UNCONSTITUTIONALITY’ PENSION REFORM MONTI/FORNERO
The Constitutional Court may, If you want to, declare d’ Office l’ unconstitutionality of any law it deems to be contrary to the constitutional.
The financial 2011 launched by Mario Monti, that contains the so called "reform" of pensions, is grossly unconstitutional both in content and in the procedure used for approval.
Unconstitutional in the procedure because the law is provided in our Constitution to art. 77 like how eccezionalissima to be used only in exceptional cases of necessity and urgency. We were made to believe that the necessity and urgency were due to spread that weakened our bonds and to the serious international financial situation, And then, as it turns out, the spread After approval of the decree law did not at all lowered. While, for absurd, the spread has dropped just after the resignation of Monti.
The rest is contrary to the Constitution (In addition to ethically treacherous) also include the so called "reform" of pensions within a Finance Act to prevent people to abolish this unjust law with a normal referendum (It is not allowed referendum for budgetary and tax laws – art. 75 Cost.).
This is a system to prevent citizens to avail themselves of constitutional instruments places for their protection is quite obvious, just think of the fact that the extension of the retirement age If anything affects the budget of INPS not those Italian State and that the extension of the retirement age has nothing to do with the tributes.
It is also clear that payments made directly by the workers for their pensions are employees owned Denarii and are therefore not public money, so also the pension payments made by undertakings on the position of each individual worker are deferred salaries and as such also be worker-owned. It is therefore evident that the pensions of workers, albeit not yet perceived are not public money.
So it is clear that the introduction of such rules (For more severely detrimental to the fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Constitution) within a budget law is in itself a serious breach of constitutional principles reprehensible by the Consulta.
There is yet to add that, with unorthodox systems, It has also prevented the classroom discussion of the decree-law and that it has been previously approved by the various political parties in this House since the approval of the decree-law was connected the vote of confidence to the Government, in clear violation of the provisions of art. 72 of the Constitution (enshrining the polling obbiligo read article by article). And the vote of confidence in the Government was induced with the threat that if he hadn't voted confidence in Government assemble Italy would fall in a very serious financial crisis. What for other possible since Monti is the world's major financiers that certain spondato they would not hesitate to give him ina hand to that effect. Aside from the fact that even the statistics seem to be uncontrollable if not quite time for dancers, thing that affect their trust root. Anyway it's odd that he's been massively voted in Parliament this financial that no person with average honesty and minimal knowledge of our Constitution and of the General principles of law could never vote.
The Finance Act passed by the Government is then also unconstitutional content because:
- increases dramatically the retirement age for women (including the retirement age the old-age pension) even for someone who was already close to retirement and this in serious contrast with the Arts. 3, 31, 35, 37, 38 and 53 the Italian Constitution (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 ", art. 31: "the Republic assists with economic measures and other provisions the formation of the family and the fulfilment of tasks", art. 35: "the Republic protects work in all its forms and applications", 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”, art. 53: "everyone is expected to contribute to the public expense because of their ability to pay. The tax system is informed on criteria of progressivity " ).
More specifically, the Mountain is at odds with the reform art. 38 the Constitution because PRE – WELFARE INSTITUTION It means being able to PRE – SEE its future in case of old age and all workers and particularly women workers were put in condition of being unable to PRE – see the moment of their retirement, rather than be taken by surprise by stepping out of retirement by reforms that even move, in any case, ten years foreseeable at the date of their expected retirement and recruitment. It is now apparent that – at least as far as the pension insurance – whether the Berlusconi government reforms that the Government UNCONSTITUTIONAL and serious MOUNTAINS financial say unconstitutional, not unconstitutional, because I mean that they are patently antithetical to our Constitution further that contrary to our Constitution. Because it is obvious that you can't move the date of retirement for the old-age pension for those who have already begun to work without blocking the worker to predict its future. This is also in contrast to the art. 3 of the Constitution which enshrines one of the most important internationally proclaimed human rights: the equality of citizens before the law. If you think that have been particularly affected certain categories of persons – especially those born in the years 1951 -1952 -1953 We understand that by Here the racial laws shortly we miss. In this regard I would like to recall that until a few decades ago, settled and undisputed Supreme Court considered unchangeable social security laws (also related to a retirement pension) for those who had already begun working. It was thought, In fact, that constituted a serious violation of the art. 38 of the Constitution, Edit in itinere the worker's pension conditions which had already started to pay contributions according to some pre – pension fund (or pre – vision) its future. It was a right and sacrosanct principle. Also because the old, you know, no longer have the strength to protest about the abuses that are implemented against them and must be preserved at least by law in their fundamental rights. On the other hand is right that after a lifetime of work (and substantial payments) You can get a return that – I repeat – is not a gracious gift of the State, but a salary already gained in the course of their working lives.
