If someone intends to write a sort of "Heart" book on the subject of pensions, he should devote a chapter to flexible retirement. The concept belongs to the ranks of politically correct ideas, which put their conscience in order because, by supporting them, one feels - as Enrico Berlinguer said - simultaneously conservative and revolutionary: one ventures cautiously along the unpopular path of raising the age pensionable (a need that only ideologically sick heads can deny in the face of the massive acceleration in life expectancy), but at the same time it is hinted that, in the end, an emergency exit would remain open for those who want to leave early, perhaps with a small cut to the pension, largely compensated by its collection in advance.
In the current political initiative, the criterion of retirement flexibility (with a minimum age requirement of 62 and a maximum of 70, matched with a mechanism - inadequate to compensate for the higher costs - of disincentives/incentives, against a seniority of contributions of at least 35 years) found its place in a bill presented, as the first signatory, by the new president of the Labor Commission of the Chamber, Cesare Damiano, which was followed by projects by other groups, including one, practically similar, presented by the vice president of the same Commission, Renata Polverini (Enrico Letta was right: you can hate each other for "politics", but get along on "policies").
The topic of retirement flexibility - stated by Prime Minister Letta in the communications on trust - has also been taken up several times by Minister Enrico Giovannini, in articles, interviews and answers to questions. Finally, in the Sole24 Ore of 19 July, the demiurge of the operation, Cesare Damiano himself, took the field directly, replying, without deigning to quote us, to a previous critical article, in the same newspaper, signed by me and Pietro Ichino. The writer, in due time, did not hesitate to grapple with the issue of flexible retirement (moreover also taken on full regime by the Dini reform).
As soon as I was elected to the Chamber, in the past legislature, I presented (AC 1299) a bill which included the magic formula we are discussing, contained in a range aged between 62 and 67 in order to access a unified old-age pension. The fact is that at the time the rules allowed seniority benefits to be obtained, with the quota system, relying on a registered age of less than 60, while female workers were allowed to retire at the age of 60. This situation was overcome through the measures adopted later, first by the Berlusconi government, then by the Fornero reform.
In fact, therefore, the "Damiano doctrine" would end up lowering the personal data and social security contributions requirements now envisaged, inevitably causing negative economic effects, which can be conservatively estimated at at least tens of billions when fully operational. It should not be forgotten, in fact, that according to the rules of accounting, when a real subjective right to retirement is introduced within an age range included in a range of flexibility, coverage commensurate with the hypothesis that all future retirees make use of the lower requirement becomes necessary. Otherwise it is required to set a maximum number of possible users to define the financial coverage, beyond which it is no longer allowed to use the right. This procedure would give rise to the usual protests by the excluded.
The Damiano project (like the others), in addition to bringing back, under the pretext of flexibility, the personal limit for the old-age benefit, reintroduces the seniority treatment (on the basis, solely, of a contribution requirement of 41-42 years) . All this without even solving in a structural way – as one would like – the issue of safeguarded CDs. In general, in the light of the Fornero reform, these subjects are not precluded from accessing the pension due to an insufficient contribution requirement (almost all are able to claim more than 35 years of payments), but as a consequence of an age, at times, much lower than the threshold (taken as the minimum) of 62 years. In practice, then, the Damiano proposal would apply to all workers, "displaced persons" or not, leaving open the question of the "displaced persons", who will present the bill starting from 2015 (the cases arising in 2013 and 2014 having been resolved) . With the inevitable recharging of the related charges. As can be seen, therefore, the plans to overhaul the pension system continue to be intended, in practice, to defend today's older workers, not the young people who will be retired tomorrow.
