Abolish Quota 100? Less than a billion in savings in 2020. But the real cost is uncertainty – Repubblica.it

Table 1: Increased number of existing pensions at the end of the year and the related burden compared to the pre-quota situation 100

Why was such an increase expected in 2020? The reasons are two. The first is that in 2019 it benefits from "Quota 100" even those who had reached 101, 102, etc. In 2020, only those that reach "Quota 100" in that year are added. The second is that they do not "count" more, among the largest number of pensioners due to "Quota 100", how many would have retired in 2020. However, this second reason implies that the number of pensioners who could benefit from "Quota 100 "In 2020 it is higher than 34,000 units. How much? There are no precise estimates in this regard, but to have an order of magnitude it can be assumed that there are about one fifth of those entitled in 2019, (1) therefore about 60 thousand. (2) Considering a gap due to uncertainty, if they were 40 thousand the savings would be around 500 million before taxes paid on pensions. And if there were 80 thousand, savings would not exceed the gross billion. Net of taxation, the gap would go from 425 to 850 million net. (3) It is also necessary to take into account the fact that, given that in 2019 “Quota 100” was less used than expected, the same could happen also in 2020, the which would imply that the abolition of "Quota 100" would mean a saving closer to the lower limit of the above range, rather than to the upper one.Without going into the merits of the provision itself, it is clear that a substantial part of the costs related to "Quota 100" are now inevitable and that the benefits of an immediate repeal must be weighed against the costs, including the cost in terms of credibility that would arise from a further change in the legislation on pensions. (4) In this respect, these costs would be lower if today's discussion were aimed not so much at sudden changes relating to 2020, as for the changes to be made for 2021. This is because time would be left to people involved to adapt to any new legislation.

Lastly, although "Quota 100" dominates the public discussions, the second channel on which Law Decree 4/2019 intervened should not be forgotten, namely the failure to adapt the requirements for access to early retirement due to changes in life expectancy. This measure, as reported in Table 1, currently has a cost well below "Quota 100" (about 500 million) but its annual cost is destined to grow over the years and, while the experimentation of "Quota 100" should be concluded at at the end of 2021, the blocking of the adjustment to life expectancy is envisaged, under current legislation, until 2026. Always with a view to making long-term decisions regarding the social security system, to give workers and companies time to adapt, it would perhaps be appropriate to reflect already from now on the effectiveness of the provision and on the opportunity to reshape it in the years to come.

* Observatory on Public Accounts of the Catholic University of Milan

<! –

-> <! –

->

Topics:

quota 100

Guest Houses

Public Accounts Observatory

Cottarelli Observatory