A “reward” for those who postpone their retirement. With a paycheck that is about a third heavier. But not geared to the over 63s and, probably, not for everyone. Also because its priority “mission” would be to avoid new escapes from the public sector, starting with doctors.
Decontribution is beginning to take shape to incentivize workers in possession of retirement requirements to stay at work, which was proposed by the League and which are now evaluating the government technicians to verify its real feasibility, also in terms of costs, in view of the launch of the maneuver with which the measures should be taken to replace Quota 102, perhaps with a revised version (62 or 63 years of age and 41 of payments). It is precisely the minimum requirements required to access the pension, which in more than one case differ between the various categories, would become the threshold beyond which the incentive would be triggered.
No to the rigid limit of 63 years for any bonus
The hypothesis that is being studied to favor the postponement of retirements would not provide for a rigid threshold of 63 years to benefit from the incentive. The effective threshold would be represented by the minimum requirements for access to the pension set for the individual categories that would be affected by the deduction mechanism. Currently, for example, some of the doctors can opt to leave work even with 62 years of age and 35 of contributions or with 42 years of payments (including redemptions) regardless of age.
The knot of the stalls
In the intentions of the League, the bonus for delaying retirement should be guaranteed across the board: if not for everyone, at least for the majority of workers. But the hypothesis of incentives limited to certain categories remains on the table, favoring those with non-performing staff.
Priority to the public sector, starting with health
If the tax relief were to receive the government’s okay, it would be the public employment (at least some sectors) that would benefit from it, which, due to the high number of exits recorded in the Quota 100 years following a long phase of blocking the turnover , presents many areas with gaps in staff, not yet filled by the “public competitions” operation initiated by the former minister of the PA, Renato Brunetta. And in the event that the government, to avoid the return to the Fornero law in its full version, should opt for a revised Quota 102, with outputs at 61 years and 41 of contributions, the so-called “escape” from the PA could recur with a new jolt . Regardless of this variable, the new mechanism with premiums would in any case be triggered on the health front to prevent the presence of doctors in hospitals from further reducing.