Pensions, quota 100 cuts checks more than Fornero: that's why

THEParliamentary Budget Office (Upb), during the hearing of the president Joseph Pisauro filed, with the joint Budget Commissions, a document of great interest on maneuver as a whole. First of all, in the introduction, the PBO would like to remind you that the planning forecasts for 2019, unlike the 2018-19 macroeconomic framework, later published in the NADEF on 27 September last, have not instead been validated by the PBO.

“This assessment – ​​we read – derives from the significant and widespread misalignments on the main variables of the programmatic framework with respect to the PBO panel of forecasters, not only with reference to volumes but also to prices; overall, the deviations on the dynamics of nominal GDP are significant”.

The other critical point concerns the growth forecast. The Upb estimates, like all national and international observers, that what is indicated in the bill is overestimated. "To achieve - the note states - 2019 per cent GDP growth in 1,5, even discounting a more marked acceleration in the fourth quarter (0,2 per cent) than that estimated by us in the baseline scenario, a strong and rapid recovery of the productive dynamics would be needed; GDP should in fact increase for all four quarters of next year by 0,5 per cent (sequence that has not been achieved in Italy since the end of the nineties)”.

But the attention of the media has been directed almost exclusively to the part dedicated to pensions casting a widespread alarm on the possible penalization of the allowance for pensioners who adhere to the 100 quota. But let's go directly to the text: "A form of disincentive - it is written - is however already incorporated in the rules for calculating pension benefits and could represent a deterrent to early leaving: each year before leaving the labor market, in due to the lower contribution payments made, corresponds to a lower gross annual amount of the pension and, consequently, of the total pension annuity (ie the present value of the sum of the pensions received in life). The reduction – continues the document – ​​increases with the number of years in advance of the Fornero requirement”.

The percentages, indicated in a special table, are important: they go from 5% to over 30%. It must be explained that this is a loss of profit and not an emerging damage. Basically, anyone who adheres to the 100 quota (we specify: for now it's just talk because there isn't a shred of rule in this regard in the finance) would receive a treatment lower than that corresponding to a retirement according to the rules established by the 2011 reform.

The reason is quite obvious: it would be enough for retired workers with a 100 quota to assert only 38 years of payments. With the Fornero requirements, in 2019 there would be some (regardless of age) at least 43 years and 2 months if men (one year less if women). It should also be taken into account that all pensions from 2012 contain a quota (for at least seven years) to be calculated with the contributory scheme.

For this calculation is very important the chronological age, since the transformation coefficient (ie the multiplier of the contribution amount) grows in relation to the retirement age. There is therefore no cut compared to the amount due on the basis of the 100 quota (62 years of age plus 38 of contributions), but simply a lower pension because it is supported by less seniority than that required by current rules.

Why, as years one to five go by, does this differential increase? For the simple reason that the requirements (both personal data and social security contributions) envisaged by the Fornero reform increase automatically with the increase in life expectancy. In 2025, for example, the Fornero requirement will be 43 years and 11 months (one year less for women). It seems clear – without the need for too many explanations – that, if you work less and retire earlier, your benefit will be lower.

Working longer not only responds to the needs of sustainability of the system, of balance in the labor market, but it is also the best guarantee for the adequacy of treatments. If this aspect of the problem has been overlooked, in the climate of demagoguery that oppresses the country, we can do nothing about it. Especially since those who make use of the 100 quota will receive - sooner and for a greater number of years - the pension due to them. According to the Upb, this advance would reduce the lower amount received compared to the Fornero model by a percentage ranging from 5% to 8% depending on the number of years of the advance.

There is no need, then, to shed tears for those hundreds of thousands of workers who, going into retirement in their early sixties, they will clog the system for decades to the detriment of future taxpayers. Don't they expect to have a full barrel and a drunk wife or husband?