Previdências dos trabalhadores dos setores público e privado e desigualdade no Brasil

Abstract

O estudo examina um conjunto particular de determinantes institucionais da desigualdade, as políticas previdenciárias. Para isso, avalia a hipótese de que a diferenciação de regras quanto ao limite máximo para o valor dos benefícios nos Regimes Próprios de Previdência dos trabalhadores do setor público e o Regime Geral do setor privado responde por uma parte significativa da regressividade da previdência como um todo e contribui desproporcionalmente para a desigualdade no Brasil. A metodologia usada decompõe os fatores do coeficiente de Gini da distribuição de rendimentos familiares per capita observada na POF 2008/09. Conclui que o Estado reproduz desigualdades preexistentes por meio de direitos previdenciários diferenciados para trabalhadores dos setores público e privado. A diferenciação de regras faz com que a previdência de valores mais altos, recebida por menos de 1% da população, contribua com 4% da desigualdade total.

Disability retirement among university public servants: epidemiological profile and causes

“…With regard to income there is no single pension scheme, but rather the combination of a series of schemes and subschemes with their own characteristics and varying impacts on the income of retirees; thus, public servants who are retired due to disability generally have lower incomes than those found in the present study (24) . The salary difference can be explained by the population of public servants with career plans and positions established that contribute to increase the salary income by means of additional courses.…”

A history of inequality: Top incomes in Brazil, 1926–2015

“…Brazil's persistent fiscal woes and high tax burden show there was more accommodation than outright redistribution from the top. Corporatism remains embedded in the Brazilian State, and many affluent groups still receive preferential treatment: civil servants earn a considerable wage premium and benefit from generous pension rules (Medeiros and Souza 2014;; big business still enjoys a plethora of tax breaks and access to subsidised credit (Mendes 2015); regulatory capture and cronyism are frequent (Lazzarini 2011;Mendes 2015); land reform efforts remain stillborn (Hoffmann and Ney 2010); welfare transfers are not as redistributive as one might expect (Medeiros and Souza 2013;; and the expansion of the welfare State itself was financed via indirect taxation, which corresponds to the bulk of the tax revenue, as opposed to what happens in most rich countries (Abreu and Werneck 2008;Silveira 2008). The income tax system itself is riddled with exemptions and loopholes that benefit the rich (Castro 2014;Gobetti and Orair 2016) and falls far short of its redistributive potential (Carvalho Jr 2010;Gobetti and Orair 2016;Silveira 2008;Soares, Silveira, Santos, Vaz, and Souza 2010).…”

Quem perde e quem ganha com a PEC 287/2016? Uma análise pela variação da riqueza atuarial do segurado urbano brasileiro do Regime Geral de Previdência Social

“…A group of studies evaluates the progressivity (reduction of inequalities) or regressivity in the income distribution by the Gini Index decomposition. They usually work based on data from the National Household Sample Survey (PNAD), the Continuous PNAD (Caetano et al, 2016;Medeiros & Souza, 2014;Rangel & Saboia, 2015), or the Family Development Index, which, according to Reis, Silveira, Braga and Costa (2015), minimizes deficiencies in the Human Development Index.…”