on the subject of pensions, and strangely a few days Tito Boeri looks one indignant silence (after criticism received for the latest proposals) will instead follow statements and proposals by members of the government and parliamentarians. That do nothing but add to the confusion and bewilderment of pensioners and retirees. Parliament passed a resolution to the Document of Economics and Finance postponing to 2019 a balanced budget, on the issue of flexibility in output for those who must retire. An issue to which even the government has informally presented its proposal through the Undersecretary of the Council Presidency, Thomas Nannicini who has recently stressed the opportunity to imagine a mix of interventions for output modulated according to the situations of those who ask, but which has as its theme the minimization of the costs to the state coffers.
PARLIAMENT – parliamentarians in the approval resolution of Def asked the government to investigate an intervention on pensions, sustainable for public finances, even for those who decide to retire early from work, through a penalty mechanism that is not too onerous. The two documents are identical and approved by both the House and the Senate by a large majority also have advanced several “suggestions” and explicitly asked that the issue of flexibility in output to be addressed this year calling on the government “to take any useful initiative to promote, respecting the fiscal targets, interventions on social security aimed at introducing elements of flexibility for retirement, even with the provision of reasonable penalties. “
GOVERNMENT – the government has not taken a specific position on the pensions dossier, but the hypothesis advanced by Nannicini may represent guidelines on how the government intends to address the issue. The Secretary, in fact, spoke of a model with three audiences: employed, unemployed and redundant for each of which should be identified ad hoc solutions. The first identified range is that people who have a preference to retire earlier. The second is to those who need to retire early, because he lost his job and has not the output requirements. The third category are the workers that the company wants to retire earlier to restructure the company’s staff. According Nannicini “you could try to create a market of pension advances, that today there is, involving government, INPS, banks, insurance companies.” “In this scheme – he continued – the first category can retire but with a slightly stronger penalty. The second category him pay the penalty for the most part the State. For the third are the companies to cover the costs of the advance. In summary it would not be the state to pay the deposit, but merely to cover part of the costs with insurance to guarantee risk death. ” One hypothesis to which must be added the resolution of the majority of parameters you have indicated among the possibilities even that of interventions ‘selective’ for some specific categories, such as “in cases of involuntary unemployment and strenuous work.”
TFR AND pENSION FUNDS – in recent days have circulated hypotheses, not confirmed in the government, which should include the possibility to allocate a compulsory component of the TFR to supplementary pension funds. This would be the case c on the Stability Law 2017; probably we say goodbye to the Employee Severance Indemnity (TFR) in favor of the mandatory pension funds. D to a side of the accession it would be introduced mandatory pension funds, which would be made more affordable through the alleviation of taxation (3-4 points) and the increase in the tax deductibility of payments; the other would be made compulsory the destination of at least part of the TFR to complementary pension schemes. This would be one of the most important innovations in terms of pensions that the government is thinking of implementing in order to promote flexibility of the Italian pension system. But everything is still almost top secret by the government, and some anticipation came only a few specialized study and a few news agency. V edremo if later the Government will confirm this hypothesis is that sicuramenre destinta to fuel further controversy in the already hot matter of security.
REACTIONS – while on the whole otherwise there are different reactions: completely negative ones by the trade unions. The Deputy Minister of Economy Enrico Zanetti (Civic Choice) has promoted the idea of pension loan, immediately quashed by the Fiom leader Maurizio Landini for which the idea is a true “madness” and yet another mockery. CGIL, CISL and UIL have called together to end up with the politics of the ‘blame game’ and begin to address concretely the problem. On the issue it is also addressed by President of the Chamber Labour Commission, Cesare Damiano, to the effect that 2016 must be the year of flexibility. But that is not intended as deconstruction of the current system related to Law Fornero. “We do not want to jettison the system of government Monti: Fornero law. We do not want to alarm Europe. We have a solid system, but this is make some corrections. In an interview with the Secretary to the Council Presidency, Nannicini spoke of flexibility. And this is a victory for the Labour Committee of the House because it has been three years that we are fighting. For us it is a great advance. Ask to sit down around a table to address the issue. “
And ‘what they ask in vain for months and months the unions, with whom the government does not want to confront.
No comments:
Post a Comment