I’ll explain why the parliamentarians were not entitled to the bonus of 600 euros
The € 600 bonus for VAT numbers was not due to parliamentarians and, in general, to regional councilors. Here because? Giuliano Cazzola's analysis
It is so gratifying to make it a matter of political malpractice that no one cares to consider whether the rules really allowed parliamentarians and other (2,000?) "Politicians", involved in the 600 euro affair , to submit the application and collect the 'one-off, last March. Indeed, the case is presented in the media as legitimate, but profoundly immoral, without raising the question of why in a state of law the principle of legality should be in contrast with the values of ethics.
The most unique aspect is the discriminant of income. For some, one should turn a blind eye in the case of municipal councilors who only receive skimpy attendance fees, while the clearer “ crucifix '' should be reserved for parliamentarians (two have been suspended by the League) and regional councilors who perceive a real and their own considerable allowance (in these cases the media denounce – to impress more, the gross amount of income, while when they talk about pensions or salaries they are satisfied with the net figures). No one has asked what, in my opinion, is the heart of the matter.
Was this bonus due or not? Was submitting the application by a member of parliament (and pocketing the bonus) an immoral act or an attempt to evade the law? Obviously, a payment, which does not comply with the law, calls into question the responsibility of the provider and perhaps also the correct interpretation of the rules. Basically, I will try to demonstrate that there is, first of all, a question of a legal nature, the only one that counts in a state of law: the performance was not due to the parliamentarians and, in general, to the regional councilors while for the '' minor 'politicians 'it is necessary to evaluate their specific professional and social security position (not what they receive from the institution they belong to). Let's see why.
Articles 27 to 31 and 38 (Indemnity for certain categories of workers) of the Cura Italia decree – see also the Dossier prepared by the Chambers' Study Services – recognize an indemnity in favor of certain categories of workers for the month of March 2020 , equal to 600 euros.
The benefit may concern, under certain conditions: freelancers (holders of VAT numbers) registered with the so-called separate INPS management and the holders of coordinated and continuous collaboration relationships registered with the same Management; self-employed workers enrolled in the special management of INPS (relating to artisans, traders and direct farmers, sharecroppers, settlers and professional agricultural entrepreneurs); seasonal employees of the tourism sector and spas; fixed-term agricultural workers; entertainment workers.
The following article 96 provides for the recognition of the indemnity of 600 euros, also for the month of March 2020, in favor of holders of collaboration relationships with national sports federations, sports promotion bodies, amateur sports clubs and associations.
In all these cases the same '' conditionality '' is provided: the one-off is due if the interested parties are not pension holders and are not registered in other compulsory social security forms, other than the separate management at the INPS. In this regard, we know that it is mandatory for parliamentarians to register with a specific scheme which, with the recent changes, has taken on a more decisive pension profile and therefore the exclusion from the benefit would seem evident.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/economia/vi-spiego-perche-i-parlamentari-non-avevano-diritto-al-bonus-di-600-euro/ on Sun, 16 Aug 2020 07:30:46 +0000.