The requirements for pensions have worsened over the years. But who is responsible for this? Is it the Fornero Reform, as is frequently enough accused, or has the current government aggravated the situation? Or do the tightening measures stem from further back, from the Dini reform of the 90s? These are legitimate questions when it comes to social security, which often receive conflicting answers. But one thing is certain: Before the fornero reform, it was easier to retire. After,however,due to the rules introduced by the same reform – and only inherited from subsequent governments,including the current one – the requirements gradually stiffened.
Retired with 5 years of contributions and 1.2 times the social allowance
Before 2012, women could retire at old age with 20 years of contributions and 60 years of age. For men, with the same contribution seniority, they needed 65 years of age. A huge difference compared to today, when 67 years are needed for both men and women.
This threshold arrived in 2019, with the latest adjustment linked to life expectancy (+5 months compared to 66 years and 7 months previously). The CONTE I GOVERNMENT (M5S and Lega) was in power at the time, but it wasn’t directly responsible for that executive: it was the automatism imposed by the Fornero law, which adjusts the requirements to life expectancy calculated by the State every two years.
How things have worsened over the years
Before the Fornero reform, there was the pension of seniority, which allowed leaving work without personal limits with 40 years of contributions. Since 2012, with the abolition of this tool, early pensions also became connected to life expectancy adjustments.
Here is the progression:
* +1 month in 2013,
* +1 month in 2014,
* +3 months in the three-year period 2013-2015,
* +4 months in the three-year period 2016-2018.
Today they are needed:
* 41 years and 10 months of contributions