Sulla pension reform 2022 contradictory statements are encountered. The President of the Council, Mario Draghi, clarified that the goal is to find a temporary solution for smooth the return to normality, i.e. the hard and pure Fornero law, with no structural alternatives. Therefore, it is not a matter of replacing Quota 100 with a better formula to increase output flexibility, but rather of setting up a slide that makes the stairway less steep, i.e. the extra years of work to which those planning to retire in 2023 with the Quota 100 rules will be forced. In the worst case, this difference will be five years, because the Lega measure allowed leaving work at least 62 years of age (plus 38 of contributions), while the retirement age foreseen for 2023 according to the Fornero law is 67 years.
Draghi's intentions are unequivocal, but the parties pretend not to understand them. They avoid confrontation because they know they would be defeated, and so they shift the discussion to a different level, deluding public opinion that the purpose of the negotiation is to facilitate early retirement. "We are still working on the pension reform, with common sense and determination - Claudio Durigon, Lega's head of employment, said on Monday - The goal is not to return to Fornero".
In reality, speaking of a "return to Fornero" is misleading, because it suggests that in recent years the reform of the Turin professor has been somehow suspended or modified. This is not the case: the Fornero law has always been in force and continues to determine the retirement of the vast majority of Italians. Over the past three years, outbound flexibility has been increased with 100 quota, a measure which, however, has proved to be unsuccessful in several respects.
THE FAILURE OF QUOTA 100
The first rejection came from the Italians: since 2019, there have been 380 requests to leave with the Northern League brand measure, that is, less than half of the million envisaged by the Conte 1 government. Quota 100, in fact, has proved to be advantageous almost exclusively for one category of taxpayers: men well over 62 and with medium-high incomes. In other cases (especially with the maximum advance of five years), the mechanism involves a cut in the pension that many consider unsustainable.
The second stop came from the European Commission and the OECD, which have repeatedly asked Italy to abolish Quota 100, considered unfair from a social point of view and excessively burdensome for the public budget.
PENSION REFORM 2022: THE 102 QUOTA HYPOTHESIS PLUS 104 QUOTA
So far, the only certainty is that Draghi intends to follow the indications of international institutions and therefore will not renew Quota 100, expiring at the end of 2021. As mentioned, the Premier does not want to introduce structural alternatives to the Northern League measure, but only a temporary corrective which make the scalone more digestible. The solution hypothesized in the last few days provides for a slide articulated on two levels:
- Quota 102 in 2022, which would allow you to retire at 64 years of age and 38 of contributions;
- Quota 104 in 2023, with the retirement age rising to 66 (while the contribution requirement would remain at 38).
In Budget planning document sent to Brussels, which contains the backbone of the 2022 maneuver, the funds allocated for the pension reform amount to 600 million next year, 450 in 2023 and 510 in 2024.
THE REACTION OF THE TRADE UNIONS
According to the CGIL Social Security Observatory, however, the double mechanism of Quota 102 and 104 would be essentially "useless", because it would lead to just over 10 early retirement payments: 10.448 to be exact. Too few, to the point that the general secretary, Maurizio Landini, dismissed the proposal as "a joke".
The unions are asking for a progressive structural reform of pensions, which allows people to leave their jobs from the age of 62 onwards and takes into account the fact that not all jobs are the same. With these premises, Wednesday's summit between Draghi and the workers' representatives promises to be far from simple.
THE COUNTERPROPOSALS OF THE PARTIES
Still others are the counter-proposals arriving from the parties. The Treasury has already rejected the Northern League's idea of maintaining Quota 102 for 2 years, but is verifying the possibility of granting exits at 64 for the next three years with increasing contributions (38, 39 and 40 years). Basically, Odds 102, 103 and 104.
However, the quota system is considered "an error" by the secretary of the Democratic Party, Enrico Letta, as a tool that "discriminates against women". The Dems therefore ask to increase flexibility for workers who carry out heavy tasks, to strengthen theSocial bee and to confirm Woman option, hitherto unplanned, which would cost 100 million euros in 2022.
Stop giving away social pensions of 500 euros a month to those who are not entitled to it and have never paid a contribution in their life, and you will see that everything will become sustainable….
The sustainability of the system is unknown. Then the trade unions are thinking of the old: but of the young what will remain of this "laundry" system where everyone tries to maximize the current forgetting about what we can afford. The Fornero law is a good compromise. Stop studying….
Sorry, but it seems to me that there is an obvious contradiction in the article.
At first it is argued that "Quota 100 would have been a failure because membership was significantly lower than expected" (about 380000), less than half of the forecasts, only to then consider it "too burdensome for the State" (but how? spent much less money than expected?)
And then, has anyone bothered to calculate how much money the state has saved (and we are talking about pensions accumulated in the past decades, therefore presumably quite substantial) following the approximately 150000 deaths from Covid that have occurred in Italy?
Quota 100 would be "unfair", while retiring at 71 is instead "fair"?
There is no contradiction, both statements are true:
1) In three years, INPS data in hand, people who retired early with Quota 100 were less than half of those expected in 2019. Indeed, in truth, just over a third.
2) Despite this flop, the measure is still considered excessively expensive from an actuarial perspective. Last month, the OECD wrote the following: "If Quota 100 were adopted on a permanent basis, pension spending would experience a cumulative increase of 11 percentage points of GDP between 2020 and 2045. Therefore, it would be advisable to let it expire." Quota 100” in December 2021».
Furthermore, Quota 100 gives men an advantage over women (more than two individuals out of three among those who retired early with Quota 100 are men), civil servants over workers in the private sector (because they have more continuous contributions payments) and the rich over the poor (the higher the check, the less disadvantageous is the cut linked to the advance). For these reasons we write that Quota 100 is socially unfair.