In late November the government presented two new instruments to support income families: the social card and a one-off bonus of varying amounts. Considering the inconsistency of anti-poverty policies of the two Past legislatures, it is hoped that these measures constitute the first experimental step a path of welfare reform. There remain, however, that measures for the limited amount and to the imprecision of the technical design, reflected the desire to capture a successful image of the intention to significantly alleviate the plight of the poor.
SUPPORT FROM LOWER INCOME FAMILIES IN THE PACKAGE ANTI-CRISIS
The government presented last week of November, two nuovistrumenti support to household incomes:
- a card purchases per month for families in extreme poverty (social card) (1)
- a one-off allowance in varying amounts between € 200 and one thousand for the famiglie a basso reddito di lavoratori dipendenti e pensionati (bonus famiglie) (2)
Non è facile dare una valutazione sintetica delle due misure dal punto di vista delle politiche redistributive, soprattutto perché ilbonus, il più consistente dei due, ha un carattere ibrido. Presentato come misura anti-crisi temporanea e non ripetibile, potrebbe ciononostante costituire, per le sue caratteristiche, un esperimento suscettibile di ulteriori sviluppi, nell’ambito di un nuovo approccio alla politica della famiglia e alla riforma del Welfare . Considerando il lungo e accidentato percorso di introduzione del Minimo Vitale in Italia, e in particolare le inesistenti o inconsistenti iniziative anti-povertà delle due previous legislatures, it is a (small) step in the right direction. Lasocial card, obviously, an integration of private charity for patients and families with low income, not useless in itself. Compared to the bonus, the monthly recurrence is to be welcomed, not one-off dispensing. The social card has, however, in terms of selection of beneficiaries, some glaring defects: first, the exclusion of the families of foreigners registered at the registry (the bonus, correctly, it is intended for all residents).
While many observers have criticized these days the small amounts of the two benefits (total and for individual families is addressed) This article comes on the merits of the design of the two measures, putting forward a hypothesis at the end of work (Family Credit) for a possible future extension desirable, on a recurring basis, support to families with low incomes (3).
SOCIAL CARD: it excludes foreigners and four year old?
the low amount (40 Euros per month) and the imprecision of the technical design, social card seems to reflect more the desire to capture an image on the easy success of the previous government that the intention to significantly alleviate the conditions of poor. The social card has three times the amount in fact a 'bonus said sums being insufficient' of former government. However, this is only one euro and 33 cents a day compared with about 42 cents del'bonus said sums being insufficient '. For families without income, in both cases it is a modest figure compared to the minimum essential needs.
Despite this, it is not obvious that this is a useless tool. Realistically, its true efficacy must be evaluated with careful monitoring of its use, especially in relation to the possible relationship of integration / substitution of private charity, which is likely to shrink during periods of recession. It will be good also carefully monitor the possible effects of crowding, though not a priori seem likely, given the amount minimum, that the social card have disincentive effects on private charity.
A major defect of the social card is the audience of beneficiaries moltoristrettae selected in an arbitrary and categorical. Poor families who have no home at least one child under three years will have nothing. Equally unjustifiable on ethical grounds, the exclusion of poor foreigners even if they are duly registered at. This plus households relatively more vulnerable to the effects of the crisis. Finally, the amount of social card only imperfectly taken into account the different needs of families, creating problems equitàverticale and horizontal. For example, with the same income families with twins one year of age will double the amount to another with a son a year and a four. The income threshold, at least, properly takes account of household composition, as measured by income is equivalent ISEE (4).
Even zeroing "sudden" above the income threshold, or to the absence of requirements, it is a glaring flaw: for poor families, the third birthday of the youngest child will be a day to forget. The same happens if an adult family member gets a limited amount of temporary income.
BONUS: CHECK ONE TIME OR PROOF OF MINIMUM GENERAL?
The selection of beneficiaries del bonus è più razionale rispetto a quanto previsto dalla social card. Destinata a famiglie che possiedono esclusivamente redditi da lavoro dipendente e da pensione (compresi quelli ‘assimilati’ dei lavoratori autonomi parasubordinati), non discrimina l’accesso a discutibili criteri anagrafici, come l’età dei minori, e include, come si è detto, gli stranieri residenti. Tuttavia, il testo del decreto sembra escludere i single che non sono titolari di reddito da pensione. Se questa interpretazione è corretta, si tratta di una discriminazione di cui non sono chiare le motivazioni.
