When the Deputy Prime Ministers Matteo Salvini and Luigi Di Maio do not cause great trouble for the country with propaganda and irresponsible statements, who support President Giuseppe Conte at Palazzo Chigi, they claim to impersonate the government of change, but in practice they practice that activity that donkey students have been carrying out since the world began: they copy the work of others. The youngest of the deputy premiers, Di Maio, - in his "first time": the so-called dignity decree - was discovered after having copied - word for word - rules written in the Charter of Rights promoted by the CGIL regarding the counter-reform of the contract fixed-term contracts and – even in some parts – by the labor market reform of archenemy Elsa Fornero (law n.92/2012).
Even the bonus for permanent hires - inserted in the text to compensate, with some hirings or incentivized transformations, the expected net loss of jobs - it was nothing more than the refinancing of a provision launched by the Gentiloni government. Sometimes, however, it happens that listless and unprepared students even make a mistake in copying (a bit like Alessandro Di Battista did when he swapped the audience for which to hold a rally) and end up getting into trouble. This is what happened to the group leaders in the Chamber of the M5S (D'Uva) and of the Lega (Molinari) who presented a bill (AC 1071) to penalize the so-called gold pensions (the definition refers to those equal to or greater than 80 thousand euros gross, which then turn out to be 4-5 thousand euros per month net).
In case of ownership of several pensions, the recalculation would have been applied to the salary shares of the total gross pension income if equal to or greater than the aforementioned amount). But from whom had ''our heroes'' copied this time? Even from public enemy n.1 (at least for Matteo Salvini) Tito Boeri, contested president of INPS. The two naive deputies were denied by their ringleaders and the project was frozen (let alone in the middle of summer). Let us briefly recall what Article 1 of the yellow-blue project envisaged: starting from 1 January 2019, pension benefits equal to or greater than the amount indicated and paid out by all compulsory and public managements (it would seem only the privatized Funds), would have been recalculated by reducing the remuneration quotas to the result of the ratio between the transformation coefficient relating to the age of the insured at the time of retirement - as emerged from table A attached to Law 335/1995 (the Dini law) and subsequent amendments and additions -, and the transformation factor corresponding to the age foreseen for old-age retirement.
Basically, there was no recalculation of a contributory nature - contrary to what has been announced for months - but only an economic penalty in relation to the early retirement age. How was the cut made? The transformation coefficient was taken (i.e. the multiplier of the contribution amount compared, over time, to life expectancy) corresponding to the age at which the subject went or would go into retirement, it was compared with that relating to the legal old age foreseen in that period: a percentage emerged which determined the amount of the new amount (limitedly, we recall, to the remuneration part of the services equal to or greater than 80 thousand euros gross per year).
Basically, if the age at the time of retirement were equal to that in force for old age, the ratio would be equal to 1 and therefore the treatment would remain unchanged; if it were, for example, 0,70 this would mean that the retributive portions of the pension would be reduced to 70%. This was music we had already heard played in very similar tonality. Just browse the document ''not for cash but for equity'' presented by INPS in 2015. The package even proposed a real bill which, in article 12, paragraph 1, provided for a similar procedure, with some differences. One of these related to the quality of the targeted pensions.
In the technical report, the operation was explained as follows: ''For those with high pension incomes (above 5.000 gross euros per month), by virtue of much more advantageous treatments than those enjoyed by tomorrow's pensioners, a fair contribution from an actuarial point of view is requested, recalculating their pensions on the basis of the ratio between the transformation coefficients in force for the contributory system (recalculated backwards for each starting year) for their age at the starting date of the pension and those at the normal retirement age obtained by applying to the automatic adjustments to life expectancy envisaged by current legislation go back over the years. Retirees with medium-high amounts (between 3500 and 5000 euros per month) and actuarial not in line with the contributions paid, are asked for a more deferred contribution over time, limiting themselves to keeping constant in nominal terms (crystallizing the amounts) their pensions until they reach the pension recalculated as above, with no nominal reductions in the amounts of their pensions”.
It takes little to understand that, despite the different perimeter of the audience involved, the mechanism was the same. Since even the same words were used. And that it was, therefore, Tito Boeri who (indirectly?) gave the line (as for the rest happened with regard to the annuities of former parliamentarians). The two group leaders also addressed the issue of treatments provided before 2019 or those in force. The same criterion also applied to these services which are recalculated by reducing the wage quotas to the resultant of the ratio between the two coefficients (except for producing - as we have already mentioned - a spurious table of uncertain origin, attached to the bill, as a reference).
And neither did the treatments (always equal to or greater than the canonical amount of 80 thousand euros gross) provided before 1996. In other words, they would have gone to put their hands in the pockets of elderly gentlemen and ladies now over eighty, in the name of questionable principles of fairness. But the story didn't end there. By comparing the D'Uva-Molinari proposal with what was contained in the government contract, the symptoms of a serious legislative schizophrenia emerged. First of all, the safeguards recognized to high pensions in relation to the coverage of contribution payments disappeared; on the contrary, the trick used by the Speaker of the Chamber Roberto Fico in the resolution on annuities was completely abandoned.
In the group leaders' project, the virtual attempt to reconstruct non-existent contribution amounts completely disappeared, given that the marpioni had realized that they did not have the statistical data to outline them with a minimum of credibility. But where was the most acute phase of schizophrenia? With this provision the intention was to penalize those who had (or would have) had the opportunity to retire before having accrued the ordinary personal data requirements, while with the tampering proposals of the 2011 reform (quota 100 or quota 41) would be reactivated, at the great, the early retirement mechanism. Basically, those defined golden pensions paid in the past would be proposed again, in part, also in the future, with facilitated criteria.
The hen of the golden eggs would continue to do so. Basically, a person who could count on a salary equal to or greater than 80 thousand gross euros would have been said: "We facilitate early exit from the labor market and access to retirement before you have accrued the normal fees of old age. Remember, however, that if you use this possibility (and it is right that you are recognized because anyone, after 41 years of work, has the right to retire regardless of age!) we will tamper with the salary portion of your check'' . Unless the person had resigned himself to waiting for the age requirement (those 67 years abhorred by the regime's countryside) to mature.
Then there is a further aspect which, before the freeze, had not adequately emerged, as regards the intervention on existing pensions. It is known that the highest treatments are concentrated in certain sectors and qualifications of the public administration (whose pensioners, more than 50%, enjoy a seniority allowance). Well. In the 40th legislature, the center-right government passed a provision by virtue of which the administrations were authorized to send into forced retirement (with some exceptions) personnel who had matured XNUMX years of contributions. The measure also concerned executives and high qualifications, with ages lower than old age.
Today, according to the yellow-blue PDL, they would see a treatment that was imposed on them penalized. But what was all this Circus Barnum supposed to be for? To minimally finance the 780 euros per month of the citizen's pension: the treatment guaranteed to those who have paid few contributions and not always for justifiable reasons. At this point, only one last curiosity remains to be satisfied. Article 2 established that the constitutional bodies and organs of constitutional importance, within the scope of their autonomy, should adapt to the new provisions, within 6 months from the date of entry into force of the law. Did it mean that the Chamber should have reviewed and adapted the criteria of the fatwa on the annuities of former deputies?
