Pension reform definitively approved by the House
The second reading examination of the Reform is taken up by article 34: one of the possible starting points for the debate. It is in fact the reduction of Smac discounts for the purchase of fuel (10 cents per litre, instead of the current 15); and this for a period of 6 years. Expected, in the same time frame, a increase of 10 cents a package of the cost of tobacco. All to finance the pension fund subordinate workers; we are talking about a total of around 2 million and 800,000 euros per year. DML reproposed a repeal amendment; in such a moment – it was explained – “we consider it anachronistic to intervene on oil costs with this measure”. Just replenish the pension fund – it has been observed -, but in this way it has a strong impact on household budgets. Such a “horizontal” measure does not solve “social problems”. Negative also the opinion of Free: an intervention that weakens an important tool, in this phase, is “not very reasonable”; “very bad signalto citizenship.
An exponent of NET he underlined how the disbursement of the State – as for the fuels – remain unchanged, but partially change the destination. Whoever governs – another representative of the Movement added – must do the math; regret the position of DML. Against RF, when the Orders are made to ask for interventions to contrast the cost of living, it goes in the opposite direction. Unfair, unjust and untimely – it has been said – the reduction of discounts for fuel. Along the same lines Iro Belluzzi, Independent of Libera; which nonetheless judged positively, overall, the work of the Health Secretariat in this Reform. I have some concerns too, acknowledged an NPR official. “Curious” – in his opinion – to include a fiscal instrument in a pension reform. Finally the Secretary Ciavatta who explained the rationale of the article: temporary intervention, to accompany the full entry into force of the reform with a surplus of revenue. The discount reduction is on a already competitive fuel price a San Marino. The amendment was rejected with 22 votes against and 19 in favor. Also approved the whole article. Appreciation of Freeinstead, for the following article, which provides – for pensioners who receive the ordinary old-age pension – the possibility of go back to work and continue to receive your pension. The approval of the subsequent articles was also very rapid. Instead, a pause was decided when it came to the discussion of article 40, which introduces the suspension of the pension in the event of unregulated contributions. Found a square on an amendment shared by the entire House, which limits the operation of the rule to only self-employed; the employee, in fact – he recalled Andrea Zafferani of RF -, in the event of irregular contributions, he would find himself in this situation through no fault of his own. After the conclusion of the examination of the article, the explanations of vote. Even today, we have tried to improve the text of the law with amendments – RF said -, we have not succeeded, because we have not reached the necessary number of signatures. It remains and would have remained a “problematic text” due to the fundamental choice it makes: ithe withdrawal from the pension fund. Unfortunately what emerges from the numbers of the reform is chapand between 7-9 years old the balance between social security income and expenditure will return to being out of control; and a new reform will inevitably be needed. It is not a nice “legacy”; and the pension fund will be halved in its amount. Not shared, then the decision to “separate the roads” of first pillar andI Fondiss. “Reform that saves time but at a very significant price both for those who work and for the future”.
Therefore Free, which reaffirmed the simultaneous need for a law concerning tax aspects. Over the next 10 years, the scope of the pension fund will be halved. Re-emphasised the need for reduce disincentives for working mothers; it would have been a”small signal” within the broader theme of supporting the birth rate. Criticisms then to the intervention on the Smac discount, which in Libera’s opinion goes to “depress” the economic system. Reflections then on the theme of relief for young people who are heading into the profession. Both Opposition forces have announced a no vote. Following the intervention of DML extension; it was necessary to intervene for correct distortions long known. However, the non-sharing of some articles in the text was underlined; but “the sense of responsibility requires us to proceed”. It is a pity that, on the basis of the provisions of some articles, it is the citizens who once again pay for the lack of insights and opportunities for discussion of politics. We expect with the notifications that the greatest distortion of our economic system will be remedied, namely that whoever has to pay finally pays. It can’t pass the message that whoever gets smart always wins. And then NET; which underlined the confrontation of the Secretariat with the intermediate bodies and politics. We were aware that this reform could not have been a “social butchery” reform. The social security system is not yet self-sufficient, because the system of the Republic of San Marino is not self-sufficient. The pension fund will be used for its significant purpose: in emergency situations it will allow the sustainability. A useful reform to buy time and implement a series of measures capable of relaunching the country. So IPDCS extension; necessary reform, given the strongly negative pension balance. I think a social and political balance pact has been made. It is a reform in the wake of previous reforms, without a change of approach. Depending on the evolution of the world of work and the economy it will need to adapt. Gradual intervention is significant for odds 103; outgoing flexibility for the old-age pension; concessions for young workers; possibility of creating part-time pensions, and so on. No shattering of the social pact, but a passage of political responsibility and confrontation with the social partners, which confirms the goodness of the Majority’s action. The Secretary of Health, the Government and the Majority have had political courage. Finally, the need to work for strong economic development was underlined. Following NPR; tormented bill, due to the long ordeal of confrontation in various contexts. Public resources have been used over time to proselytize, without ever asking for sacrifices and responsibilities. Hence the current imbalance. There’s a Approximately 70% of the pensionon average, that comes given by the state to citizens. We must try to make it clear that these distortions need to be corrected. This reform tries to give some answers. “We took a half step compared to the full step we would have liked to do”. Rossano FabbriMixed Minority Group, observed how the pension reform should have been the first of the great reforms, after that of the Justice. Today we see a country that expects more decisive action from this government. But the Secretary had the courage to go all the way, even though it was not a question of a decisive reform. After all, the situation is not easy for anyone. Finally, the vote of the entire article. 33 votes in favour; 15 those against; 1 abstained. The pension reform is law.