When you reduce taxes on companies, revenue doesn't come back, even with growth.
En un momento en que Chile busca reconstruirse tras devastadores incendios, el plan legislativo del gobierno enfrenta una resistencia profunda de economistas y organizaciones laborales que ven en sus medidas no solo riesgos fiscales, sino una redistribución silenciosa del poder en detrimento de los más vulnerables. El Fondo Monetario Internacional ya advirtió sobre la tendencia del país a sobreestimar sus ingresos tributarios, y sin embargo el plan propone reducir impuestos corporativos con la esperanza de que el crecimiento compense lo perdido —una apuesta que la historia económica rara vez valida. Lo que comenzó como una respuesta a la tragedia se ha convertido en un campo de batalla donde se disputan los principios fundamentales de equidad, responsabilidad fiscal y protección del trabajo.
- El FMI proyecta que la deuda fiscal de Chile podría aumentar casi seis puntos del PIB para 2030, una cifra que contrasta dramáticamente con estimaciones anteriores y que los expertos atribuyen directamente a las medidas del plan.
- La reducción del impuesto corporativo del 27% al 23% genera alarma entre economistas, quienes advierten que los ingresos perdidos no se recuperan con crecimiento, dejando al Estado con menos recursos para sostener la propia reconstrucción.
- Las exenciones de contribuciones para mayores de 65 años y los créditos tributarios por empleo carecen de filtros de ingreso o focalización, beneficiando desproporcionadamente a propietarios adinerados y empresas que habrían contratado de todas formas.
- Organizaciones laborales denuncian despidos estratégicos seguidos de recontrataciones bajo nuevas condiciones, una maniobra que desnuda cómo el momento de reconstrucción puede ser instrumentalizado para erosionar derechos laborales acumulados durante décadas.
El plan de reconstrucción del gobierno chileno —un paquete de más de cuarenta medidas destinadas a reedificar miles de viviendas destruidas por incendios y reactivar la economía— llega esta semana a votación en la Comisión de Hacienda de la Cámara de Diputados, pero lo hace bajo una lluvia de críticas de economistas que lo consideran fiscalmente temerario y socialmente regresivo.
Andrea Repetto, economista de la Universidad Católica, ha sido una de las voces más contundentes. Señala que el FMI, que en octubre proyectaba un aumento de menos de un punto del PIB en la deuda fiscal chilena hacia 2030, revisó esa cifra en abril a casi seis puntos, precisamente porque Chile ha sobreestimado sistemáticamente sus ingresos tributarios. Pese a esa advertencia explícita, el gobierno apuesta por reducir el impuesto a las empresas del 27% al 23%, confiando en que el crecimiento recuperará lo perdido. Para Repetto, esa lógica no tiene respaldo empírico.
Otros economistas apuntan a la falta de focalización de las medidas. La exención de contribuciones para mayores de 65 años beneficia más a quienes poseen propiedades de mayor valor, sin considerar el nivel de ingresos del beneficiario. Los créditos tributarios por contratación, por su parte, se distribuyen indiscriminadamente entre empresas, subsidiando empleos que probablemente habrían existido de todas formas.
Más allá de los números, emerge un patrón inquietante en el terreno: organizaciones de trabajadores reportan despidos masivos —incluso en el sector público— seguidos de recontrataciones bajo las nuevas condiciones del plan. La maniobra permite a los empleadores desmantelar derechos laborales que los trabajadores habían construido con años de servicio. Así, un plan concebido para reconstruir tras el desastre corre el riesgo de convertirse en una herramienta para deshacer conquistas laborales que tomaron décadas en consolidarse.
The Chilean government's reconstruction plan is heading to a vote in the Chamber of Deputies' Finance Commission this week, and it has triggered a sharp rebuke from the country's economic establishment. The proposal—a sweeping legislative package of more than forty measures—aims to rebuild over four thousand homes destroyed in recent fires while jump-starting the economy through tax incentives, job creation programs, and expedited environmental permits. But the plan has become a flashpoint for debate among economists and environmental advocates, who see it as fiscally reckless, regressive in its effects on lower-income Chileans, and dangerously lax on environmental safeguards.
Andrea Repetto, an economist and director of the School of Government at the Catholic University, has emerged as one of the plan's most forceful critics. In an interview with Tele13 Radio, she called the initiative "highly risky for public finances." Her concern runs deeper than any single measure. The International Monetary Fund, she noted, projected in October that Chile's fiscal debt would rise by less than one percentage point of GDP by 2030. But in its April update, the IMF's forecast shifted dramatically—now predicting an increase of nearly six percentage points of GDP. The reason, Repetto explained, is that Chile has consistently overestimated its tax revenues. The IMF even issued a special warning to the country about this pattern. Yet the government, she argued, is essentially ignoring that warning by cutting corporate tax rates from 27 percent to 23 percent while betting that economic growth will somehow recover the lost revenue. "When you reduce taxes on companies, we know the revenue doesn't come back, even with growth," Repetto said.
Other economists have focused on the plan's distributional consequences. Carlos Smith, an economist at the Center for Business and Society Research at the University of Development, flagged the proposed elimination of property tax payments for homeowners over sixty-five as regressive—meaning it disproportionately benefits wealthier Chileans who own more valuable properties. He called for income thresholds and property value caps to make the measure more equitable. Francisco Castañeda, an economist at Central University, raised a different kind of concern: the tax credit for companies that hire new workers or retain existing ones lacks sufficient targeting. The measure, he explained, will funnel money to firms across the board, potentially subsidizing jobs that would have existed anyway. The result is inefficient spending that doesn't necessarily create the employment gains the government claims.
Underlying these technical critiques is a darker pattern emerging on the ground. Labor organizations are reporting a wave of layoffs—even in the public sector—followed by rehiring under the new reconstruction terms. The strategy appears designed to strip away worker protections and benefits that employees have accumulated over years of service. In effect, employers are using the reconstruction moment to reset labor conditions, eroding rights that workers have already won. The plan, meant to rebuild after disaster, is instead becoming a vehicle for dismantling labor standards that took decades to establish.
Citas Notables
The government is essentially ignoring the IMF's warning by cutting corporate taxes while betting that growth will recover lost revenue.— Andrea Repetto, economist and director of the School of Government at the Catholic University
The employment tax credit is poorly targeted and may end up subsidizing jobs that would have been created anyway.— Francisco Castañeda, economist at Central University
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does the IMF's April revision matter so much to Repetto's argument?
Because it shows the government's own assumptions are breaking down. The IMF was already warning Chile about chronic revenue overestimation. Then the forecast got five times worse in a single month. That's not a minor adjustment—it's a signal that the fiscal situation is deteriorating faster than anyone expected.
But couldn't growth actually recover the lost tax revenue from lower corporate rates?
That's the government's bet, and Repetto says the evidence doesn't support it. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves. You can find studies showing that in almost every country that's tried it. The government is essentially asking Chileans to trust that this time will be different.
What makes the property tax exemption regressive?
A wealthy seventy-year-old with a million-dollar home gets the same benefit as a modest homeowner. There's no means-testing, no income limit. So the policy tilts toward people who already have more. That's the definition of regressive.
And the employment tax credit—what's the actual problem there?
It's too broad. If you give every company a credit for hiring, you're also paying companies that would have hired anyway. You're subsidizing jobs that don't need subsidizing. That's waste.
The labor situation sounds almost cynical.
It is. Employers lay people off, then rehire them under worse terms. The reconstruction becomes cover for stripping away protections workers fought for. It's legal, but it's using a crisis to undo labor standards.