The right and the pensions elephant: promises without numbers

The right promises to pay pensions without saying how

There is a scene that repeats itself every time an election cycle approaches: a leader promises, with a grave expression, that pensions are guaranteed, that they are non-negotiable, that they will rise with inflation. And behind the banner, no figures at all. The starting point of the analysis that has been circulating these days is uncomfortable: the system is no longer sustained by contributions alone. That line was crossed some time ago — when contributions fell short, money was moved from other taxes and the extra Christmas payment was balanced out. Now, according to this analysis, it is sustained by debt.

A debt whose interest is growing and which is already eating up one of the most significant budget lines. On that basis, the diagnosis being put forward is that the right faces a dilemma with no way out: if it promises everything will stay the same and then governs, it will have to break that promise; if it says so before the elections, it probably will not govern at all. And the controversial conclusion is that perhaps it is better for the left — the side that keeps promising to preserve the system — to be the one that signs off on the adjustment.

What rising taxes are paying for

Tax revenue is at record highs, with a hint of a property bubble and European funds in the equation. And yet public services are perceived as worse. The debate about where the money goes has an uncomfortable answer according to this line of thinking: it goes to paying people. Civil servants, political appointees, benefit recipients and, above all, pensioners. That is the state's biggest expense, by far.

Hence the contradiction being pointed out: for years the discourse has been about fiscal confiscation and the need to cut taxes, at the very least by adjusting income tax brackets for inflation. Both things — cutting taxes and sustaining the state's biggest expense — do not fit in the same arithmetic. Someone will have to choose.

The demographic argument and immigration

It has been argued that the arrival of foreign population would help guarantee pensions. The analysis made here is that, even with that inflow, the system is more broken than ever. It is a debate with social and economic ramifications that should be addressed with data rather than slogans: demographics put pressure on the coffers, but the scale of the imbalance cannot be solved with new contributors alone.

The political calculation: who bears the cost

The central thesis is strategic. If the right comes to power promising continuity, it will be the last time it does so: either it cuts pensions, or it raises taxes. If, on the contrary, it flags the problem before the elections, it will probably never reach power. And that scenario, far from being bad for the one raising it, is presented as preferable: let the left sign the adjustment, because if the right signs it, the streets will burn more fiercely and the political cycle will turn before 2030.

Some respond to this with the most elementary electoral logic: saying during a campaign that pensions will be cut is handing an absolute majority to the opponent. And others point out that the right has governed many times before, though not under this level of tax pressure and debt.

The criticism that goes beyond pensions

Another line of attack appears in the conversation: the calibre of the personnel. It is claimed that some of the names who would occupy ministries and senior positions do not have the minimum level to govern even their own region. The response to that is that the current ones do not either: it is known and it has been seen. And then the radical, half-joking solution emerges: preferring an AI to make technical decisions rather than decisions contaminated by the politics of the day.

The underlying issue is the public waste that, according to this line of thinking, surrounds the political class and its ecosystem. The other side is also called out: buying stakes in strategic companies, appointing allies to boards and agencies, the management of Correos or Indra. Each camp has its own list of pork-barrel outfits.

---

In the end, the figure that unsettles is not a number: it is that nobody in the conversation disputes that the adjustment is coming. The only debate is who signs it, when, and at what electoral cost. And in a country where pensions are the state's biggest expense, that is the only question that truly matters.