And esodati? has anyone been safeguarded some not. I insist on saying that the racial laws shortly we miss. However it is indubitable that this is, at least, of gross violations of human rights. And even serious violations of truth. In fact I heard proponents of Monti respond about it in some talk shows that the Government has done a great deal for prematurely allocating several million euro. Crazy! The modern ritual, like all workers have paid good money for years to INPS or other pension funds to see itself recognized the Board then established criteria, And then, on reaching the finish line, These policies are unilaterally changed by preventing their every forward-thinking, While the Government declares that to fix things had to earmark funds. But, of grace, where did the contributions paid by workers and businesses? And then to whom or to which the State would pay those funds? I am ready to repeat ad nauseam that pensions pay INPS, but I do not think that SOCIAL SECURITY's budget have been allocated additional funds from the State for esodati. And then what do we do with the mathematical? There's no way that social security did not have the funds to PA pensions to modern ritual for two reasons. First of all because the INPS on the date of the Reformation Monti – Fornero not had the accounts in red, Secondly why INPS, like any provident fund, is required to adjust its balance sheets to the mathematical. The mathematical reserve is calculated by the actuary by which you determine which assets the Pension Fund must have in order to guarantee the pensions of future cash 5 years. It is therefore unthinkable that from day one we can see that social security can no longer father pensions. If actuarial accounts state that the capital held by INPS isn't enough to pay pensions, the word gets out 5 years before, in time to run for cover without damage none. So they can't happen dramas as what we have just witnessed, or, in any case, starring.
Finally the reform Monti is contrary to the Arts. 3, 31 and 37 of the Constitution also perchélafissazione old-age pension for women in early measure compared to male counterparts was a rule introduced to restore equality of working women than their male counterparts because women have always a double work and operate at least this little constitutionally guaranteed compensation (art. 37 Cost.: “working women have the same rights and, for equal work, the same remuneration accruing to the employee " in this sense, the anticipation of pension insurance represented and represents a very small remuneration compensation for double work always played) This rule also allowed women to take care of your family (in 55 years in general women undergo an additional overload of work having to assist elderly parents and in-laws seniors and still at that age you become grandmothers and also take care of grandchildren, in today's world, definitely have a working mother is looking after your family). But if you delete this rule, where do they finish the facilities provided by the art. 31 the Constitution and the adaptation of working conditions to family obligations provided for by art. 37 the Constitution itself? obviously also Mountains contrast with the reform art. 35 of the Constitution which establishes the protection of work in all its forms and applications women are also family obligations work.
The Italian Constitution reform seriously contrasts Mountains theme of tax fairness. Our Constitution indeed provides for the art. 53 that everyone should contribute to the public expense because of their ability to pay and that the tax system is informed on the principles of progressiveness. It is now apparent that the extension of the retirement age means in fact impose a heavy tax only on the backs of workers . Just as an example: a worker gains one thousand two hundred euros per month and that is about to retire with a thousand euros per month, calculating an increase in the retirement age by five years, is actually sentenced to pay a fee of € 65.000 (diconsi sixty five thousand euros), that is equal to the amount of the pension which was defrauded. Because if the salary is paid in the face of the provision, the pension is paid anyway: It's just money. Basically if I work I get paid, While the pension is paid to me although I don't work, and indeed I might perceive a pension and put me to work, the two things are not incompatible. In addition as already mentioned, the pension is deferred salary then it comes to amounts already owned by workers that the State, with total discretion, eminent domain – it is not known why – in favour of INPS. So it's obvious that Mario Monti, with this law, in fact, has severely taxed the poor leaving unscathed the rich. Everyone understands that a fee, and in one shot, by 65.000 Euro borne by a worker who, with his sweat, earn one thousand two hundred euros per month is a charge absolutely unequal and openly contrary to the art. 53 of the Constitution because it goes beyond – and many more – the ability to pay of that citizen. All the more so since, by definition, This tax was applied only to those who work while the real rich living of financial income without work and without having ever worked are completely free ("Italy is a Democratic Republic founded on work". Faced with these things also article 1 the Constitution sounds ironic now). It is clear that any tax should weigh on general taxation, not on individual categories of people because otherwise we fall back again into a serious infringement of article. 3 of the Constitution, fundamental article, universal and indispensable that enshrines the equality of citizens before the law, before the State, any public institution.
