Reform of the Non-Self-Sufficiency Scheme rather than early retirement

The allocation of 850 million to fund unspecified forms of early retirement, pushed for by Under-Secretary Claudio Durigon, has angered almost everyone. As we have already explained in these pages, the new early retirement schemes are accompanied by a further cut to the indexation of existing pensions. Those who wish to retire early are being pressured, whilst those who are already retired are being penalised.

According to the technical report, the savings for the state amount to 1.48 billion gross over the next three years, or 885 million net of the loss of tax revenue. But the most striking figure relates to the past: between 2021 and 2026, pensions exceeding 35,000 euros gross per annum have kept pace with only half of cumulative inflation; the highest pensions have kept pace with just over a third.

But the problem is more widespread. The government’s pension policy does not seem to be addressing the country’s real priorities. Resources are being sought to bring forward the retirement of a minority of workers, whilst two far greater emergencies are being ignored. The first concerns the pensions of those who began working after 1995. In four or five years’ time, the first cohorts entirely subject to the contribution-based system will begin to reach retirement age. For those who have had a stable career and high wages, the problem will be limited. But those who have spent thirty years juggling fixed-term contracts, periods of unemployment, low wages and intermittent contributions risk receiving a very low pension. It is therefore urgent to devise a form of guaranteed minimum pension for those with fragile contribution histories, without penalising those who have paid their contributions regularly.

The second crisis concerns care for elderly people who are unable to look after themselves. Here, the situation is paradoxical, because the reform already exists. It was discussed during the Gentiloni government; the Draghi government included it in the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) and approved the enabling bill in 2022, which then became law in March 2023. However, more than three years on, that reform has remained a dead letter.

The aim was to build a national care system that would integrate health and social services, strengthen home care and ensure continuous support. Instead, families continue to be left to fend for themselves. They have to find a carer, pay them, organise care and navigate the maze of local authority and health services, which often fail to communicate with one another. The carer’s allowance provides financial support, but it is not, in itself, a care service.

The issue of care dependency is the story of a reform that was approved and then abandoned. Meanwhile, the number of elderly people in need of care is rising, whilst families are getting smaller, women are working, and there are fewer and fewer relatives available to look after those in need of help free of charge. It is one of the greatest social changes the country is undergoing, and politicians continue to act as if it did not exist. So why not put the 850 million earmarked for early retirement to a different use? Parliament could table an amendment to the Budget Bill that would scrap that fund and allocate the resources to implementing the law on care for the non-self-sufficient.

With those resources, a national programme of continuous home care could be launched, jointly funding both the healthcare and social care components, and setting precise targets for the number of elderly people receiving care and the quality of services. It would not be enough to resolve the issue, but it would mark the start of the implementation of a law that Parliament has already passed. And it would be possible to explain to pensioners facing a reduction in their pension indexation that their sacrifice at least serves a purpose: not to allow someone else to retire earlier, but to guarantee care for those amongst them who can no longer live independently.

The problem with budgetary policy is precisely this: when resources are scarce, choices have to be made. It is not possible to fund all the parties’ pet projects – including the fund for newborns, which is certainly not a priority – whilst at the same time tackling major social issues.