THE VICTORY OF THE MOVEMENT 5 STAR UNLEASHES THE UNCONSCIOUS COMEDY OF ITALIAN POLITICIANS

I've never had so much as to listen to television these days post election comments.

A mature and distinguished Lady, apparently the author of a most learned book that tells the story of Cricket, you are thrown into a tirade against the Italian people that in his opinion would still not be ready to vote en masse for a sober and moderate party that represents the cream of the "intelligentsia" international. Seems strange, but he alluded to PD.

Another young and rampant maiden – always adhering to the PD – kept repeating: "we will have to just, in the next few days, question the causes of this loss of ratings ".

But how?! Did you support the Government endorsing, sight unseen, alongside Berlusconi and associates, most unjust and undemocratic measures of postwar Italian history memories and you wonder why many voters deserted your lists. But I am amazed that you have a vote, removed those your and your families!

Take for example the pension reform: have you thrown out of business a few hundred thousand people (the modern ritual, but not only) they have found themselves without pay and no pension after 40 years of honest work and contributions paid and you took the Board to all other.

I summarize briefly the situation: Maroni reform Berlusconi had already moved the age/retirement pension of women – in one go – from 55 in 60 years. Then came the Reformation Monti/Fornero which further moved the retirement age for old-age pension, for all, from 60 years to 67 years. In recent months however chimed in I don't know what the autogrowth quotient determined by law and – in fact – today , for all workers still in service retirement age, for old age, has been moved to 70 years. Then, someone – particularly if woman – you've seen moving forward retirement age even 15 years.

To "compensate" for this serious abuse of power, the quantum the pension was, then, greatly reduced by applying the contribution system, for which, against all logic, more working, more contributions pour and less retirement takes. In essence, no debate nor social nor parliamentary, our retirement planning has been transformed by solidarity system in financial system. In fact you are forced workers to sign some sort of risky derivative with the savings that were supposed to guarantee them an older age.

All this is grossly unconstitutional as well as supremely unfair. Because it represents an imposition of a heavy tax solely on the working classes.

In fact, the Board is not a gracious gift from the State and is not part of the welfare, But it's, on one side, deferred salary paid by companies and on the other a provision paid by workers with their salary deductions. State money isn't at all nor the State budget because these monies are paid to INPS or pension funds of competence, so it is unexplained action with ordinary logic.

I'll give an example that serves to clarify the situation: We envision a Fiat worker who earns 1.200 euros per month and would have been entitled to 60 years to a retirement 1.000 Euro per month. Moving of his retirement ten years later cost him no small amount of 130.000 Euro (Yes: 130,000 euro i.e. 1.000 euros per month 13 monthly payment = 13.000 Euro l’ year, for 10 years = 130,000 euro). Then a worker in 1.200 euros per month in salary was taxed in one shot of 130.000 Euro. Because the pension is money. In fact, the Board is not incompatible with the wages. But no rich in Italy was required to pay a tribute so burdensome in absolute terms.

Article 53 the Italian Constitution: "everyone is expected to contribute to the public expense because of their ability to pay. The tax system is informed on criteria of progressivity ". But how do you argue that a sudden imposition of 130.000 euro on a person who earns 1.200 euros per month is proportionate to its ability to pay and income?!

If you add that this so called "reform" is also opposed to other fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution which: the art. 3: ”all citizens have equal social dignity and are equal before the law without distinction of sex, breed, language, religion, political opinions, personal and social conditions ", the art. 31: "the Republic assists with economic measures and other provisions the formation of the family and the fulfilment of tasks", the art. 35: "the Republic protects work in all its forms and applications", the art. 37: “working women have the same rights and, for equal work, the same remuneration accruing to the employee. Working conditions must allow the fulfilment of her family function”, art. 38: “every citizen unable to work and without means to live has a right to maintenance and social assistance. Workers who are EXPECTED AND MAKE means adapted to their needs in the event of an accident, disease, disability and old age, involuntary unemployment ...(omissis) ... to the tasks provided for in this article shall state organs and institutions provided or incorporated"we understand that the increase in the retirement age covered much more as the sustenance of the democratic State.

But if you don't you will not even realize that all kinds of disconnected from income taxes (IMU including), and impose them for more just on the backs of the poor is unfair, unconstitutional and is losing votes, does it just mean you can't see beyond their noses, and that is all the more reason you are not able to govern a nation.

But let's continue with what fun these days.

The question: "what will be, in your opinion, the first thing to be done by the Government?"they felt the most disparate answers: politics, legality, election, economy, taxes, development, especially work, job, job (no mention of salary, It is obvious).

No one dreamed of saying that the first thing to do is abolish the/Fornero Mountains on pensions reform. Yet there is no easiest thing to do to give this country a bit of social justice and the immediate resumption of employment turnover both in public and in private enterprise uses.

It seems to me that one hundred thousand esodati who return to have an income can already give a small boost to microeconomics. Not to mention the new hires that would open for retirement of eligible.

And then always remains to clarify the mystery of bottom: because the Italian Government has initiated this reform which has exempted the INPS (and other funds) from paying due?

At the risk of repeating myself: the abolition of pensions does not affect the State budget. INPS has an autonomous budget and different, for other not in red. We were told that the reform was needed because there were no more money, but this is technically not possible, first of all because it's not just about SOCIAL SECURITY's budget but also of other pension funds and it is very unlikely that they're all in trouble, then why all the social security budgets should be adjusted to mathematical, that is to the underlying actuarial calculations that set every five years which shall be the sum set aside to guarantee the pensions of five years. Then either it is said that all the actuaries of all pension funds have miscalculated resoundingly (and maybe on some proxy would be interested to know why) or else you have to admit that this law was passed based on false pretenses.

Why? You can only make assumptions:

1. The Government has gotten his hands on with a measure taken prior to the occurrence of the harmful event and impoverente formed by the subsequent merger in INPS (deliberate afterwards by the Government) Some pension funds that were supposed to secure old age indebitatissimi Boyar status billionaire ?
2. The Monti Government slavishly obeyed the demands of dragons and Trichet that, No one knows for what reason, claimed these human sacrifices?
3. The Government has obeyed the club BILDELBERG that, at the international level, He wants the complete abolition of pensions because that would be an essential condition in order to proceed to further globalization prelusiva of the new world order?

Maybe you don't have to choose between one and the other hypothesis, Maybe it is all of these things together. But whatever the cause it is a shameful cause, unfair and unlawful. So much so that it is kept hidden or otherwise is not expressed with clarity.

The illegality needs shade.