In an economic situation bordering on deflation, one could not imagine a more hypocritical and demagogic measure than that of establishing a "solidarity contribution" on the so-called highest pensions. To begin with, let's call things by their names: it would be a question of a tax levy, therefore of a tax increase.
Secondly, in order to be effective, it would essentially fall on average pensions, reducing the purchasing power of the only social category that can still, under certain conditions, support consumption: that middle class, which, moreover, is and perceives itself impoverished. It is well known even to those who are not professional economists that in a regime of decreasing prices, with a high unemployment rate, a reduction in wages and a continuously declining GDP, consumption and investment do not grow, but savings ( see the case of the 80 Euros): the horse does not drink. In this scenario, a possible significant reduction in the income of only the social class that could have a greater propensity to consume and the ability to sustain growth, would have highly prejudicial effects on the economic recovery. All the more so if the resources withdrawn were not destined to support processes of requalification and reintegration into the labor market of workers who have found themselves, through no fault of their own, without a salary and a pension, but to guarantee their transition into the social security system.
How can all this be reconciled with Minister Poletti's affirmation that the strategic objective to be pursued in order to find a permanent solution to problems such as layoffs, redundancy payments, the guarantee of employment, social security and welfare, would be that of implementing Articles 41 and 46 of the Constitution which outline a system of partnership and co-management? It is obvious that the pursuit of this objective cannot be achieved except through a continuous action of gradual adaptation and profound modification of trade union and entrepreneurial behavior, of partial measures consistent with participatory strategies and, therefore, in a medium-long time, , therefore, it is a little hypocritical to admit the need in principle, only to then endorse de facto what is now the main activity of the unions: the defense at any cost (even if with some exceptions) of the status quo of employed, public and private. So much so that one would rather run the risk of favoring a possible deflationary drift and further curb growth in order to keep the bankruptcy system of layoffs standing rather than starting the job act and an active policy for the creation of new jobs as soon as possible of work.
The liturgical act of deference to article 18 also demonstrates this. All this under the guise of an operation of social equalization! Nonetheless, the ineffable Minister Baretta did not stop to meditate. but he made matters worse by arguing that the tax sting on so-called high pensions would be preferable to a freeze on public wages. As if a direct tax levy on most pensions (already devalued by the suspension of indexation) was comparable to a failed increase in PA salaries, which, with an inflation rate close to zero, should, in any case, be justified by a proportional growth in productivity.
Renzi has so far shown that he knows how to tune in to the states of mind of citizens and can only overlook the political, as well as social, effects of an intervention as dangerous as it is unjust (also from a constitutional point of view) on the pensions and income of middle classes could seriously damage his political plan and the interests of the country. Let's hope that his latest statements will definitively mute the trumpets or trombones and restore the harmony of the orchestra.
