As the yellow-green government's proposals on pensions materialize, not only different positions emerge between the two majority parties, but also at least bizarre solutions, so much so as to deny poor Polonius, who would not be able to glimpse in the their madness the logic he found in that of Prince Hamlet. In essence, the revision of the Fornero reform (quota 100 as the sum of personal data and social security contributions or 41 years of payments regardless of age), of ancient Northern League origin, adds to the sarchiapone of the citizen's pension, invented and proposed by Beppe Grillo in the final stages of the election campaign. The first measure, of a social security nature, aims to favor people who entered the job market early, have remained there for a long time in a generally continuous manner and are able to present themselves, anything but elderly, for the appointment with the coveted quiescence.
The second is a classic provision of a welfare nature which, for the guaranteed amount (a gross monthly treatment of around 800 euros), would encourage – beyond the costs – tax evasion. So far, there's nothing new under the sun; it wouldn't be the first time that twisted political alliances have imposed a summation of the claims of each participating force. Moreover, the center-right coalition had included in the program the project to raise the level of the minimum pension to one thousand euros a month. The fact is that, the more the problems are investigated through the dripping of fragments of proposals, the approach of the ''greens'' differs even more from that of the ''yellows''. Especially since Prof. Alberto Brambilla, always social security ideologist of the Carroccio: a person of certain competence (probably he will become part of the executive), in the midst of the mass of players by ear of the comb and the tissue paper.
Brambilla is the patron of Itinerari previdenziali, a foundation that presents an interesting report every year which holds together, with a certain rigor, all the aspects attributable to a social security system and its financing. As a vigorous man from the North, ours is very critical of the Italiot welfare trend that represents retirees as an army of poor people in the barrel. And, therefore, he believes that the country is not out of line with regard to the so-called social security, but that it has too much lead in its wings due to welfare spending. These are highly questionable ideas, but this is not the place to re-discuss the false myth of the separation of assistance from social security. We are rather interested in recalling that Brambilla maintains that the rebalancing of public finances must take place at the expense of assistance.
Let's read an excerpt from the Fifth Report of Social Security Itineraries: '' on the other hand, expenditure for assistance, as has been highlighted several times, runs the risk of getting out of control also due to excessive political competition which increases it from year to year (see the recent increase of the fourteenth month salary and the introduction of the REL) without, however, harmonizing the access rules and envisaging effective forms of control through the central assistance register, which has never started, which could generate a better allocation of resources and savings''. How can such a statement be reconciled with the introduction of a bizarre and onerous citizen's pension? Alberto Brambilla's thought is even clearer from another point of view: ''Policies are therefore preferable - it is written in the Fifth Report - which tend to reward "work", "loyalty to contributions" and long careers for which the The indexation of the retirement age to life expectancy remains an indispensable requirement for the balance of the system (especially for old-age pensions with short careers and for welfare pensions), but it is also necessary to reintroduce elements of flexibility by restoring the characteristics of the law n.335/1995.
To this end, first of all, contributions should be decoupled from life expectancy (a uniquely Italian characteristic introduced with the Fornero reform) by providing for a maximum of 41 and a half years of contributions with a maximum of 3 years of notional contributions and a minimum age of 63 (later to become 64, ed) years of age. It is scarcely fair (and, it could be argued, perhaps even unconstitutional) to imagine that a worker can access the pension with only 20 years of contributions and 67 years of age (perhaps by having the benefit supplemented by way of the modest pension calculated) and that another with over double the contributions and without the risk of integrations to be paid by the tax authorities, must work for over 43 years (in 2019)''. We don't want to force our hand, but in these assessments we also perceive a sociological, if not downright ethical judgment towards the good worker in the Po Valley ''who earned his pension''.
But the best is yet to come. The writer does not like to participate in the cover game with which they try to frame the new majority. Especially when it comes to pensions. Especially since in the last few days Brambilla himself has made known some proposals regarding the ''stop'' of the Fornero law which have amazed the writer. The looting of the 2011 reform would be accomplished as follows: the requirements of 100 and 41 years (some say 41 and a half) are the certain reference points. But only those with a minimum age of 64 could opt for the first. In both cases - it seems - three years of seniority at the most of figurative contribution would make up. Furthermore, for the new pensions, the period between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 2011 would be calculated using the contributory method also for those to whom the Dini reform had guaranteed continued salary (those who, at the end of 1995, had at least 18 years of seniority with contributions).
Basically, what we didn't have the courage to do then (that is, pass everyone to the pro rata calculation of contributions from 1 January 1996) would now be implemented substantially retroactively. The logic of such an approach (moreover less convenient than the use of the Ape sociale, which would instead be abolished) escapes the logic, aimed at slightly anticipating the possibility of going into retirement at the expense of the adequacy of treatments, generally reduced. It means that in a few months we will see great demonstrations gathered behind a large banner with the writing in large letters: ''Aridetece la Fornero''.
In addition to being unfair, the stake of the chronological age is like playing three cards. BUT BEWARE. THERE IS ANOTHER SCAM COMING SOON, THAT OF THE LIMITATION OF FIGURATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS. There is talk that to reach 100, only two could be counted. In this way, the weakest workers, workers and office workers who have had periods of layoffs, workers made redundant through redundancy, etc. would be penalised. A real bastard. I also hope that they do not intend to eliminate the APE Sociale even for those who already receive it. Among these there are also people who have left their jobs because they engaged in strenuous tasks or because they are caregivers and would now find themselves without income until their old age pension, or elderly unemployed (over 63 years of age). These amateurs in the fray if they are not careful will create new exodus. With a law that will penalize the weakest categories and will instead benefit those who have been luckier and have had a continuous and uninterrupted working career. So much for social justice and change, a change that will make people take to the streets with pitchforks.