The attention paid to the financial effects of sentence no. 70 with which the Consulta established the illegitimacy of the provision of the Salva Italia decree on the blocking of the automatic equalization of pensions exceeding three times the amount of the minimum treatment is certainly justified. But before entering the lottery of numbers, it would be good to correctly interpret the indications that the "judges of the laws" intended to give to the Government and Parliament, through such a significant provision, with which the Court knowingly assumed a great deal responsibility towards the country and its commitments at the European level. The search for a correct interpretation must be carried out both on a technical-juridical side and on that of political orientation with regard to the fundamental principles from which the ordinary legislator cannot deviate, in the difficult balance between available resources and social rights, the content of which it cannot ignore the economic conditions of a country and what they can guarantee in a given historical phase.
In the reasons for the sentence (confirmed in the declaration with which the President wanted to deny the thesis of its self-application) it is clear that there is ample room for initiative on the part of the competent institutional bodies capable not only of complying with the indications of the Consulta, but to deal with the repercussions of a financial nature with reasonableness and sustainability, reducing and grading their scope. The Court did not consider the intervention itself illegitimate (if it had done so it would have contradicted its own jurisprudence on the matter), but its criteria and modalities. In fact, it should be remembered that in the Budget Law for 2008 the Prodi Government, within the framework of the implementation of the 2007 Welfare Protocol - to compensate for the highly questionable objective of correcting the "staircase" referred to in the Maroni reform - it cut for a year, but with permanent effects – it was an amount equal to 1,4 billion – the automatic equalization on pensions exceeding eight times the minimum (at the time around 3,5 thousand euros gross per month). Even then, appeals were presented which the Consulta rejected. Now, in the opinion of the Court, the 2011 case presents different profiles, because the measure contained in the SalvaItalia decree intervened - permanently - on medium-low treatments, so as to question their adequacy.
Thus, if the Government, with an emergency provision, reformulated the cut by applying it to a higher multiple of the minimum treatment, perhaps with a gradual path it would not only limit itself to reducing the amount to be repaid to pensioners, but, if a such an operation should return to the examination of the Consulta, it would have to pronounce scratch and it could also recognize the intervention as more equitable, and therefore inspired by criteria of proportionality and reasonableness. It should be noted that the return of the revaluation is not an automatic fact and that the interested parties, in the absence of a legislative solution and the related financial coverage, should sue INPS; except for the case, however problematic, cumbersome and practically theoretical, of one class action (the sarchiapone of our legal system). In short, no one should be under the illusion that they already have those resources in their pocket if suitable measures are not taken not only on an economic level, but also on a regulatory level. As for the aspects of political orientation, the Consulta, with this sentence, wanted to express a caveat to the many ''sorcerer's apprentices'' who do not hesitate to kick acquired rights, aggravating the climate of uncertainty about the future that weighs on Italian families and their life choices. We are now at the ''banned lists'' of pensioners (as if 90% of the treatments provided were ''regime profits'') whose check was liquidated with the salary calculation, according to the rules in force since, with the reform of 1969 – strongly desired by the trade unions and the left – the decision was made to ensure pensioners a treatment equivalent to the average salary received in the last period of working life.
Not even the Dini-Treu reform of 1995 – dictated word for word by the unions in Parliament – wanted to completely change this approach. In recent days, the idea has re-emerged (dear to INPS president Tito Boeri and not excluded by Minister Poletti) of re-determining, with the contribution calculation, the higher benefits paid with the salary method, provided that their amount is not ''justified'' by the payments made. But would such an operation be considered legitimate by the Constitutional Court? We believe that a big "No" can be read precisely in the motivations of sentence n.70. Supporters of this thesis start from the assumption that the remuneration system has in itself a "rent position" that does not deserve protection. But if this is the case, why should the ''crucifige'' only act against the highest pensions? Furthermore, it is not the contributory model that in itself penalizes the pensions of young people; it is their working condition characterized by late access to the market and an unstable and occasional permanence which also makes their contribution position precarious. Comparing the two systems, it is not true that all the advantages lie in the salary and all the disadvantages in the contributory one.
In fact, in the first system, workers make payments on their entire salary, but the return is equal to 2% for each year of service up to a salary of 45 euros. For the exceeding quotas, however, the rate is decreasing. Furthermore, in terms of salary, the pension is subject to a maximum of 40 years: those worked more suffer the levy on salary, but ''they do not get'' seniority. In the contributory scheme, on the other hand, all payments made count: those who have worked longer receive a better pension, because the amount credited is multiplied by a higher transformation coefficient in relation to retirement age. Furthermore, workers with higher wages pay contributions only on a ceiling currently of around 100 euros per year (above that there are no withholding taxes and, obviously, the additional quotas are not considered pensionable wages). If some ''beautiful soul'', then, intends to carry out a laborious recalculation operation (for which the reference data is also missing) they should also take into consideration the ''pros'', not just the ''cons' '.
