Petro's pension looting: how he is breaking Colombians' future

Petro repeats the history of failure by pushing a reform that not only eliminates the freedom of choice in pension matters, but also turns workers' savings into a political loot. What he presents as social justice is, in reality, a blatant act of populism that repeats Argentina's mistake in 2008, when private pension funds were nationalized with false promises that only brought misery to retirees.

Far from modernizing the system, Petro's government has chosen to blow up the individual capitalization regime to impose a statist, centralized, and politically manipulated model. Thus, the State becomes the great administrator of the resources of millions of Colombians, not to guarantee their dignified retirement, but to finance clientelist programs and consolidate power at the expense of others' efforts.

The plan: confiscate savings and eliminate freedom

The plan: confiscate savings and eliminate freedom is the true objective behind Petro's pension reform. Forcing workers to contribute to Colpensiones up to 2.3 minimum wages completely destroys the principle of individual choice. Under this scheme, the State becomes the sole administrator of the funds, nullifying the possibility for each Colombian to build their own retirement. It is a political maneuver to control others' resources for clientelist purposes.

This imposition violates each citizen's right to decide on their financial future. The most serious issue is that this centralization of contributions not only jeopardizes the system's sustainability but also creates an absolute dependency on the State. When governments change and resources run out, the affected will not be the politicians, but the millions of Colombians who trusted in a now hijacked system.

An institutionalized robbery

An institutionalized robbery is what this reform truly represents. It is not about solidarity; it is about turning workers' contributions into available money to finance populist basic incomes. Petro is institutionalizing the plunder: he appropriates private funds to distribute them as electoral alms, sacrificing the system's sustainability and deceiving Colombians with a discourse of equity.

This new system punishes those who work, those who save, those who responsibly plan their future. The logic of this reform is perverse: if you save, they take it away; if you don't save, the State rewards you. This perversion destroys the incentives of effort and merit, the essential basis of a healthy economy. Moreover, it leaves the door open to a political and discretionary use of resources, as has already happened in other countries where populism ravaged pension funds.

Argentina, the mirror Petro decided to ignore

Argentina, the mirror Petro decided to ignore clearly shows the outcome of this type of reforms. In 2008, Kirchnerism destroyed the AFJP with promises of welfare that never arrived. Petro follows the same path, ignoring the lessons of the past out of mere ideological fanaticism.

The result in Argentina was devastating: the funds were used to cover deficits, pay social plans, and finance electoral campaigns. Nothing remained of the savings that millions of Argentines accumulated over the years. That is the recipe Petro wants to import to Colombia, deliberately ignoring the Argentine failure and condemning a new generation to the same fate.

Petro and his crusade against savings

Petro and his crusade against savings reflect the true spirit of this reform: to destroy the individual capitalization system and centralize economic power in the hands of the State. The message is clear: don't work, don't save, the government will support you... until the model collapses. It is a generational scam disguised as social policy.

The president not only attacks individual savings but also sends a destructive message to the country's productive fabric. Instead of rewarding effort, Petro imposes a system that punishes those who produce and rewards those who depend on the State. This ideological crusade against merit and responsibility is not only economically unfeasible but also morally corrosive. A country that destroys savings destroys its future.

In conclusion, Petro repeats the history of failure by promoting a reform that undermines the foundations of savings, eliminates individual responsibility, and endangers the future of millions of Colombians. It is a plunder disguised as solidarity that, like in Argentina, will only bring poverty, dependency, and crisis. Colombia is still in time to stop this populist madness. What is at stake is not just a pension: it is the freedom to decide how to live and how to age.