lto reform Mounts contrasts with the most basic principles of private law. In fact any motorist insurance conditions fixed at the time of payment of the award against the commitment on the part of the insurance to pay at the time of the occurrence of the insured event. Instead the reform Monti has practically exempt the institution from paying due when, for many people, already there had been the agreed conditions of the "left", that is, of their survival until the retirement age. As if the motorist after paying diligently on insurance premium till the last penny's whereabouts before defaulting insurance in case of accident because a State law has exempted from its obligations. Nothing would be more unfair and absurd if it were simple insurance contracts subscribed by private. As workers ' pensions and even more of old-age pensions, and even more of deferred salaries, We fall back into something worse that, in my opinion, is a real crime, that, I hope, Italian prosecutors want to discern.
In essence this pension reform was rather strange: In fact, as mentioned above, pensions pay INPS the INPS and the budget is distinct and separate from that of the State. Moreover, the budget of the INPS, for years, is not in red. Indeed in 1996 have been (as it seems) turned to INPS about 10 billion euro GESCAL funds (i.e. funds paid by all Italian workers to build their houses of subsidized housing). These funds had not been GESCAL never used (I wonder why) for the purpose for which they were constituted and – according to the law and various rulings of the Constitutional Court – could be used for other services on behalf of workers who had paid. The Minister Dini stated then that funds GESCAL would be used to finance its pension reform. As it happens, however, that Dini reform not only did not recognize an extra penny to the workers, but, if anything, took away their rights and money, Therefore it is not clear what these are used 10 billion euro of which, Since then, you no longer have any news. Of the rest, as it known, social security is not only a social security institution, but also provides assistance pensions, i.e. poor people who have never paid pensions nothing. These pensions should be financed by the State with the general taxation and instead are treacherously financed by contributions from workers. Social security also provides corporate financing in the form of financing vocational training courses. I therefore believe that a lot of the funding GESCAL have gone to firms to finance activities that would have been made anyway, at the expense of the same companies. The fact remains that the State, as such, certainly does not finance the pensions of workers.
So if anything is social security that (in stark contrast with the constitutional), with the money of the workers, until now funded status (and businesses), not vice versa.
So where is the interest of the State to reduce the retirement age and the amounts of pensions? Maybe to be still arbitrarily finance by INPS some other disbursement in favor of big business? or maybe all this was done because a few months later had to take place, as it happened, Fusion in the INPS Boyar Pension Fund of State, What to understand which pays pensions 30 thousand euros per month to people who, at best, he warmed up a Chair for years and at worst has bankrupted the State company who administered? Needless to say this Fund pensionsottolineando cher i referred, at the time, can't remember the name, He came to INPS bringing stratospheric debt. But this news has moved quickly on the news and no one commented on it, evidently not to emphasize too ....
For all the reasons above, in January 2012 I sent a complaint – lawsuit to all Prosecutors in Italy demanding that all the perpetrators of this massacre were prosecuted for attempt on Constitution (a crime that involves the smallest 12 years in prison) and I sent in June 2012 a complaint to the Constitutional Court asking that it be declared, ex officio, the unconstitutionality of the Reformation Monti Fornero and all previous reforms that have changed for the worse for workers the Italian pension situation.
This I did because the reform mountains and other similar reforms were incorporated in financial laws to prevent them required a referendum and why the reform Monti also prevents citizens to bring cases before the Constitutional Court with a normal appeal within a procedure.
For now the Court Costituzioale did not give any hint of reply. I then posted a petition on Avaaz, to prevent my exposed fall into oblivion. If we are many to sign the Constitutional Court cannot ignore our requests. I urge all those who agree with what I wrote to give your membership to the petition by clicking on the following link:
http://www.avaaz.org/it/petition/giu_le_mani_dalle_pensioni/
30 January 2013
Donatella Savasta Fiore
Political Elections 2013
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.