Trf and supplementary pensions: the analysis
The pension future that we leave to our children and grandchildren is not edifying at all. The problem is not new, but has been dragging on since the 80s where even Roger Ravenna (1925-2022) former trade unionist and former president of INPS from 1980 to 1985 declared in the newspapers “I am not at ease about my pension”. He wrote Enrico Morelli on Capital: “the leitmotif of financial advisors who want to convince savers to invest in their products is not inflation, but pensions”. Economic WorldMarch 31, 1995, regarding social security, wrote: “… it is the prospect for the end of the century: every worker will have to support an inactive colleague. The reform is therefore urgent and must establish the principle of supplementary funds that will allow us to avoid financial disaster”.
Obviously all the governments who have followed one another have been very careful not to implement reforms in favor of future pensioners, indeed the Italian Parliamentarians, probably with regard to their future, who in addition to receiving the end of term checkhave found a way to “integrate” their already important future pensionsbut they don’t say that their “TFR” must end up in supplementary pension funds.
Why am I writing this? Here is the reason: “Therefore, following the statements of the Undersecretary of Labor Claudio Durigonwhich suggested introducing the obligation to allocate a portion of the TFR (25%) to supplementary pension funds, the Ministry of Labor is preparing significant innovations that will be included in the 2025 budget law” (News on TFR, it will pass directly to pension funds with the new proposed law: here’s what you will have to do to keep it – Brocardi.it).
Request why impose? The choices must be made by those who will be the pensioners of tomorrow and have alternatives. I also made a proposal (retrieve the article here), but the decision must still be made by those who will be in the list of pensioners tomorrow. And then Why are there privileged classes who with just a few years of contributions can retire with higher amounts than those who work for 40 or more years? More than 40 years have passed since the problem was “known”, and it is certainly not with a patch that the tear is covered, but an alternative that is free must always be proposed.
One last thing at this time we have 3.4 million pensioners who “survive” on less than a thousand euros a month, shouldn’t we think about those who are very close to the poverty line? That is, 690 euros a month for a single person, 1,150 euros for two people? At this point I can only launch a provocation: why don’t all those who today are concerned with the future of others actually try to live on what is paid on average to current pensioners?
INPS probably has many flaws because we have dumped everything on this institution, it was also forced to incorporate management bodies of many categories, especially those in the “deep red”, perhaps poorly managed? Do you want some examples? INPDAP (National Institute for Social Security for Public Administration Employees), ENPALS (National Agency for Social Security and Welfare for Entertainment Workers), INPGI (National Institute for Social Security for Italian Journalists), while in 1995 the Cassa degli Artigiani e dei Commercianti were absorbed, which at the time were bodies with “full coffers”.
Then a very important thing: Both Amato and Fornero changed the rules when the game had already begun and in both cases it was not very advantageous for future pensioners. Have I said everything? It is not possible to be exhaustive, but there is one thing to do or are ALL on the same level, you must have at least 40 or more years of contributions and/or be of a certain age (excluding the “protected” categories), for example in Switzerland there are conditions and everyone can choose Preparing for retirement in Switzerland (ch.ch), it would be interesting to also set a limit: if you want to work on your own or for the state, suspend the pension that was paid to you (it’s a question of jobs). In conclusion, the formula must be contributory for all, otherwise what is the point? Mutatis mutandis – what needs to be changed has changed.
#Pensions #obligation #allocate #TFR #supplementary #funds #Italianstyle #boomerang
