two thousand separated public regimes(which are not subject to the new 2019 regulations). Said regimes are probably facing severe financial-actuarial disequilibria that make them unsustainable, despite the high fiscal subsidies and that they have regressive effects on income distribution, because their insured earn an income higher than in the RGPS; the same is true among fed­eral civil employees with lower salaries. 3. The Impact on the Financial-Actuarial Disequilibrium Due to all reasons explained above, the spending on public pensions in Brazil over GDP grew steadily from 4.6% in 1995 to 6.9% in 2006, 8.2% in 2016, and 11.1% in 2018 104 (ECLAC, 2018). The latter is the highest in the region, there­fore, it was ranked first in the group with“higher” pressure on pension finan ­cial sustainability; Argentina and Uruguay follow, both with 10.7% of GDP (Arenas, 2020). The annual growth rate of GDP averaged 1.4% in 2000-2019 (ECLAC, 2019b). Although we lack a similar rate of increase for the annual average pension spending, it is very likely that it far exceeded the GDP growth rate. It is virtually impossible to rank Brazil in the region regarding the size of the total contribution. In the RPPS the minimum contribution is 15% and the maximum contribution is 44%(it should be recalled that these are pro­gressive aliquots), so it would be the highest in the region, twice the total contribution of Uruguay, which has the oldest pension system(Table 5). It is impossible to determine the RGPS total contribution as we do not know exactly the amount of the employer’s contribution. In 2015-2019, the RGPS balance of revenue and expenses showed a defi ­cit that grew from 1.4% to 2.9% of GDP. Its main component was the rural regime, which represented 59% of the total deficit; in 2019, the rural deficit was R$217,600 million or US$40,296 million(SETP, 2020b). The latest RGPS financial projection for the next 41 years(2021-2060), considering the 2019 104 For several years, there has been a debate on whether the deficit is manipulated by not integrating all INSS revenue in the calculation and using funds for areas other than pensions. 175