Pension reform in San Marino, the responsibility of lawyers and notaries: “Unjustly vexatious intervention”
After the Union of San Marino Women and the trade unions, the Order of Lawyers and Notaries of San Marino also expresses its doubts regarding the pension reform presented by the Government.
In a note, the Board of the Order of Lawyers and Notaries speaks of “deep p for the provisions contained in the draft law “Reform of the social security system” submitted in these days to the examination of the competent Council Commission and in particular for those concerning the freelance sector.
In general, it cannot be ignored – write the professionals – as a summary examination of the article already shows deep critical issues, suitable to reassure themselves both on the legitimate expectations of a future and prolonged financial sustainability of the social security system, and above all on the balance of the same in the medium and long term. In particular, the proposed interventions, focused on the only indiscriminate increase in the contribution in the face of a concomitant general reduction in the expected pension, the only consequence must be that the pensioners of the very future will be able to reach 60% of the income enjoyed while working (dependent or self-employed).
To have totally neglected to face
– is the inevitable transition from the remuneration system (in perspective more and more insensitive even only for our demographic dynamics and in any case profoundly unfair for the correlated inequalities that necessarily entails) to the contribution system (citizens would have their pensions calculated on the basis of the contributions actually paid);
– that the no longer postponable separation of assistance (the coverage of which should be remitted to general taxation) from the pension (which should be obliged with the obligatory contributions from the members), to believe from the moment of self-financing that the intervention as they do ineffective and therefore unfair vexatious for where the huge sacrifice everything required will be decorrelated from firm expectations of recovery.
If the general layout of the project leaves therefore wide doubts of effectiveness, particularly At the same time, the provisions concerning freelancers and professional companies must be considered reprehensible. In December 2020, the Great and General Council, with a plebiscite vote, approved law no. 22/2020 which placed an action on a different year that prohibited only free self-employed workers then the reasons why today’s reform project (art. 24) in fact abjures both the rationale and the forecasts of any contributory nature, reintroducing anachronistic and unjust differences with respect to other types of companies.
This position, as well as being reprehensible for being a source of unjust inequalities with respect to all other categories of companies, is even more unacceptable when it is considered that contrary to what the provision could lead to believe, lawyers and notaries, in particular, and Freelancers, in general, have always been and have always been active contributors to the pension fund (i.e. they pay more than they receive), unlike all the other funds that have long been negative (so much so that every year the State must intervene to cover the deficit).
The reasons that led, once again, to strike the category with unfairly oppressive provisions are therefore obscure, while at the same time the ambitions of the sectors that establish to create a deficit are not the recipients of any similar provision.
At the end of resetting any unjustified claim in the bud, reiterated that the reform launched in 2011, which further determined a single fund for self-employed workers, was adopted with the total disagreement of the interested parties and for the sole purpose of using the assets accumulated by our bottom, we reiterate the request of return to the autonomy of their fundthus assuming the burden of ensuring its sustainability.
With regret – concludes the OAN – we also observe that the very short time to analyze the measure does not have that category comparison that would have been necessary to formulate articulated and sustainable proposals for modification and at least to avoid unjust measures against the, as already noted, not determined by no need or technical reason “.