The end of public social security.

During my six terms as a federal deputy, the debate on social security was a constant. I participated in special committees and reported on proposals that, to a greater or lesser degree, promoted changes in the system. I always made clear my position in defense of the public system and of rules that would not be a setback for women and for all workers, both urban and rural, who have in public social security the only prospect of income at the end of their working lives.

I fought against the social security factor and defended the adoption of the 85/95 formula. More recently, I opposed the reform proposed by Temer, which has been stalled in the Chamber of Deputies since its approval by the special committee in mid-2017. The original text was significantly modified and minimized the harm to rural workers, but overall, it is still a proposal that makes access to social security benefits more difficult.

Now, faced with the prospect of a new proposal from a far-right government insensitive to social issues, I reiterate my warning about the risks of adopting a capitalization system. Up to this point, several changes have been made, but none of them have broken the concept of public social security, the pay-as-you-go model, and its solidarity-based nature—a pact between generations. What is to come will dismantle all of that to implement the logic of insurance. It will be the end of public social security.

In a capitalization system, there is no fixed-income contract. It's a defined contribution scheme. Results are not guaranteed. For the market, there are only gains, in the administration of the funds and because it is exempt from liability in case of fluctuations that imply losses in income. For the government, there is no immediate risk, and this generates positive expectations since problems will only begin to appear when the first insured individuals start to enjoy the benefit, decades from now. For the employer, it's the long-awaited end of employer contributions. For the insured, it's a future of uncertainty. They cease to have a benefit guaranteed by the State and instead have only an expectation, without a defined value. The capitalization scheme does not distribute income; on the contrary, only those with greater capitalization capacity will have a higher benefit. And these will be a minority.

The Chilean case confirms our concerns. The value of Chilean pensions is the target of criticism and protests. According to data released in 2015 by the Sol Foundation, 90,9% received less than 149.435 pesos (approximately R$ 851,78 in 2018). The minimum wage in Chile, in turn, is around 260 pesos (approximately R$ 1.500,00 in 2018). We will return to pensions below the minimum wage, as during the dictatorship. Who doesn't remember the CAPEMI case, the Military Pension Fund? It had 2 million members – and faced difficulties in the mid-eighties and finally went bankrupt in 2008 after a disastrous attempt to invest in the Tucuruí hydroelectric plant in Pará. The losses fell on the members.

Another problem lies in risk benefits. If a worker becomes ill or suffers an accident, they are unable to accumulate enough savings for retirement. For women, it's even worse. Lower wages, lower pensions. Less time spent working and accumulating savings, lower benefits. They will be doubly penalized.

The role of the State is to guarantee public policies capable of serving the population. Public social security is an effective policy in many ways: in the economy of municipalities, in income generation, and in promoting citizenship. It is the largest income distribution program in Brazil. Handing this policy over to the market is to break the first pillar of the social security system. And this breakdown will be followed by the dismantling of the Unified Health System and the Unified Social Assistance System. Is this what we want? Is this the promised "modernity"? Far from it, it is to distance a large contingent of workers from access to retirement. It is to hand over a function of the State to the market. We will fight against this and be tireless in raising awareness in society about the enormous risks resulting from this change.