In claris non fit interpretatio that is, when the rules are clear, there is no need for interpretation. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on this Roman law maxim when dealing with the issue of government intentions regarding pensions, in view of the now imminent budget maneuver.
We must trust what we read in the press, fully aware that these are often trial balloons circulated "to see how it pans out." Therefore, if we've misunderstood, we justify ourselves in advance. Indeed, given certain hypotheses that we find highly questionable, we'd be happy to have misunderstood and be forced to change our minds. We make no secret of our appreciation for the government's actions on pensions in recent years' budget laws, which have been the subject of a significant revision of the ill-fated proposals contained in the center-right's electoral platform. 41 quota, so dear to the League, has remained a dead letter; the initial setting of the quotas has been dismantled (with quota 100 the yellow-green government wanted to encourage early retirement; with altitude 103 and surroundings made it impracticable); it was not possible to establish in one thousand euros per month is the minimum pension; the release of the requirements for seniority benefits has been brought forward by two years. Small trees have been planted around these tall trees—perhaps with little technical skill—which have reduced some of the previously established options (see, for example, the "Women's Option") and revised the adequacy parameters (in relation to the social security benefit) among the requirements for retirement in the contributory system. What—it is said—is the government preparing, through the plenipotentiary for pensions Claudio Durigon? We make use of the work of Claudia Marin who has taken up the rumours in circulation in an article on QN: “In 2026, the cancellation of Quota 103 and of the entire quota system that has dominated the scene in recent years should open the way to the extension of the so-called early contributory pension to all workers, including those who began working before January 1996 and whose pension is calculated using the pay-as-you-go method. Furthermore, to reach the required amount for retirement, the use of severance pay (TFR) could also be considered, following the introduction this year of the possibility of using capital paid into pension funds.
Pensions between severance pay and the mixed system
Let us take into consideration, in relation to the Tfr, the use of the conditional which authorizes us not to delve into a proposal which is currently very vague and to move on. "The innovation under discussion – writes Marin – concerns the possibility of extending the formula foreseen for the workers entirely in the contributory system (64 years of age and 20 years of actual contributions, which will become 30) also for workers who have contributions prior to 1996. How? By providing – writes Marin – the possibility of calculating the pension with the mixed system, retributive for the part prior to 1996, contributory for the part after. The other new development at stake is the possibility of also use the TFR to reach the minimum threshold to access this retirement system. We'll ignore this last point, but as for the rest, we're jumping headlong into one of those hypotheses we hope we've misunderstood, because the operation – while maintaining the contributory requirements – would reduce the age requirement for old-age benefits by a full three years (from 67 to 64), without, however, undergoing a fully contributory recalculation, as has occurred up to now in cases of early retirement. This would mean sending three years' early retirement – with the same salary – for the majority of female workers, both public and private, which now have to wait until they reach the old age requirements (67 years of age and at least 20 years of contributions paid).
The Giorgetti bonus
Don't tell us that the higher costs will be offset thanks to the Giorgetti bonus, As defined in INPS Circular No. 118/2025, some outstanding issues were recently resolved, the most important of which is the tax exemption on the employee's contribution (approximately 10%) in the paycheck for those who postpone early retirement. This isn't a large sum: according to the UPB, it would be 6.900 euro per year to be related to the lower pension amount resulting from a smaller capital. It's clear that every Northern League minister wants to be remembered – after Roberto Maroni – for a more or less super bonus. However, we must not forget that the 2004 reform provided for the payroll donation for a maximum of three years, the tax-free amount of the entire 32,7% contribution rate was applicable only to the private sector, while the Giorgetti bonus also extends to the public sector. The benefits for INPS must also be weighed against the reduced contribution revenue and the reduced costs of deferring the payment of the benefit. Furthermore, when incentives are provided, there is always a doubt: whether the participating workers would have remained employed even without receiving the incentive. At the time of the Maroni Super Bonus Reliable estimates were made, showing that out of 56 applications submitted, 36 were for workers who, without the superincentive, would have retired. Only 20.800 (which is still quite a few) would have continued working.
For its part, the State General Accounting Office froze the environment by recognising the incentive's capacity to modify the propensity to continue working, but warned that the savings from the measure, compared to the trend under current legislation, were estimated at approximately 80 million euros per year. However, as we anticipated, applying the Maroni rule to a case study (57 years of age, 35 years of contributions, and an annual salary of 35 euros), the incentive amounted to 9.800 euros per year and 29.400 euros over the three-year period. If that worker had opted for the deferral, he would have received a pension of just under 19 euros. If he had paid contributions regularly for another three years, the benefit would have amounted to 20.700 euros; essentially, 16,5 years would have been needed to "balance" the contribution and tax bonus. Obviously, it is difficult to identify general case studies because each case is unique. However, it is easy to understand from this past experience that the incentive policy leaves many problems open and solves even fewer.
The fate of automatic docking
A threat hangs over these previews. What is it? the fate of automatic docking that the government brought back into force on January 1st of this year? Automatic linkage to life expectancy is the mechanism of the Italian pension system that links retirement age to increased life expectancy. According to ISTAT, this system should include a three-month increase in retirement age and contribution requirements in 2027, but the government seems intent on blocking it again to prevent a further delay in retirement. This mechanism ensures sustainable development of the pension system. This requirement is also confirmed by the president of INPS Gabrile Fava in an interview with The La Verità"Updating the requirements to reflect changes in life expectancy allows us to monitor pension spending and the system's equilibrium, which has been undermined by the demographic transition. This does not preclude the possibility of modifying its application methods and timing."
What can I say in conclusion of this? excursus de jure condendoThere is no escape from the curse that is always around the corner: when you face the certain pension system rules political and trade union forces continue to make reforms backwards, that is, to protect those who will retire tomorrow and in the coming years by agitating the woof of retirement ageand without regard for demographic trends and intergenerational relations. Now even for the needs of the labor market, which is experiencing a supply-side crisis for the first time.
