How Draghi will move on pensions and quota 100
Pensions and Quota 100. Facts, numbers and insights in Giuliano Cazzola's analysis
Pensions are the real Gordian knot for Mario Draghi. The premier had so far avoided not only addressing it but even talking about it, until one of the last press conferences when, following a question from a journalist, he said that “ quota 100 '' (62 years of age and 38 of contributions) would have arrived, as expected, at the end of the line and that the government would have adopted measures to lighten the “ staircase '' (i.e. the fact that with the same contributions – 38 years – the personal data requirement would have risen to 67 years or 42 years and ten months for men and one year less for women regardless of age).
In essence, the system would have suddenly returned to the tracks of the Fornero reform which has never been repealed, but only waived on an experimental and temporary basis. In truth this “ staircase '' is a paper tiger that serves to scare fools, because the space of interests and conditions, hitherto covered by a quota of 100, could very well find shelter in an adjustment of the social Ape which, in cases recognized as worthy of protection due to particular working and living conditions, it applies by claiming 63 years of age and 30 or 36 years of payments, depending on the different cases.
To identify further situations of disadvantaged work, in addition to those already foreseen in 2017, a commission chaired by Cesare Damiano worked (with excessive breadth).
However, the “ staircase '' has become part of the collective imagination and the government has decided to transform it into two lower steps, exceeding “ forward '' the 100 quota, which from 2022 would become 102 (64 + 38 of contributions) and the following year quota 103 (66 + 38).
Hate! It's not a great solution; it is a somewhat crude way of stitching up the tear that the yellow-green government measures have made in the pension system.
Moreover, it is appropriate to remember incidentally (it is almost never done) that the other measure adopted together with the 100 quota or the freezing with respect to the life expectancy of ordinary early retirement (42 years and 10 months for men and one less for women) will remain in force until the end of 2026. A way out that has proved to be much easier (as of 31/12/2020 pensions 283.701) than the same quota 100 (pensions 267.802).
If you want to understand what happened to the pension system following the measures adopted by the yellow-green government in 2018 (which came into force with Legislative Decree 4 of 2019) it may be useful to use a metaphor that brings us back to the climate of the latter. two years.
The system was infected with covid-19 in a severe form and still carries the consequences on his respiratory system, even if he is considered cured (i.e. survived). But it is practically impossible to recover the biological damage that the subject will carry with him throughout his life.
The government is aware of this state of health and the limitations of possible treatments. Minister Daniele Franco's proposal (in the same terms put forward by the Court of Auditors in a Public Finance Coordination Report) has the limited objectives of saving what can be saved. The fact is that, if the system is haunted by the results of covid-19, the No vax are also in the field: the League, the trade unions to which the president of INPS is added as a disturbing element, who looks like a magician extracting tidying proposals from the cylinder instead of white rabbits.
Maurizio Landini and his companions are like those who would like to treat the infection with drugs used for equines. In fact, their proposal is so busted that it seems to be drenched in ivermectin. With the cheeky face of those who argue that the earth is flat, they would claim to bring the system back thirty years by introducing two main ways out: 41 years of payments at any age or 62 years of age and 20 of contributions. Essentially by reducing access to old-age retirement by 5 years.
A platform against the course of history because it chooses to favor the advance over the adequacy of the pension treatment.
As for the Lega, Giancarlo Giorgetti has asked to safeguard the 100 quota in the private sectors while he agrees for the 102 and 104 quota for public employees (which Renato Brunetta would instead '' rejuvenate ''). This position represents a reverse ad usum Salvini. In January of this year, in fact, the Carroccio group in the Chamber (first signatory Claudio Durigon followed by all the elders) had presented a pdl (AC 2588) in which Article 2 established – as stated in the report – of maintain access to the "quota 100" pension for those who carry out strenuous jobs identified with the criteria already in use for the purposes of accessing the social EPA or pension for precocious workers, but eliminating the mechanism of " wait".
Given that these subjects – it was written – are generally already recipients of the mixed pension calculation system, it was also proposed that this benefit should also be paid in full with the contributory system. Basically, 100 would have survived to apply to a reduced audience (to protect which other instruments are involved) and with the application, moreover, of an economic penalty.
Pasquale Tridico , on the other hand, insists on proposing a payment of the pension in two stages: first and in advance the contribution rate, then, once the '' full '' requirements are met, the amount calculated in the salary regime would be added. This proposal would penalize, without any reason, the subjects who have in their working history longer periods calculated with the salary method according to what was foreseen by the regulations in force up to the time of the Fornero reform which introduced, starting from 2012, the pro rata contribution.
Attention, however: the proposals of the MEF, in the current state of the proceedings, contain technical errors that would be better avoided. If we went from 102 to 103 the following year, another staircase would be created: in fact, between one step and the next, at least two years should pass, so that there is a year of respite; otherwise the subjects who in 2022 did not reach the required requirements would find themselves trapped by their increase the following year, so they would pass directly to the quota 104 regime.
Then a further reflection spontaneously arises: what sense would it make for a form of early retirement at 66 one year before reaching the old age age (67 years)?
Finally, a minimum of flexibility, even if defined, would be appropriate, as was done in the past with the 2007 reorganization of the then minister Cesare Damiano; for example, in addition to the requirements of 64 + 38, provide a variant (maybe only this one) of 63 + 39.
The experience of quota 100 has shown how difficult it is to “ do both '' or have the two requirements at the same time. With a quota of 100, in fact, it almost always happened, in 2019, that users had a higher age of 62 years (on average 64 years) or a contribution higher than 38 years (on average 41 years). Then in 2020 these averages dropped, but to hit the spot both (62 +38) were around 30 thousand retirees in all.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/economia/rebus-quota-100-perche-riforma-pensioni-test-draghi/ on Sun, 24 Oct 2021 08:43:10 +0000.