Pensions, quota 41 or quota 102 flexible? What are the differences

These are the two main hypotheses. The first proposed by the League, the second more in line with the FdI idea

Two prevailing hypotheses and a debate that will occupy the next few weeks. You look for one solution on pensions to prevent the Fornero law from returning from 1 January 2023. There are several options on the table, but two paths seem to share the greatest chances of success. The first, share 102 flexible, is the scheme already proposed by the Foundation of Labor Consultants, led so far by the new Minister of Labor Marina Elvira Calderone, and very similar to the idea supported by the Brothers of Italy. The other is the League’s proposal, reaffirmed by the leader Matteo Salvini, share 41.

There are differences, both for the final effect and for the compatibility with the balance in the public accounts. Even if the two roads are approaching considering the corrections essential to make them sustainable in the current framework.

Quote 102 flexible. It provides for retirement between 61 and 66 years, with at least 35 years of contributions, as long as the sum is still 102. This is why we speak of a 102 ‘flexible’ quota. Until now, with 102, one retired only with 64 years plus 38 of contributions, in the new version it would also be possible with all the combinations between 61 and 66 years of age and between 35 and 41 years of contributions. It would be a solution capable of guaranteeing a solution, of avoiding the return to the Fornero law and of not compromising the balance of public accounts.

Odds 41. In this case we speak of a share relating to the years of contributions. The original hypothesis, the one pushed by the League during the electoral campaign, provides only the requirement of 41 years of contributions, regardless of age. The high costs, and the impossibility of supporting them at this stage, suggested that Salvini decline it as a goal of the legislature. A first intervention, to be done in the next few weeks, would include Quota 41 associated with a minimum age requirement: 61 or 62 years. The result would be similar to that of 102 but would be more rigid, pending progressively reaching the final goal.