It would be appropriate to say "who does it, waits for it". While Italy awaits the formation of a majority and a government to hang the 2011 reform in Piazzale Loreto, a ukase has arrived from Washington that has left everyone dumbfounded. Second a recent one working paper of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the provisions of the Fornero law are not sufficient to bring Italian pension expenditure under control which inexorably continues to grow in the context of a system permanently destabilized by demographic trends which combine the aging of the population and the collapse of the birth rate.
Fund economists don't limit themselves to launching a cry of alarm, but identify the critical points of the regime and propose measures. Let us immediately state that, at the base of the working paper, stands a more Spargnine assessment of the growth rate of the Italian economy (which is the treadmill on which the pension system also moves its uncertain steps). This is an estimate also shared by other institutions, as shown in the graph below where they are placed comparison of the trends in the expenditure/GDP ratio prefigured by the Awg (practically the EU) and by the Rgs (the MEF). While growth is limited in national forecasts, the gap is significant in European forecasts, so much so that, in about forty years' time, we should prepare ourselves (under current legislation) for an incidence on GDP of more than 18%.
Let us imagine, therefore, what we should expect if the promises to demolish, repeal or cancel the Fornero reform were kept. The fact that the game is mainly played in terms of economic growth gives us margins of defence, since we have shown that we can afford rates higher than forecasts. But it will soon be discovered whether "the king is naked" or if he wears a dress, albeit a modest one, that at least covers his "shame".
What are the observations of the IMF? Firstly, the generosity of the salary calculation is underlined, above all because it ensures a return of 2% per year compared to a European average of 1,5-1,7%. It follows, according to the working paper, the opportunity for a recalculation according to the contributory method. And here it rains in the wet: this debate has been on the agenda here too since the INPS presented an organic proposal for a revision in this sense, which had the objective of greater equity even before a reduction of the shopping. Then it was seen that in reality it was a very complex operation, so much so that its supporters had to prefigure recalculation mechanisms that had nothing to do with the rules of the contribution. Also the bottom realizes these difficulties and as a substitute measure, it proposes a general cut in thirteenth month salaries (just think that we also invented the "fourteenth", much criticized by the IMF, and we even increased its amount and enlarged its extension).
The causes of the increase in expenditure, to be brought under control, are then indicated: i requirements for survivors' pensions and the low level of contributions paid by self-employed workers. As for i survivor benefits — their amount at a level of 2,75% of GDP is the highest in Europe — the economists of the Fund are asking to set a minimum age for the widowed spouse to benefit from it and to eliminate the possibility that other family members will benefit from it.
In terms of social security contributions, the study highlights the disparity between those of employees (at 33% of the salary) and those of the self-employed and asks to raise the rate of these workers - to at least 27% – from the current 24%. (NB: this increase had already been foreseen, in gradual terms, by the Fornero reform; then it was preferred to block the excursus at 24%).
Il working paper it doesn't just make suggestions about pensions. There are others: for example, those of reduce the burden of social contributions of companies by increasing the share of workers or the abolition of tax deductions for mortgages and health care. Until retirees pay contributions because they use the health service more than others. Which would not in itself be devoid of its own logic. The reports of "Social security itineraries" have always highlighted how an important share of health care expenditure is "consumed" by the "incompetent" or by those who pay very little tax (the vast majority of pensioners, in fact). But where would solidarity end up if the IMF's indications were followed? Don't forget that also in the US there are three public health programs financed by general taxation: in favor of the poor, veterans and the elderly over>65 years.
To reduce health care costs, the path is another. As we have argued several times, the need for a new one arises actio finium regundorum between the public and the private. In Italy, public health expenditure is not only growing compared to GDP (with worrying future scenarios); so is the private one (over 2% of GDP, around 30 billion) largely supported, out of pocket, by families and companies. A private and additional expense very often aimed at purchasing goods and services already guaranteed by the public system. Therefore, the need for rationalization emerges, establishing which sphere of intervention and for which subjects and pathologies the services guaranteed by the NHS must be ensured, leaving the rest to the collective private initiative (the development of contractual and corporate welfare is great) and individual.
In essence, it would be a question of overcoming the current repetitiveness of services – and therefore of spending – integrating, in the interests of health protection, service efficiency and cost savings, public welfare and that insured through private instruments. Each compartment with its own precise function.
