Golden pensions for legitimate withdrawal Consult – The Republic

ROME – The Council is keen to promote now the law of the government Letta solidarity levy to pensions “gold” of 2014. the reasons are many. He did not have a fiscal nature. Affected only the most “rich pensions.”

He had a well-defined solidarity motivation and politically explicit, so much so that there is no trace in the parliamentary debate. He fell fully into the power of the legislature to intervene on pensions. Does not conflict with Articles 81 and 97 of the Constitution which impose, even for the regions, the balance of the budget.

Today, with these arguments, the Consultation could postpone the sender eight ordinances – between six of the Court of Auditors (the sections of the Veneto, Calabria, Umbria and Campania) and the two judicial Commission for the Chamber staff deputies – who asked to declare unconstitutional the solidarity contribution on pensions by 91 thousand euro up, determined by the government Letta, and inserted in the law of 2014 is stable, with a validity scheduled for three years.

Rapporteur judge Morelli Rosario Cassation. Maybe a couple of absent, the lawyer Giuseppe Frigo for health reasons and constitutionalist Augusto Barbera struggling with an investigation court.

The Constitutional Court, 13 judges, again interprets the theme of pensions and government cuts that have already caused a sensation in May than a year ago with the judgment signed by labourist Silvana Sciarra (the 70 of 2015) on the re-evaluations block to the lowest pensions. The controversy with the government was hard. Then the judges were 12 and ended with a resounding six to six, where his weight double voting of then President Alessandro Criscuolo. But today, after the public hearing of the morning, the decision could be countered far less traumatic and also for the internal equilibrium.

Here’s why, starting from some data. Withdrawal of Letta law was progressive, the 6% for amounts from 91 to 130 thousand euro, 12% for those from 130 to 195, 18% for those still higher. If the Court were to promote the actions the state should repay about 160 million euro. But of course, in this case, the problem would essentially concern the future, namely the impossibility, to respected the Constitution, to do other similar laws.

A number of principles of the Constitution which, according to the applicants, would be violated, from the equality (Article 3), the right to a proportionate remuneration (35 and 36), to balance the budget (81 and 97), the protection of workers (38 ), the duty

to contribute to public expenditure (53). Both the State Service that the INPS, in These memories, argue that the applicants have completely wrong and so their argument must be rejected. Because technically the reasons given are inadequate and insufficient, so that acts should be sent back for further evaluation.

But the ‘the most relevant topic that today could push the high court to speak favorably to the compulsory levy on the wealthy pensions would be what the economic intervention of the Letta government had not the characteristic of a “tax maneuver.” It was, in short, a sort of disguised tax, but a move to ensure a better balance between them pensioners. So much so that among the objectives of the levy, the only three-year nature, there was also to support workers who were at that time. “Esodati”

the same government Letta, as demonstrated by the parliamentary records, had discussed and clarified the issue in order to avoid the ax of the constitutional Court instead in 2013 – the sentence 116 signed by former President of the Court Giuseppe Tesauro – had rejected a government bill Berlusconi, then formulated anew by the Monti government, which imposed a levy of between 5 and 15% on pensions over 90 thousand euro. In that case there was precisely that “fiscal nature” which instead would be absent from the law Letta.

Two constitutional principles ultimately would not even affected, that of the right workers’ right to a pension, because the ratio of the law was aimed at a balance between rich and poor pensions pensions and the balance of the budget, because the law did not involve additional spending.

Topics:

pension

constitutional court

consult

refunds

redemptions requests

Starring: