I have been interested in the subject of social security since 1987, when, having joined the confederal secretariat of the CGIL, I was assigned responsibility for social policies. I came from an industrial experience; previously – after a long period at Fiom and over a decade spent in the direction of an important regional structure such as Emilia Romagna – I had played the role of secretary of chemists. In that capacity, I had negotiated with Montedison, together with the other trade organizations of CISL and UIL, the establishment of the first new generation funded pension fund.
Today everyone welcomes supplementary pensions, the so-called company welfare; At the time, that agreement was considered almost a betrayal, a breach of the sacrosanct principle of compulsory social security kept in the shrine of the INPS. And yet - greatness of the CGIL of those times - a few months later I became the fox guarding the chicken coop. In reality I soon realized that the sector was so complicated to manage, that usually the secretaries didn't even try and left it to some experts of the apparatus who had done that job all their life and who constituted a historical memory and a baggage of unsurpassed skills. The same thing happened in both government and opposition parties (I remember Nino Cristofori for the DC and Adriana Lodi for the PCI).
The two powerful officials to whom the trade unions had in practice delegated the management of the sector were Bruno Bertona of the CISL and Carlo Bellina of the CGIL (who later became my loyal and honest collaborator, despite the diversity of positions). I was so upset by that small trial that I suffered that I decided to put myself in a position to manage the sector (which included all welfare policies, including health care, where it was considered politically incorrect - indeed heretical - to criticize the institution of National Health Service in 1978, defined by Enrico Berlinguer, "a piece of socialism"). Elected in July, I spent the whole summer studying. I remember jotting everything down in a notebook (which I still keep) to keep in mind concepts whose existence I didn't know until a few weeks before. Obviously it took me years, later, to delve into the subject, but I was able to get ideas already on my return in September.
Pensions, then, have been an essential component of my life. I have worked continuously for thirty years (I took an interest in labor policies again after the death of Marco Biagi) in various roles (trade union, administrative, political, study) until I became passionate about the subject, I think, broadly understanding I anticipate the importance that the theme would acquire in public and private life and in political debate. Pensions have been the lifeline that has allowed me to come back to the surface after every defeat (and there have been many). I pass with some exaggeration to be one of the leading experts on the subject, I have written thousands of articles and essays and at least a dozen books. In all this time I am proud of having fought – always defeated – against a bitter enemy to whom I attribute the main responsibility for the crisis of the Italian pension system: seniority retirement or the institution that allows retirement in advance of old age.
I've talked about the subject so many times that I intend to avoid repeating myself to my 25 readers. I limit myself to repeating the considerations made in this regard by Fabrizio and Stefano Patriarca in an essay that describes in a concise and clear way what failures early retirement has produced. In Italy you work for fewer years, you pay more pensions, for a life expectancy among the highest in the world (the demographic aspects are completely absent in the ramshackle debate opened in recent years on the subject of pensions). But we have not yet reached the end of the story. Between 1998 and 2014, more than 7 million old-age and seniority pensions were paid in Italy. Of these, 3,5 million are old age for a total of 33 billion, with an average pension amount of 750 euros per month and an average age of access to treatment of 63 years.
On the other hand, there were 3,6 million old-age pensions paid out in the same period, with a cumulative expenditure amount of 76 billion, an average pension of 1.616 euros per month and an access age of 58 years . Thus, as many as 3,6 million people with an average age of 58 received medium-high level pensions, equal to more than double those paid, on average five years later, to those who retired for old age. Even more sensational is another fact contained in the essay. In 2001 the highest expenditure item concerned old-age pensions (61,7 billion) against 58,2 billion for old-age benefits; in the following decade the expenditure structure changed profoundly: that of old-age pensions increased by 104%, while expenditure for old age by 23%. In the years of the new century there was an increase in spending of around 89 billion, of which 60 billion attributable to higher charges for old-age allowances, while the contribution to the
growth due to old age (the residual part is attributed to the other types).
The incidence of pension expenditure for individuals aged between 55 and 64 is slightly less than 4% of GDP in Italy (compared to 2,2% of the European average). The impact of seniority retirement on the public debt in the 2000s can be estimated at around 30 points of higher debt than GDP in 2012. In cauda venenum, the Patriarchs also deny the accommodating theories according to which early retirement would serve the categories of workers with early access to the labor market. In fact, between 2008 and 2012, of the 988 new seniority pensioners, only 44% were below 1.500 euros per month for a total expenditure of 6,2 billion, equal to 26% of the total. In this audience, private employees represented 18% with expenditure equal to 10% of the total. The majority of old-age pensions (55%) received payments higher than 1,5 thousand euros per month for an amount equal to 75% of the total.
