The agreement with the EU institutions on the maneuver was in any case desirable in order to limit the damage, but does not resolve any of the problems induced by the proposed Stability Law. Postponing the launch of the 100 quota for early retirement and basic income by a few months, for the purpose of containing the 2019 deficit by a few decimals, changes little.
In unsuspecting times, I took the liberty of pointing out that these measures, to be implemented, require a few months of time only for the resolution of the related technical problems.
For CBI, if only for the mental confusion of the proponents, even something more.
For the share 100, the ideas would seem clearer. Essentially the government intends to contain spending by restoring the so-called exit windows, ie to postpone effective retirement with respect to its accrual, on the basis of the requirement of already accrued seniority of contributions, ie giving priority to those who have already accrued 62 years of age and 38 of contributions paid.
This staggering should take place over the next three years, given that the derogation from the retirement age provided for by the Fornero law would be valid until 31 December 2021, and it being understood that in the meantime the automatic adjustment of the retirement age would remain in force on the basis of life expectancies.
THE QUOTE 100 PARADOX: IT CREATES GREATER INIQUITIES
All reasonable it would seem…
It would seem, but this is not at all the case. While neglecting the effects on the balance of the accounts of the social security system, and consequently on the debt of the public administration (so to speak ... because they will be devastating), the proposal risks producing real, and absurd, inequities in the treatment of older workers.
Many workers who have already accrued or will accrue more than 38 years of contributions in the next three years, and in any case before turning 62, will find themselves bound to reach the threshold of 44 years of contributions to access old-age retirement anticipated. Those who reach the requirement in three years will have to wait another 6 to access retirement (a sort of Fornero 2 revenge).
All after having witnessed the retirement of colleagues who have worked fewer years than them.
The anomaly had already been highlighted by Alberto Brambilla, a qualified expert of the League, which in fact suggested to grade a different ratio between age and contributions paid starting from 62 years of age (but obviously with more than 38 years of contributions) and, consequently, with higher and sustainable pension incomes over time.
Reasonable hypothesis, but not coinciding with the announcements.
MORE THAN A REFORM, A FALSE FORNERO REFORM
Thus we will end up with a false reform of Fornero:
– who will not have addressed the issue of workers penalized by Fornero at all. In fact, as pointed out, a large part of the number of penalized workers will be excluded, while, otherwise, most of the beneficiaries will accrue their pension with lower requirements than those in force before the Fornero law, 41 years for the old-age pension;
- that will worsen the social security balance in the relationship between taxpaying workers and retirees with the costs that will inevitably be reflected in future retirees;
– which, consequently, it is bound to create tensions among the workers as part of corporate restructurings that will use the new retirement measures to reduce staff.
Mistakes of this kind have already been made in the past with the abuse of early retirement practices to favor the exodus of older workers in the public sector and in medium-large companies. While at the same time the problems of older workers who work in complicated sectors, starting from construction and agriculture, or discontinuous ones such as in very small businesses and services, were ignored and continue to be ignored, who have even seen the durations for the use of social safety nets.
The umpteenth confirmation that the "government of change" is offering us the worst practices of the past
