Piergiovanni Alleva, Director of the magazine's legal work, provides a new idea in the debate on pensions by including the initial proposal, which appeared on the manifest of 21 June last year and that it later inspired the recent hypotheses on the incentives. But basically, you just explain that the "system" Alleva is all about "voluntariness" of the increase in the retirement age, so without imposing any obligation (even in the form of step) compared to current conditions (57 years of age and 35 years of contributions), but at the same time making it very attractive to stay in employment. In other words: push who can and wants to work up to 65 years of age or over 40 contributions, because it provides very strong incentives, allows those who wish to exit (for example, all workers in manufacturing, heavy or shifts) to do it as freely , since it is "covered" by the stay of others. On the other hand today, the worker can stay free up to 65 years on the job, because not licensed until it has completed the "pensionabilità for old age" (the "pensionabilità for Elderly - 57 plus 35 or 40 contributions - in fact it is not enough to be fired). The proposal is not funded by Alleva, "hoards" or public funds, but by the same contributions of workers does not harm the INPS or public accounts (thus satisfying those who defend the 'staircase' or 'steps'), and does not only ensure higher pensions (up 82% -90% or even close to 100% of final salary), but total income while the richest one is at work.
Alleva, as you can get all this together?
We start first from my first proposal, and then - once - I'll explain how I integrated push to stay in employment until 65 years of age or over 40 contributions. Of course for those who always wanted to do it. Therefore, the 'first phase' of my proposal is aimed at those who want to stop working after reaching the age of 57 and 35 years of contributions. Today, with the method of remuneration, which includes a 2% return each year worked, the pension may be increased to 70% of salary, or at most 80% if you have 40 years of contributions. I propose that those who stop working to bring to bear more years of delay on future output board: you can get up to 60 years maturing in the first year 3%, 4% the second, the third the 5%. Of course you can leave at the end of each year, at 58, 59 or 60: it is not required to make them all three. So you can have at the end, a richer pension allowance of 12%, gaining 82% last pay.
We want to give a concrete example?
Sure, let's say we are talking about the employee has a salary of € 20 000 per year. Today can retire with 57 years and 35, receiving an amount equal to 70%, or about 14 000 euro per year. Assuming that instead face 40 years of contributions, will have 80%, or about 16 000 €. With my proposal, ripe 1200 euro more each year, and can reach 82% of salary, amounting to a grant of € 17,200 per year. INPS not lost, but rather remains in surplus, because for 3 years not paying the pension and continues to collect contributions, but not to charge the player numbers, the reference to the first article published on the manifest 21 June, where I do a detailed calculation.
So we found that the incentive is substantial enough, because instead of € 14 000 of annual pension, the worker who wants to stay for three more - up to 60 - 17,200 or ripe well. The new proposal speaks of a "phase two": to stop working until 65. What do you expect?
The proposal for "phase two" is simply because in some way is an extension of the "phase one", but it also adds an enrichment of income while you work. All this, not at the expense of the contribution, as it provides the incentive bonus super-Maroni. My proposal provides that those who choose to work beyond age 60 has two opportunities ahead: the first is that you return to the old rate of annual return for future pension (2%) and at the same time receive a monthly allowance by INPS salary supplement equal to 30% of retirement. I know that I am departing from doubly to current regulations: not only the principle of non-overlapping between earned income and pensions, but the bargain is to receive the pension while remaining in the same job. But I think the laws have already been overcome in the proposal to increase the pension for more than 80% of the salary. Well, in this way, just gaining another 2% for 5 years (but again, it is not required to stay until 65, you choose to remain each year), I arrive more than 90% of final salary. In addition, in all the years I stopped working, I have a more substantial income. On the other hand, if I do not want this 30% immediately, but I prefer a pension even richer output, I can opt for the latter because of the crossroads every year rely on more work from the sixtieth to sixty-five, instead of 2% For example 3%. Check in to ripen a check that is almost 100% of final salary. We
again an example.
Yes, our workers with annual income of € 20 000, if he chooses to take as an incentive 30% of the accrued pension, receives an annual sum of € 4,920, added to his salary, which amounted to € 370 per month. In addition, if you are stopped for five years, at which point he gained an annual allowance of about € 18 000. If you do not want, conversely, 30% now, a couple future allocation of almost € 20 000 per year. But there
INPS loses?
No, explain why: if that employee had retired at 60 years, INPS would pay him from that moment on € 16,400 a year and stopped to collect contributions of € 6,600 (33% of 20 000). Because rather than remain in service pays only 30% of the pension of € 4,920 - in addition to pay, however. INPS save about € 18 000 a year (16,400 +6.600-4.920) and then in five years, about 90 000 euro, if the worker walking the way to the end of the incentive, which runs until 65. In this way I tried to build a kind of 'bridge', to 'harness', among the pensionabilità seniority (57 years) and old age (65), which many workers should be encouraged to follow rationally. Obligations not expected, but substantial incentives, and does not affect sull'Inps or on public accounts.
0 comments:
Post a Comment