Even making use of more recent data, the substance does not change: in the stock, public, private and autonomous, there are already 5,8 million - for an annual burden of more than 90 billion - of workers (the masculine is used in a specific sense because it is men who avail themselves of it) belonging to the baby boom generations, able to arrive – due to their position on the labor market – at the appointment with retirement in possession of a history of contributions corresponding to the required requisites, but at an age around 60 years old and facing a life expectancy destined to lengthen further. Even the reform that bears the name of Elsa Fornero was unable to "exceed" old-age pensions: it limited itself to redefining them "anticipated old-age pensions", to apply to the required contribution requirement (this was the most effective measure) the automatic increase resulting from the dynamics of life expectancy (his predecessors had limited themselves to applying it only to old age) and inserted a minimum age threshold - 62 years - to be able to access the treatment without incurring modest economic penalties.
The latter provision was then first suspended and then abolished. It should also not be forgotten that the eight pro-exempt safeguards have put 200 early pensions back into circulation once fully operational, moreover able to make use of the looser requirements prior to the 2011 reform. In the 4th legislature, the Gentiloni government prepared a package of "collateral" measures (Ape social and business, Rita, protection of the so-called early retirement) capable of meeting - with discreet generosity - the cases and situations in which there was actually a need for early retirement, while at the same time allowing the possibility of a voluntary exodus (Ape voluntary) facilitated by a loan repayable in twenty-year installments. The cataclysm of XNUMX March which brought the yellow-green coalition not only to government but to power placed the "overcoming" (indeed even more truculent nouns) of the Fornero reform on the agenda.
In the proposals contained in the government contract, seniority is enhanced through the possibility of taking advantage of two outgoings: 100 as the sum of the registered age and the contribution payments (there was a long discussion of inserting a minimum age which now seems settled at 62 years) or alternatively quota 41 years (or 41,5) as length of service, regardless of age. In this hypothesis, there has also been talk of a possible ceiling of 2-3 years for the figurative contribution, without realizing that in this way the length of service required of workers who have had periods of CIG and female workers in the course of their working lives maternity leave would have substantially approached the measure required by the Fornero reform (in 2019, 43 years and 10 months for men and one year less for women).
The numbers and costs of this operation - added to those of the so-called "grillino"-style citizenship pension - are known and reaffirmed several times a day by the news and newspaper headlines (although it would be more prudent to wait for the drafting of the relative regulations). . If, on the other hand, we wanted to get an idea of how the so-called gold pensions (another cornerstone of yellow-green social policy) will be (mis)treated, we were provided - during the month of August - with an authoritative outline through the presentation of a bill in the Chamber (AC 1071) as the first signature of the two group leaders of the majority (D'Uva for the M5S and Molinari for the League). And here fate had a surprise in store for me: my yellow-green enemies offered me on a silver platter the heads of old-age pensioners and, in general, of those who have retired over time (both early and old age) at an old/young age. At this point – as was said in XNUMXth century novels – it is necessary to take a step back and go back to what was written in the government contract regarding “golden pensions”.
“For greater social equity, we also believe it is necessary to intervene aimed at cutting the so-called golden pensions (above 5.000,00 euros net per month - which later became 4,5 thousand, ed.) not justified by the contributions paid''. The debate - also in relation to what has been established for the annuities of former deputies - therefore focused on a possible recalculation according to criteria connected to the contributions paid. On television talk shows, the acrobats of the new power repeatedly repeated that anyone who could prove adequate social security coverage had nothing to fear. Instead, none of this. Limited to the quotas paid under the salary regime, the so-called "golden pensions" (above 90 thousand gross euros per year as the total accumulation of all the checks received: an amount which then becomes equal to 4,5 thousand billion net monthly), both those in place, and those disbursed from 1 January 2019, will be penalized in relation to the age at which the person retired, compared with that, in force at the time of retirement, of the old age. The new amount will correspond to the ratio between the transformation coefficients envisaged for the two chronological ages. Of the vaunted recalculation according to the contributions paid, there is no longer a trace.
