The employees reject the 50/50 in Andorra’s contributions to the CASS and defend maintaining the 75/25

The candidates of the employees at board of directors of the CASS they agreed that the pension system needs more resources to guarantee its long-term sustainabilitybut they refused that the increase in contributions be distributed to equal parts between employers and workers. The approach partially coincides with what the employers defended on Tuesday, which they also admitted the need to raise contributionsbut differs from it in the distribution of effort. The representatives of the employees they ruled out the 50/50, that the employers proposed in the debate on Diari TV, and they go to defend than the business part continue to assume the bulk of the quote.

Anna Carrión and Montse Martínez they agreed to defend the current 75/25 scheme. Carrión she was particularly direct in her response to employers after suggesting that if effort is to be shared equally, profits and dividends should also be shared with workers. “If so, let’s make it 50-50; but if not, with the current system, 75-25Martínez, the only current member of the board of directors of the CASSsubscribed to this approach: “I agree with the 75-25 that Anna said, because we cannot assume what the 50-50 bosses are asking for.“

A la carte

Salustià Chato also rejected the distribution in equal parts and placed the debate on the weight supported by labor and capital. As he explained, a Andorra the burden falls disproportionately on wage earners. “What cannot be is to contribute for many years and for this to be synonymous with poverty“, he stated. The candidate argued that, before setting any increase, it is necessary to review the model and calculate how many resources are really needed. At this point, chat raised the scenario of raising the global quotation from the 22% current up to 30%. According to his calculations, this increase of eight points would generate “a surplus of 120 million” when, as he indicated, actuarial studies place at around 50 million annually the need to balance the system.

chat defended that the reform is not limit to raising quotesbut to incorporate a review of the portfolio of health services and financing of the general branch. The candidate proposed that it is necessary analyze which benefits must be linked to the individual contribution and which correspond to public health policies, and which, therefore, could be assumed through the State budget. Martinez also pointed in that direction and goes defend studying ways because part of the health expenditure is financed with public resources. The candidate recalled that options have been put on the table, such as allocating part of the tobacco taxes to cover health expenses, with the aim of freeing up resources from contributions for the retirement branch. “In Andorra, pensions are low. Everyone knows that”, he remarked, remembering that the CASS can prepare studies and proposals, but that the final decision corresponds to the General Council

Retirement at 65

The candidates they also mostly agreed a reject an upload widespread of theretirement age. Carrión defended that whoever wants to continue working beyond the 65 years can do it, but without imposing it on everyone. chat was conclusive: “We are totally opposed to touching the retirement age of 65, we think it is correct.” Martinez introduced nuances according to the profession and indicated that “a man who is at work for eight hours in the cold or in the sun, loading stone or cement, I don’t see itJoan Parra also defended voluntarism and recalled that there are workers who reach retirement after decades of physical work and that “you can’t work 40 years in a company and not even be able to rest“.

Regarding private pension plans, Chato and Martinez they agreed to discard its obligation. The Sipaag candidate refused to pass the solution to transfer the problem to private savings. “Private pension plans? no roundly”he stated, despite admitting that they can be fiscally incentivized for those who can afford it. Martinez he also considered that it is unfeasible to impose a new contribution on workers in the current economic context, taking into account the pressure that families already bear. Parra, for his part, insisted that many citizens do not have enough information about the system, “what people want is to have things clear: pensions, retirements“, he pointed out.