Last updated: June 2026
Pension reform has ceased to be a campaign promise and has become one of the central pillars of this year’s legislative agenda. The Government has undertaken, before the International Monetary Fund, to submit a comprehensive review of the pension system before December 2026, and this commitment frames the entire debate: we are facing the most far-reaching redesign of the Argentine retirement regime since the creation of the Integrated Argentine Pension System (SIPA) in 2008.
As a lawyer, my recommendation is not to read this process through the lens of political noise, but rather through a concrete and personal question: how do the rules under which you will retire actually change? The points that genuinely matter are set out below.
1. The end of the “moratoria” schemes and a system “proportional to contributions”
This lies at the heart of the reform. The traditional Argentine model allowed those who had not completed 30 years of contributions to regularise the missing periods through a pension moratoria (a contribution-amnesty scheme). With the expiry of the moratoria in 2025, that avenue has been effectively closed, and the official bill proposes to replace it with a benefit calculated in proportion to the contributions actually recorded.
The underlying rationale changes radically. Until now, the system operated on a solidarity-based premise: if you were short of years, you “purchased” them and gained access to the benefit. The new paradigm is purely contributory: you receive a benefit in proportion to what you have contributed. Those with informal, intermittent or interrupted working histories — a widespread reality in Argentina, which particularly affects women — will be the most adversely affected by this change.
For those who do not meet the required number of contribution years, the safety net is reduced to the Universal Pension for the Elderly (PUAM), currently equivalent to 80% of the minimum retirement benefit, with the distinction that the PUAM imposes higher age requirements and does not generate a survivor’s pension on the same terms as an ordinary retirement benefit.
2. The retirement age: the most sensitive debate
The bill under discussion contemplates a progressive and staggered increase in the retirement age, with the aim of unifying the retirement age at 70 by 2030. The gradual scheme that has circulated provides for a year-on-year increase for both men and women, starting from the current ages of 65 and 60 respectively.
It is important to be precise: this is a bill under discussion, not a rule currently in force. However, the direction is unequivocal and responds to a demographic argument that is difficult to dispute: the population is ageing, there are fewer and fewer active workers for each retiree, and the pay-as-you-go system requires either more contributors or more contribution years in order to remain sustainable. The political and social debate will turn on how the transition is carried out and on the position of those who already hold employment contracts providing for retirement at the current age.
3. Farewell to the special regimes
Another pillar of the reform is the harmonisation or elimination of more than 100 special retirement regimes which currently allow teachers, transport, health-care and construction workers, and public-sector employees, among many others, to retire earlier or on more favourable terms.
Here the legal terrain becomes particularly delicate. Many of these regimes reflect the arduous, hazardous or unhealthy nature of the work, and their outright elimination could give rise to claims of unconstitutionality on grounds of infringement of vested rights and unequal treatment. This will be one of the most foreseeable sources of litigation arising from the reform.
4. The change already in force: how your initial benefit is calculated
Beyond the bill still under debate, there is an amendment that is already operative: the change in the method used to update the historical wages employed to calculate the initial benefit. The Government has replaced the previous scheme with a model which, according to its stated rationale, seeks to represent “more faithfully” the worker’s actual wage history throughout their working life.
This point often goes unnoticed amid the headlines on retirement age, yet it has a direct and tangible impact on the first benefit received by each new retiree. It is advisable to review it with professional advice before initiating the application, since the moment at which the benefit is claimed may alter the outcome.
5. The retiree who continues working
A point of considerable practical relevance: the worker who has already retired but continues in an employment relationship. Under the scheme in force since early 2026, such a retiree contributes 11% to the National Employment Fund, without that contribution translating into any improvement in their monthly benefit. This situation gives rise to numerous enquiries and should be carefully planned before deciding whether or not to remain in active employment after obtaining the benefit.
Conclusion: planning before the rules change
Pension reform is not an abstract debate: it redefines how many years you will work, how much you will receive and under what conditions. In a transitional scenario, the worst mistake is inaction. Those close to meeting the current requirements should assess, with appropriate advice, whether it is advisable to bring forward their application; those still far from doing so should begin to devise their contribution strategy in line with the logic of the new system.
Every pension situation is unique. If you wish to assess your particular case in the light of these changes, we invite you to contact us for a personalised analysis.
This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any particular case. The pension reform is currently undergoing legislative debate and its terms may be amended.