Pensions, is Quota 41 enough to cancel the Fornero law?

In recent days the government has returned to work in view of the next pension reform which should materialize as early as 2025: the declared objective of the majority, in particular of the league area, is the cancellation of the Fornero law.
Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni spoke of a sustainable and lasting reform, capable of making access to pensions more flexible but without putting public finances at risk.
Among the flexibility measures being worked on, Quota 41 for all is the one that arouses the greatest enthusiasm, as it would allow access to a pension, regardless of age, with just 41 years of contributions.
This would be a great step forward compared to today, when to retire at any age you must have accrued at least 42 years and 10 months of contributions, one year less for women (early retirement), while only early pensioners belonging to the categories of the most vulnerable can go there with 41 years of contributions.
It would thus be a continuation of Quota 103, which allows retirement with 41 years of contributions but only to those who have reached the age of 62 and accept a fully contributory recalculation (with relative penalty) of the allowance.
But would Quota 41 for all, which as confirmed by Undersecretary Durigon should also provide for a recalculation of pension contributions, be enough on its own to eliminate the Fornero law? With Quota 41 for all new requirements for early retirement.
Effectively extending to all workers (today this possibility is reserved for some early pensioners) the possibility of accessing the pension with Quota 41 would overcome the 2011 reform approved by the Monti government.
But only in part, i.e.
with regards to the early pension which today allows those who have accrued 42 years and 10 months of contributions, one less for women, to retire regardless of their chronological age.
In this case, in fact, 41 years of contributions would be sufficient for both men and women for early access to the pension.
However, for those who have not managed to have a continuous career to the point of reaching 41 years of contributions, only access to the old-age pension would remain, for which 67 years of age and 20 years of contributions are required, a measure which at does not appear to be subject to reform at the moment.
The retirement age, therefore, would continue to be equal to 67 years for the majority of workers: as the experience of Quota 100 teaches us, in fact, usually those who can boast a high number of contributions are mostly public employees, not certainly those burdensome and tiring workers who according to most politicians deserve greater social security protection.
Would quota 41 for everyone be for a few? Quota 41 for everyone risks being a measure for the few, given that as mentioned above it requires a high number of years of contributions to which only a few workers can aspire.
On the other hand, this has already been the case for Quota 100, when the contribution requirement was even lower as it was equal to 38 years: in the majority of cases it was the employees with "permanent jobs", i.e.
those who managed to enter the public administration at a very young age, thus managing to accrue the years of contributions required without too many problems.
It's a different story for the private sector, where the difficulty in finding permanent employment, as well as the precariousness of contracts, make reaching this goal more complicated.
Especially in the case of women, so much so that it was mostly men who had access to Quota 100.
Quota 41 could be intended for the same audience, and this does not mean that it would be useless given that it certainly cannot be denied that 41 years of work are enough to retire.
However, taking note of what could be the audience of Quota 41 beneficiaries, it will also be necessary to think about other measures to benefit those excluded from this measure, i.e.
women and other workers – especially employed in demanding and demanding activities – who are unable to reach the required contribution requirement.
Quota 41 and the cost problem The problem is that Quota 41 has its cost: from 4 billion euros immediately, up to a peak of 9 billion.
And at a time when pension spending is already particularly high – and is destined to increase further – aiming for one measure like this could preclude others.
Suffice it to say that in order to approve Quota 103, the Meloni government renounced the Women's Option, completely revising the requirements and limiting access to a few female workers.
And this is why if Quota 41 is truly extended to everyone it will only be with a fully contributory recalculation of the allowance, so as to limit its costs.
But in this way the effect of the reform would also be limited: the early pension would remain for those who want to avoid cutting their future pension, with Quota 41 which would therefore be even more of a single option "for a few".
Therefore, Quota 41 yes but only if at the same time there were reflections for those categories that would be left out, from the burdensome – for whom we could think about expanding the audience – to women, for whom there could be a return to the old requirements for women's option.
And also for young people, for whom it will be very difficult to one day reach 41 years of contributions.
Also because Quota 41 will certainly not be enough to solve the problems of the labor market, given that the experience of Quota 100 (and the subsequent Quota 102 and Quota 103) teaches us that it is not sufficient to encourage the exit of older workers to encourage entry.