On pensions and basic income, the government and the majority are wrapping themselves up, as in perfect solitude - talking nonsense - they were able to bring the country to its knees.
Let us briefly summarize the story.
- The executive, with the consent of the two deputy premiers Matteo Salvini and Luigi Di Maio who hold the real power, convinced themselves to find a modus vivendi with the European Union, cutting the deficit heralded as a victory from the balcony of Palazzo Chigi, a few decimal points. This will not prevent the infringement procedure, which, however, will be transformed from a gesture of political rupture into a duty, thus lightening the load of initial controversies.
- To carry out this operation, spending reductions will be necessary, which can only be made in the sectors in which important resources are concentrated, i.e. for the introduction of the 100 quota and the citizen's income and surroundings (respectively 6,7 and 9 billion, as spending limits, in 2019). The changes are also possible because, for now, the government has limited itself to establishing two funds without providing any indication of the criteria that will regulate the two institutions.
- However, problems arise that the government continues to hide like ostriches, in the sense that everyone sees them except them: where to make the cut (each of the allies tries to divert the scissors to the flag of the other); what to give up compared to the widely spread promises if there will be fewer resources available.
- And here - as they say - the donkey falls, because the allocations foreseen for the two first fruits in the budget bill, in the common opinion of all observers, were in any case inadequate and already required restrictions in identifying the audience and the requirements , even before the EU made itself heard.
- So the government panicked; has renounced proposing amendments to the Chamber on these issues, postponing the corrections to the Senate and at the same time promising that everything will be as before, because in reality the appropriations referred to in art. 21, had been too generous. Therefore there would be the conditions to spend less while adopting the same measures (for now entrusted to the oral tradition like the Homeric poems).
- At this point, the thread of the matter is lost since it is no longer clear what the government's intentions are: whether to define, perhaps in a related bill, requirements compatible with reduced coverage or to rely on the tap technique, i.e. the provision of advance treatments only as long as the fund is able to do it with the remaining resources. But as Tito Boeri stated: "Subjecting social security requirements that give rise to subjective pension rights to the logic of the tap is something never seen before".
From time to time, as in the ancient Greek tragedy, a demiurge enters the scene – Alberto Brambilla, an expert in money orders – who explains how to redefine the question of the 100 quota in ways compatible with resources. The fact is that a few hours after having entrusted his considerations to the media, resounding denials arrive. In truth Brambilla never had – and this is to his credit – a light hand.
On several occasions – in order to contain expenditure for the 100 quota which, in his opinion, would reach 13 billion already in the first year – he has put forward the following corrective proposals: to make adherence to the 100 quota voluntary (in parallel with the of the requirements of the Fornero reform?); subject it to recalculation according to the social security system since 1996; consider only a limited number of years of notional contributions for the purpose of recognizing length of service; set up solidarity funds to be paid by the enterprise system.
In the last few days, following an interview with Alberto Brambilla, there has even been talk of a quota of 104. This variation would derive from the fact that only those individuals who had met the requirements by 2018 could take advantage of early retirement. This audience, then, it would be organized according to a schedule of windows, starting from the possible exodus from next 1 March only for those who have accrued the fateful quota at least two years before the end of the current year (here is the explanation of quota 104).
The subsequent deadlines would start from this basis. Basically, a staircase would be introduced more or less like at the time of the reform of Minister Maroni (of which Brambilla was authoritative undersecretary). As for spending, “the estimated cost is on average around 3,9 billion a year in the first 5 years, with a peak in spending – says Brambilla – of around 5,3 billion”. The affected workers would be 250 thousand (150 thousand in 2019 and 100 thousand the following year).
It is certainly commendable to make ends meet. But does it make complete sense to put a shack back on its feet with the practices of the past, first among a calendar of windows? We do not want to take into account that the Fornero reform has undergone important corrections, albeit in an indirect sense. The Ape package, the legislation for early children and other measures introduced in the past legislature have resolved the problem of early retirement (in fact or in law) for all cases in which there was an effective need.
Furthermore, it continues to be ignored that, even in the flows of recent years, the vast majority of workers are able to make use of the advance payment (in 2018, if the new old-age pensions were equal to 100, there were 229 seniority pensions in the FPLD) at an average effective age at the effective date of between 61 and 62 years. This is why quota 100 has become an ideological issue of very little use for workers (moreover with a very clear gender discriminant, because early treatment is in fact a prerogative of male workers and residents in the North).
Thinking about it, the yellow-green government is attempting the same operation that the second Prodi government wanted to carry out (Cesare Damiano was Labor Minister) to overcome the staircase wanted by Maroni. 7,5 billion was wasted in a decade to reorganize the possibility of leaving work early (through the invention of quotas). Today, however, there is an aggravating circumstance: the operation is much more onerous and does not end, as in 2007, in a limited period of time, but continues over the decades, after having burned the vessels behind.
