Matteo Salvini and the three-pension scheme

Is there a specific reason why the government is harming a significant number of pensioners simply to please Matteo Salvini in his delusion of ‘overcoming’ the Fornero reform? It would appear so; one need only do a bit of maths. Let’s set out the regulatory framework, which is derived partly from the 2027 budget bill and partly from rumours.

The text issued by Palazzo Chigi refers to the establishment of a fund, the resources of which are earmarked “for the financing of measures, to be adopted by subsequent legislative provision, aimed at regulating support measures for those leaving the labour market, including with regard to specific individuals in difficulty and any measures relating to social safety nets”. The fund is to receive 850 million euros a year for three years (2027–2029), amounting to a total of approximately 2.5 billion. So much for the facts; beyond that, we must rely on hearsay. The measure is reportedly intended to establish a new early retirement scheme, designed to revive the success of ‘Quota 100’, albeit with different criteria – namely, 64 years of age and 36 years’ service – with the entire calculation subject to the rules of the contribution-based system.

Even this description of the scope of the new measure would appear to go well beyond the aims of protecting those in difficulty and take on a broader significance, as its supporters indeed claim. However, if its function of providing support for employment-related difficulties were confirmed (see the reference to social safety nets), the new scheme would operate along the same lines as the ‘Ape sociale’ (which would be reaffirmed), one of the limitations of which is that it does not provide for the recalculation of contributions.

Then there is the issue of the financial coverage attributed to a further tampering with the revaluation of pension payments exceeding 2,500 euros gross per month, which would see their rates adjusted up to 32 per cent. It would not be the first time a government has raided the pension pot by cutting the automatic increase resulting from inflation adjustment. Indeed, every government – with the commendable exception of the Draghi administration – over the last quarter of a century has striven to devise original horizontal or vertical scaling schemes, shifting the rates like pieces on a draughts board. The Constitutional Court, when called upon to rule on the matter, permitted the measure in cases of very serious financial circumstances, whilst emphasising the exceptional nature of the provision. Then, as governments persisted, the Constitutional Court adopted a different approach: the resources derived from the restructuring of the indexation for the highest pension payments were to be channelled back into the system to fund measures promoting equity.

Is this the scenario envisaged in the budget bill? Judging by the figures for those affected, one would say not. In an interview, the Under-Secretary of State for Labour, Claudio Durigon, stated that the new ‘Quota 100’ scheme could affect 60,000 workers a year. The adjustment to the revaluation, based on the criteria being proposed (those receiving a pension more than four times the minimum), would affect more than 3.5 million out of a total of over 16 million pensioners (the former accounting for expenditure of 161 billion out of a total of 364 billion). However, of the 68 billion in tax revenue collected from pensioners (2024 data from the INPS register), those receiving pensions in excess of 2,500 euros gross per month contribute a total of 42 billion. The average personal income tax rate for this group is in fact 18.7 per cent, whilst for higher amounts it ranges from 22.1 to 40.2 per cent.

Therefore, unless the intention is to set aside resources in anticipation of a mass early retirement scheme (though the requirements of the new ‘Quota 100’ scheme would be too onerous) involving large numbers of people (as in the case of the former Ilva disaster), there is a strong impression that the operation as a whole is neither coherent nor, indeed, useful; and that the adjustment to the revaluation rates actually serves to reduce that specific expenditure in anticipation of accelerating inflation and its effects on public finances.

Meanwhile, it appears that Salvini has realised that they were attempting to sell him the Trevi Fountain and has reacted in his own way by making other, more substantial demands.