What lies behind the scandal of the bonus to parliamentarians
The whole truth about bonuses to MPs. Giuliano Cazzola's comment
The story of August this year (the "politicians" who pocket the bonus provided, at least in the intentions of the legislator, for the holders of VAT numbers) has fallen victim to a now usual "narrative" of Italian public life. The scandalistic aspects (oportet ut scandala eveniant) prevail over the correct interpretation of a rule of law, because they make more news, speak to the belly of the people, keep access to the "common feeling" of anti-politics, even under the umbrella.
Right from the start, the media were quick to acknowledge (only to go into more detail) that it was legitimate that the parliamentarians (and the regional councilors and administrators) had received those 600 euros "few, cursed and immediately". But they shouldn't have dared to apply because of the robust allowances they receive in the performance of their duties. On the contrary, the mayors and municipal councilors – especially from small towns and villages – deserved it because they only receive an attendance fee for their political activity (obviously, no one took into consideration that, in most cases , that of the parliamentarian and the regional councilor is a full-time job, that of the city councilor is not; therefore it is to be assumed that he does not have to make ends meet thanks to those tokens).
Only secondarily, the media have addressed what seemed to me to be the central problem from the beginning: okay, the line of conduct of those "representatives of the people" is reprehensible, but the compensation provided for by the Italian Care Decree who was it for? To them too? In a state of law it is not a nice operation to contrast (by now it has become the rule) legality with ethics. First of all, it must be said that for the first two issues (yes, because the one-off indemnity was paid twice, one for March, the other for April and therefore it was 1,200 euros) no proof of the means, but only of the types of subjects able to assert the professional and social security requirements indicated in articles 27 to 30 and 38 of the Italian Care Decree.
Let us therefore enter into the legal provisions, making use of the valuable Dossier prepared by the Chambers' Study Services.
"Articles 27 to 31 and Article 38 recognize in favor of certain categories of workers an allowance for the month of March 2020, equal to 600 euros (in April the benefit was automatically repeated to those who had already received it the month before, ed). The benefit may concern, under certain conditions: freelancers (holders of VAT numbers) registered with the so-called separate Inps Management and the holders of coordinated and continuous collaboration relationships registered with the same Management (article 27); self-employed workers enrolled in the special management of INPS (relating to artisans, commercial activities and direct farmers, sharecroppers, settlers and professional agricultural entrepreneurs) (article 28); seasonal employees in the tourism sector and spas (Article 29); fixed-term agricultural workers (Article 30); entertainment workers (article 38) ".
Let's now move on to the requirements, assuming that for each case there is a spending limit to be monitored periodically and also in a prospective way (i.e. evaluating the trend). More specifically, with regard to the individual categories of beneficiaries of the indemnity in question and the related spending limit:
– Article 27 recognizes, within the spending limit of 203.4 million euros for 2020, the indemnity in favor of freelancers (holders of VAT numbers) enrolled in the aforementioned Inps separate management and of holders of coordinated collaboration relationships and continuous (registered with the same Management), if the subjects are not pension holders and are not registered with other compulsory social security forms. The indemnity does not concern freelancers enrolled in other compulsory pension schemes;
– Article 28 recognizes, within the spending limit of 2,160 million euros for 2020, the indemnity in favor of self-employed workers enrolled in the special management of INPS (relating to artisans, commercial businesses and direct farmers, sharecroppers , settlers and professional agricultural entrepreneurs), if these subjects are not pension holders and are not registered in other compulsory social security forms;
– Article 29 recognizes, within the spending limit of 103.8 million euros for 2020, the allowance in favor of seasonal employees in the tourism sector and spas who have involuntarily ceased their employment in the period between January 1, 2019 and the date of entry into force of this provision (March 17, 2020) and who are not pensioners or employees of an employment relationship on the aforementioned date of entry into force. In this passage, the Research Department suggests evaluating the opportunity to clarify the notion of seasonal activities for the purposes in question and whether the scope of the beneficiaries also includes cases in which, in the indicated time period, the employment relationship has ceased due to expiry of the term provided for by the same contract; it is known that the Ministry of Labor had to intervene to provide this clarification to INPS.
– Article 30 recognizes, within the spending limit of 396 million euros for 2020, the allowance in favor of fixed-term agricultural workers who are not pensioners and who in 2019 have carried out at least 50 actual days of agricultural work;
– Article 38 recognizes, within the spending limit of 48.6 million euros for 2020, the indemnity in favor of workers enrolled in the Entertainment Workers Pension Fund, who have at least 30 daily contributions paid in 2019 to the same Fund, from which an income not exceeding 50,000 euros derives, and who are not pensioners or holders of an employment relationship as of March 17, 2020.
It is necessary to underline the different treatments reserved by articles 29, 30 and 38 to the entitled persons, in particular as regards the requirements both for carrying out a work or income activity: while in the cases referred to in articles 27 and 28 or freelancers with a VAT number registered in the separate management (professionals without a professional fund) and the holders of a coordinated and continuous collaboration relationship registered with the same management and self-employed workers registered in the special management the requirement for access to the service is as follows : not to be pensioners and not to be enrolled in other compulsory social security forms. This is where Pasquale Tridico's ass falls, because the parliamentarians are enrolled in a form of compulsory social security and, generally, also the regional councilors. Indeed, the regulatory evolution of the annuity (pro rata since 2012) has taken on a more marked social security profile so as to lead to the recalculation with the contributory method (in a botched and illegitimate way, but this is not the problem of the case in question) also the annuities of the former deputies and senators.
To this objection of merit and legitimacy, in the ramshackle hearing at the Labor Committee of the Chamber, the President of INPS declared that an investigation is underway because the legal change of the benefit – from annuity to pension – is not peaceful. Certainly the definition is a bit convoluted: life allowance shares of pro rata pension treatments. It would have been better to clarify the ideas before disbursing the indemnity twice, also because it is unrealistic (we also say this to the President Deborah Serracchiani) to believe that it is possible to recover two one-off payments once they have been awarded.
Tridico is right on one point: everyone invited him to pay without making too many fuss. However, if undue benefits are provided, at least one is liable for tax damage before the Court of Auditors. Due to the nature of the service provided, the control could only be preventive (by crossing data). When the INPS services discovered that “there was something rotten in Denmark” Tridico took action to acquire the parliamentary records. But it was done now. Better to ignore it then. Until the usual "hand" did not consider celebrating the August 15th by giving the media the opportunity of a headline on the front page.
It should be noted – we insist on this – that it has been preferred to feed some unwary people to public opinion, rather than to deepen the matter for future reference. The "politics" found it more advantageous to provide a test of severity at the expense of some "crafty" rather than telling the truth.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/economia/cosa-si-nasconde-dietro-lo-scandalo-del-bonus-ai-parlamentari/ on Sun, 30 Aug 2020 05:43:46 +0000.