Indeed, for treatments with effect prior to 1 January 2019, the remuneration shares are reduced to the result of the ratio between the transformation coefficient in force at the time of retirement relating to the age of the policyholder on the same date and the corresponding transformation coefficient at the age shown in table A attached to the law for each year of commencement of the pension. The fact is that the age shown in the aforementioned table (copied verbatim from a 2015 INPS document) indicates requirements that are different from those in force at the time of retirement. In essence, a retirement age reform is being carried out now by then. It should be noted that the virtuous age indicated in the table starts from 63 years and 7 months in 1974 and reaches 67 on 1 January 2019. This is when a personal requirement was introduced for the old-age pension (equal to 52 years) in addition to the contributory one only starting from 1996 and that the old-age pension accrued until 1992 at 60 years for men and 55 for women.
But there is not only this aspect. The D'Uva-Molinari pdl also sends a clear warning to sailors who are waiting to take revenge on Elsa Fornero: “we give you a quota of 100 with a minimum age of 62; but if you are entitled to a salary pension exceeding 90 thousand euros gross, be careful. Because if you're not 67, we'll cut it off for you." Then there are some obvious technical errors. We speak indifferently of 90 thousand gross euros per year and 4,5 thousand euros net per month: as if the correspondence between the two amounts were undisputed and if this correspondence remained unchanged over time regardless of the possible changes in the tax and social security system and whatever else determines the difference between the gross and the net. But it's not over. The writer expresses justified doubts about the fact that the threshold of 90 euros gross per year or 4,5 euros net per month also applies to current treatments. At least the rule is formulated in such a way as to legitimize these doubts. In essence, for the past, the cut risks being applied to all old-age and seniority benefits paid at an age lower than the virtual old-age age arbitrarily indicated in table A, regardless of their amount. Let's see why with the text of paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 1.
2. The recalculation referred to in paragraph 1 also applies to direct pension benefits with effect prior to 1 January 2019. In such cases, the remuneration portions are reduced to the resultant of the ratio between the transformation coefficient in effect at the time of the relative retirement to the age of the insured on the same date and the transformation coefficient corresponding to the age shown in table A attached to this law for each year of commencement of the pension. In the event that the age at the start of treatment is greater than 65 years, the transformation coefficient relating to this age must be used.
3. For pensions starting before 1 January 1996, the retirement date is
apply the transformation coefficients in force up to the date of (etc.).
It is true that the title of the article (Provisions to promote the fairness of the social security system through the recalculation of contributions of pension payments exceeding 4.500 euros per month) explicitly refers to payments exceeding 4,5 thousand euros, but this is sufficient to cover the provisions of the whole article? Unlike what happens in paragraph 1, in paragraphs 2 and 3 this amount is no longer referred to (does the term "redetermination" also allow the pension threshold to be included or is it limited to the ratio between the coefficients as stated below?). Admitted and not granted that this is the case, can one speak of the euro in years in which this currency did not exist without indicating any form of equivalence with the lira? We can do the calculation ourselves, it will be said on the basis of the lira/euro exchange rate. Certainly going back in time, however, the equivalence between 90 thousand euros gross and 4,5 thousand euros net becomes more and more complicated, due to the changes made on the fiscal level.
Then there is the problem of the constant value of the currency: a pension of 8 million (net) per month in the 70s and 80s was far greater than today's 4,5 thousand euros. Moreover, today's 4,5 thousand euros in 10 years will be equal to half of the current value. Should we hang ourselves on a fake tree (like the Christmas one) for the past and on Bertoldo's little plant for the future? Isn't it appropriate to provide for equivalence and revaluation mechanisms? Furthermore, are the 4,5 thousand euros (admitted and not granted that the figure also applies to the past) considered at the time of liquidation or at today's value gross of the revaluations that have occurred in the meantime? To conclude: there was a period in which pensions under the Ago schemes could not exceed, gross, the 12 million a year first and then the 24 million lire. Hypothesizing that there could be treatments equal to 180 million lire a year and regulating its recalculation now and then means carrying out a vain and useless exercise.
The redetermination would then affect people who were forced to retire (think of civil servants retired at the discretion of the administrations upon completing 40 years of service) or people for whom early retirement was a form of protection (early retirements from redundancies or production crisis, those protected by the former Fornero, workers subjected to asbestos processing or strenuous tasks). These would be subjected to the cut because the law for now only saves disability, reversibility and treatment for victims of duty and terrorism. Finally, Article 2 - the height of the paradox - would question the criteria used in defining the recalculation of the annuities of former deputies - Roberto Fico's masterpiece - as they are based not on the retirement age but on a virtual amount of contributions. What a story! God save Italy. Not the Italians, who went looking for these misfortunes last March 4th. Did they want the bicycle? Go on pedalling.
