Pension reform: there are 120 days left until the end of Quota 100, the way to early retirement so desired by Matteo Salvini’s League during the first Conte government: leaving work by adding 62 years of age and 38 contributions is only possible until 31 December. What will happen from January 1, 2022? For now it is dense fog, let’s see together scenarios and plausible hypotheses.
The risk of a staircase with the return to 67 years of age envisaged by the Fornero reform is currently far from averted. The Fornero law – reads www.today.it – provides for retirement from work at the age of 67 and a minimum contribution of 20 years. Overnight, if the government does not do anything (unlikely, but for now stasis is total) retirement would only be accessible from 67 years of age. It would go towards very complex scenarios. Let’s take a very simple example: from 31 December 2021, without any possible harmonization, for the excluded there will be a sharp increase of five or six years in the retirement requirements. Here is an extreme case: Mario and Giovanni worked 38 years in the same company, only the first was born in December 1959 and the second in January 1960. Mario will retire (if he wants to) at 62, while Giovanni will have to opt between an early retirement with 42 years and 10 months in 2026 or old-age retirement with 67 years and nine months, even in 2029.
A record staircase, which would even go beyond that of the old Maroni reform (law 243/2004), when a difference of three working years was introduced between those who would have accrued the right to a pension on 31 December 2007 and those who would have done so the first January 2008. In those years, to prevent about 130 thousand workers from retiring immediately, the Damiano reform was carried out, with an increase in “monstre” pension expenditure of 65 billion in the decade that followed.
Obviously the government will somehow intervene on the pension front. There should no longer be the possibility of early exit with at least 62 years of age and 38 contributions, but at the same time a sharp return to all the retirement thresholds introduced by Fornero is impracticable. The technicians of the Ministry of Economy reiterated a firm no to interventions that are too invasive and expensive such as the use of new quotas, from Quota 102 to Quota 41. It is highly probable that we will proceed by strengthening and making structural instruments that are well known and already existing, such as the Social Ape, the Woman Option or the expansion contracts. We are moving towards new forms of outgoing flexibility.
All the most credible rumors indicate that the strengthening of the social Ape will be decided in the first place, which should also be usable by other categories of workers engaged in activities considered burdensome or strenuous. Decisive for the enlargement of the audience will be the study which is completing the special Technical Commission set up by the Minister of Labor, Andrea Orlando. In fact, outgoing flexibility can only be flanked by targeted and already tested measures such as Woman Option, Social Ape or expansion contracts, if one intends to pass from words to deeds after months of stale debate.
Today, with the Woman Option – writes www.today.it – women workers can leave the world of work at 35 net years of contributions and 58 years of age, for subordinates, 59 years for self-employed workers. The Social Ape, on the other hand, is a subsidy paid while retirement age is expected, aimed at taxpayers of both sexes who are 63 years old and with 30-36 years of contributions paid. Both should also be renewed for the next few years, there are no particular doubts in this regard, but they could also be structurally strengthened.
The expansion contract, on the other hand, allows workers to retire on a voluntary basis up to 5 years earlier (60 months) than the requirements ordinarily required for old-age but also early retirement. An agreement is needed between the company and the trade unions to be signed at the Ministry of Labor, which must also contain a certain number of new hires and must be aimed at reindustrialising and reorganizing the business with a view to technological development. The goal is to encourage the restructuring of companies in crisis and generational change.
The mechanism works in this way: the employee who is less than five years after retirement terminates the relationship with the company and receives in exchange the so-called accompanying pension allowance. That is, a sum that is paid to him for thirteen months a year until he turns 67 and meets the requirements to leave work. Inps will pay it, but the company of origin will provide the money on a monthly basis and guaranteed by a surety.
The advantage for the company is that Naspi is subtracted from the amount paid to the worker, which should be paid to him in the event of job loss. In this way, a worker who earns 36 thousand euros a year would cost the company 100 thousand euros in five years. For the worker, however, there is also the possibility of finding another job.
There are numerous hypotheses for the replacement of Quota 100, for example the suggestion Quota 41 has been circulating for some time (i.e. retirement for anyone with 41 years of contributions regardless of age): but it would be difficult to sustain for public accounts: it starts from a cost of over 4.3 billion the first year, to rise. The suggestion will most likely remain that way.
The trade unions aim to find the square on a very wide flexibility, in practice they ask for an overall intervention on the pension that starts from the indications contained in their unitary proposal, starting with the introduction of flexibility in exit after the age of 62 and from the possibility of retirement with 41 years of contributions, but without a “fixed” Quota as it has been in these three years with Quota 100.
More sustainable would be the future division of the pension into two parts: salary and contributory. The president of INPS, Pasquale Tridico was the first to say this publicly in a speech at the seminar ‘Pensions, 30 years of reforms’, four months ago. In practice, the hypothesis provides for a “pension advance only for the contributory part: 62/63 years and 20 years of contributions. The rest (the salary quota) is obtained at 67”. In practice, it could be envisaged “1 year less for each child for working mothers, or an increase in the transformation coefficient correspondingly and 1 year less for every 10 years of heavy / heavy work, or an increase in the transformation coefficient correspondingly (simplifying the certification ) “. In addition, the “blocking of life expectancy for cohorts”. The pension advance for the contributory part could therefore be given at 62-63 years, while the rest (the salary share) would be obtained only years later, at 67. According to INPS calculations, the most viable, least expensive option would be that of the possibility of advancing the contribution fee to 63 years.
In short, only hypotheses for now, which are waiting to be concretized. What appears certain is that there will not be a single Quota 100 style, but more tools available, diversified and flexible.