong reductions of pension for life, between 26 and 32%.

And they want to reduce the pension even more for those who have hard jobs, for those who want to advance their retirement because it will be difficult for them to reach 67 years of age in conditions, and increase it for those who have jobs that allow them to extend their working careers without health problems beyond that age.There are trades in which early retirement without reduction should be established as the norm as it already exists for certain professions (police, firefighters, etc.), and others in which there are no problems due to delaying retirement, because it is not the same physical state in which You reach retirement at 67 depending on the work performed.

Here I always use the example of a university cleaner and a professor from the same university, to explain the great differences between some jobs and others, even within the same company.Here I always use the example of a university cleaner and a professor from the same university, to explain the great differences between some jobs and others, even within the same company.Here I always use the example of a university cleaner and a professor from the same university, to explain the great differences between some jobs and others, even within the same company.In any case, a measure like this is counterproductive, and even an ordinary retirement beyond 65 years if we take into account the enormous youth unemployment that plagues Spain.

And that the sellers of private pensions do not try to "bundle" us with that "it is not exactly like that": when there is a job gap there is a job opportunity for a young person.But there is another added problem: early retirement with 40 or more years of contributions.

The minister says that "he is open to study" the proposal made by the Toledo Pact Commission regarding reducing deductions for early retirement for people with long contribution careers.Pensioners' platforms have always demanded this measure of clear social justice: if the SS requires a minimum number of years of contributions for retirement with 100% pension, it is logical that over those years of contributions, 100% is achieved before of the "legal" age, and we see it clearly with a very simple mathematical formula: if with 38.5 years of contributions you can retire at 65 with 100% of the pension, applying 38.5 + 65 = 103.5 (with 40 years of contributions + 63.5 years of age = 103.5, the same "reference number", and so on: 41cot + 62.5 age = 103.5… simple, right?However, the minister's reply does not tell us anything new nor does he really commit himself, he misses the opportunity to indicate a line to follow, so we fear little or no involvement on his part.Hopefully we're wrong about everything.

We would be pleasantly surprised. 

Source: Yayoflautas Cartagena