By denouncing the scandal of the so-called gold pensions, someone has grabbed the fortunes on the editorial level: essays sold like hot cakes, with subsequent editions that sold out in a few weeks only because there were displayed - by way of proscription lists - the names of those privileged ones who could take advantage, to sublime levels, of the forbidden dream of the average Italian: to retire as soon as possible with a check which, like an avenger of the wrongs suffered by everyone during an active life, ensures a peaceful old age, always more similar, thanks to the prolongation of life expectancy, to a belated youth.
Of course, in our pension system there are aspects that cry out for revenge and that derive from legislative coups in favor of , as in the case of those telephone executives who obtained - precisely thanks to a little law - the right to opt for registration in the fund of the category and not in the Inpdai, where the contribution and pensionable ceiling was in force (i.e. above a certain salary level, neither withholding taxes nor the calculation for pension purposes were active anymore). This move, together with the payment of such a high salary as to appear absurd, has allowed a lucky gentleman to enjoy a gross pension of 91 euros per month. The other all-Italian gimmick (the love for retirement is also widespread in the upper floors) is that of having provided for those who occupy institutional positions not only significant remuneration for the activity carried out, but also a life check and even a pension at the end of mandate.
It so happens that, upon reaching retirement age, a civil servit accumulate the pension deriving from the profession carried out (often as a university professor or magistrate, but also as a normal former employee registered with INPS), the treatments connected to regional and national elective mandates or the European Parliament, the annuities recognized to members of the Authorities; not to mention those who have the good fortune to land at the Consulta or even at the Quirinale. It happens, then, that among them the pillory is reserved only for Giuliano Amato, omitting that the favorite of the , Stefano Rodotà, had more or less the same honorum course (and therefore the social security affairs themselves) of Doctor Subtle. It also happens that the corrections made in the meantime for these unreasonable situations of privilege are not taken into account. These are usually equally unreasonable corrections in the opposite direction, in the sense that situations of objective difficulty have sometimes been created (even among parliamentarians, for example, by raising the retirement age by ten years in one fell swoop created cases attributable to the case of the so-called exodus). But so be it; let's take note of it: the cuccagna couldn't last longer.
In the end, however, the doubt arises that i (or the as the ''golden pensioners'' have been defined) perform the function of the usual lark switch in order to allow the government, together with the thrill of cheap popularity, the company to carry out a wider-ranging operation . Barring changes in the reading of the Chamber, the text of the stability bill for 2014, approved by the Senate, in fact reintroduced the solidarity contribution on the so-called gold pensions (thus challenging a new sanction by the Consulta).
It starts from a ceiling of 90.168 gross euros per year (corresponding to 6.936 gross euros per month) and for the duration of three years. The breakdown is as follows: a first cut of 6% for the portion of the pension between 14 and 20 times the minimum (from 90.168 to 128.811); a second of 12% for the part exceeding 20 times at least up to 30 times (from 128.811 to 193.216); a third of 18% on odds over 30 times the minimum. But in the Chamber there are opposition groups who propose to go even further into the action of of the perverse effects of wage calculation. How do they propose to act? The idea has come into fashion of recalculating with the contribution method the benefits - above a certain level of amount - paid with the salary, burdening the difference with a solidarity contribution defined even with progressive criteria (i.e. the greater the the higher ''position income'' guaranteed by the salary calculation is the penalty). Unfortunately, even in our case, it would be up to the sorcerers' apprentices to be unable to control the forces they awkwardly evoke. A study, in fact, by Fabrizio and Stefano Patriarca (a preview was published in lavoce.info) shows that (see graph) the more the amount of the check increases (over 44 euros a year) the more the part from contribution payments – because the downward modulation of treatments operates on the value of the check (from 2% to 0,90%) – down to 5% for pensions of around 12 thousand gross euros per month, while the peak reaches 30% of the gap, between salary and contributions, of around 5 thousand euros gross. This means that the proposal to remodulate, further downwards, the yields of the salary quotas to which the salary is applied would be very effective, as well as fair, in tackling the issue of higher pensions.
