Post by account_disabled on Mar 6, 2024 23:57:07 GMT -5
The Federal Government has treated the Public Servants' Complementary Pension Fund Funpresp as a political priority for the country. The basis of the proposal is the assertion that social security for public sector pensions would accumulate a deficit but the Government has not been creating budgetary tricks to justify losses in social security.
Take for example public pensions. Social security by nature must have a contributory nature which is why anything that does not provide pecuniary remuneration for the provision of a service or benefit cannot have a social security nature but this is not what happens in reality. There are several benefits paid by the Federal Government that do not have any social security nature but which are budgetarily allocated to the social security account.
One can cite as an example the Continuous Social Assistance BTC Number Data Benefit BPCLOAS and the benefits intended for special insured people commonly known as rural workers. In these two cases the citizen will be entitled to a benefit as long as certain requirements are met without having made any contribution to social security. This is clear proof that there are clearly welfare benefits that are being paid by the social security fund.
Public servants' supplementary pensions are being discussed without effective pluralization of the debate which could result in significant harm to civil servants. Little is said for example that Bill as it came from the Chamber of Deputies will result in the privatization of fund management by private banks. The political interest in the creation of Funpresp is also evident in the news about behindthescenes moves to appoint members of the administration and management councils.
In the administration of the funds there is mention of a parity composition but if the rate for civil servants may be higher than that paid by the Federal Government — limited to the percentage of — there should be a greater number of civil servants. There is also the risk of political interference in management as the composition of administrative councils will not be done democratically by voting or meritocracy.
Another criticism of the proposed model is the attempt to transfer a private logic to the public sector which has several peculiarities such as the fact that the employer pays lower employer charges. Furthermore public employees are not entitled to the FGTS and continue to contribute to social security as a retiree or pensioner.
There are also other data that contradict the Government's arguments about the pension deficit namely
The Union pays for retirement and pensions for federal military employees and those in the Federal District without any compensation. It is important to note that these segments represent around of the Union's spending on retirement and pensions which does not justify the pension imbalance attributed to the Union's civil servants.
Take for example public pensions. Social security by nature must have a contributory nature which is why anything that does not provide pecuniary remuneration for the provision of a service or benefit cannot have a social security nature but this is not what happens in reality. There are several benefits paid by the Federal Government that do not have any social security nature but which are budgetarily allocated to the social security account.
One can cite as an example the Continuous Social Assistance BTC Number Data Benefit BPCLOAS and the benefits intended for special insured people commonly known as rural workers. In these two cases the citizen will be entitled to a benefit as long as certain requirements are met without having made any contribution to social security. This is clear proof that there are clearly welfare benefits that are being paid by the social security fund.
Public servants' supplementary pensions are being discussed without effective pluralization of the debate which could result in significant harm to civil servants. Little is said for example that Bill as it came from the Chamber of Deputies will result in the privatization of fund management by private banks. The political interest in the creation of Funpresp is also evident in the news about behindthescenes moves to appoint members of the administration and management councils.
In the administration of the funds there is mention of a parity composition but if the rate for civil servants may be higher than that paid by the Federal Government — limited to the percentage of — there should be a greater number of civil servants. There is also the risk of political interference in management as the composition of administrative councils will not be done democratically by voting or meritocracy.
Another criticism of the proposed model is the attempt to transfer a private logic to the public sector which has several peculiarities such as the fact that the employer pays lower employer charges. Furthermore public employees are not entitled to the FGTS and continue to contribute to social security as a retiree or pensioner.
There are also other data that contradict the Government's arguments about the pension deficit namely
The Union pays for retirement and pensions for federal military employees and those in the Federal District without any compensation. It is important to note that these segments represent around of the Union's spending on retirement and pensions which does not justify the pension imbalance attributed to the Union's civil servants.