The INPS Actuarial Statistics Coordination has drawn up, on (informal) assignment by the Presidency of the Labor Commission of the Chamber, some technical reports on the costs of the so-called outgoing flexibility on the subject of pensions: a highly requested measure on a political level, in relation to which However, the Government is stalling precisely because it is aware of the consequences that such an operation would have on the public finances.
The regulatory hypothesis taken as a reference is that contained in the draft law with the first signature of Cesare Damiano (AC 857) which provides for the possibility of accessing retirement upon completion of 62 years and 7 months of age (which can be increased on the basis of the expected of life) with at least 35 years of contributory seniority provided that the amount of the pension is not less than 1,5 times the amount of the social allowance. In this case, a reduction or increase (of a very limited extent) would be applied to the portion of the pension calculated with the salary system depending on the age and seniority achieved at the time of retirement, according to the following table:
Together with the flexible exit proposal, article 3 of the draft law includes the possibility of accessing retirement - regardless of the age requirement - relying on at least 41 years of contributory seniority which remain stable over time and are not suitable for increases in life expectancy. In this case, no economic penalties would apply, whatever the age. The report dated 9 February presents two scenarios assuming a propensity for people entering retirement with at least 62 years and 35 years of seniority alternatively equal to 100% and 80% at the time of fulfillment of the first useful requirement. In both scenarios, on the other hand, upon reaching 41 years of seniority or at the age of old age (66 years and 6 months in 2017), a propensity of 100% was assumed.
The estimates of the actuarial coordination take into consideration only private and self-employed employees and those enrolled in the separate management. The public sector is therefore excluded – it should also be emphasized when summarizing it. According to the first scenario (100% propensity), the report calculates, separately, the effects of outgoing flexibility (62 years + 7 months and 35 years of contributions paid) and those cumulative overall by the envisaged legislation (therefore including the contribution-only channel of 41 years old). In the first case, already in 2017 there would be 209 more pensions for a cost of 3,6 billion (gross of tax effects). In 10 years, the largest number of pensions would rise to 410 for a cost of 7,5 billion.
Considering the overall effect of the legislation, already in 2017 there would be 366 more treatments with a total cost of 7,5 billion. In 10 years there would be 750 more pensions and higher charges of 14 billion. As can be seen (this will be the case in all hypotheses) it is above all the contributory-only channel that weighs the most both on the number of treatments and on the extent of the necessary costs. It goes without saying that, in the second scenario (80% propensity for flexible exit and 100% for contributory-only exit regardless of age), the numbers of pensions and charges would be lower, but equally important. Considering, in summary, only the effects determined by the two measures, already in 2017 there would be a greater number of pensions in force at the end of the year equal to 341 thousand for a cost of 7 billion (13,3 billion in 2026 compared to 705 thousand checks more ). In a more recent technical report (of 22 February) a sort of "maximum reduction" operation is attempted, assuming a reduction equal to 3% for each year in advance with respect to the old age referred to in the Fornero reform.
The possibility of accessing retirement with 41 years of contributory seniority not adjusted to increases in life expectancy and regardless of age remains included. Even in this scenario, different propensities are taken into consideration. The same one that is based on less generous parameters ends up determining, however, costs, even before being unsustainable on an economic level, unjustified on a social level, in consideration of the number of subjects who could use these options and the modest convenience that they would have . In fact, assuming a propensity of 70% with respect to the requirement of at least 63 years and 7 months of age and 35 years of seniority and of 100% in the specific case of 41 years of seniority and considering the overall effect of the legislation (i.e. cumulating the costs of two ''emergency exits'') already in 2017 the highest number of pensions in force at the end of the year would be equal to 286 thousand (2026 thousand in 627) for a cost of 6 billion (11,8 billion in 2026). The INPS actuaries then deny the theories according to which future savings would offset the higher present costs. It would take at least 50 years to amortize a useless and harmful operation, such as the one prefigured with the so-called flexibility of retirement, the latest barrage of "politically correct".