Gli importi del bonus variano fra le diverse tipologie familiari in modo grosso modo coerente con la linea di povertà ufficiale per il 2007, con una copertura leggermente inferiore al 3% per tutte le famiglie con meno di sei persone e del 4% circa per quelle di sei componenti (5). Lesoglie di reddito, tuttavia, utilizzano una scala di equivalenza arbitraria, diversa da quella dell’ISEE e abbastanza imprecisa: non vi è differenza nel passaggio da due a tre componenti e in quello da quattro a cinque. Così, da un lato il beneficio raggiunge anche persone “quasi povere”, leggermente al di sopra della linea di povertà, che vivono in famiglie con meno di quattro componenti (ed è un bene che sia così), incoherently excludes the other part of the poor families of five or more people. Despite these inaccuracies
very low amount, the bonus is finally introduced on a national scale, even for a single month, a specific tool and universal support to poverty. In practice, it is a possible prototype of the minimum subsistence, which is currently in force only in some local areas, with different criteria for selecting beneficiaries and modulation of benefits conditioned on available financial resources (6). Moreover, the system of bonus welcomes in principle the need to alleviate the tax burden for families of employees and pensioners low-income, starting to fix one of the most obvious anomalies in the Italian tax system. For these reasons, it is a major innovation, which includes the suggestions made by the debate over the past years.
THE COST OF (LOSS) SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES
course, the extension of the bonus the entire duration of the year looks very expensive, especially in comparison to the paltry sums allocated to fight poverty in the previous two terms (6). The expense is even more expensive, even foolhardy, given the known public finance conditions. However, this is a financial prudence only apparent, because it disregards the costs che la disuguaglianza e la povertà non contrastate provocano nel tempo, in termini di mancata crescita (7). La stabilità dei tassi di povertà relativa a fronte di un consistente aumento dell’occupazione, in associazione ad una crescita insufficiente dell’output, fanno sospettare che la distribuzione disarmonica del carico tributario e, soprattutto, il mancato sostegno dei redditi più bassi costituiscano da tempo un serio ostacolo alla crescita dell’economia italiana. Anche per quanto riguarda il necessario riassetto del welfare (auspicato dal dibattito e mai compiutamente realizzato), è chiara la convenienza di progettare per il futuro una trasformazione del bonus e della social card (correggendone i difetti) in uno strumento permanente e regolare di sostegno dei poveri e di redistribuzione del reddito. Oltretutto, si tratterebbe per molti versi di un’applicazione, limitata ai redditi bassi e medio-bassi, del principio della tassazione familiare dei redditi.
Un disegno flessibile del Minimo Vitale, d’altra parte, consentirebbe una sua implementazione graduale e progressiva, rendendo sufficientemente governabile il processo di transizione a regime. Anlalizziamo alcuni aspetti matematici del Minimo Vitale, per illustrarne sia le caratteristiche desiderabili, sia l’estrema flessibilità.
UN’IPOTESI DI CREDITO FAMILIARE
Una possibile implementazione del Minimo Vitale è l’attribuzione alle famiglie di un credito refundable tax, that is a negative income families. In the following the benefit formula is calculated as the difference between a fixed income threshold M and the Y family income, both "modulated" by the parameters a, k and b:
Family Credit = akm - by
The policymakers choose the threshold M, which indicates the maximum amount of benefit for a family of one component. This amount will differ according to families of different composition and abundance on a scale of equivalence (in the formula: the value of parametrok). The parameter to , generally equal to one, may be increased for families in particular severe hardship, which can not be taken into account in the equivalence scales (for example, people with disabilities). The parameter b , less than one, is chosen in order to graduate the reduction of the benefit as income increases, mitigating the effects of disincentives to work.
To give a concrete example, using the modified OECD equivalence scale (1 for first adult, 0.5 for each additional adult, 0.3 for each child under 14 years) policymakers might choose the following parameters: M = 6.000 ; to = 1; b = 0.6. With this configuration, a single you will have the following schedule of benefici:
Mentre, per una famiglia di due adulti con un figlio minore, si avrà:
Per ulteriori esempi, si può utilizzare il foglio di Microsoft Excel allegato .
(*) L’articolo riflette opinioni personali e non coinvolge la responsabilità dell’Istat
(1) Per i dettagli, vedere le pagine dedicate alla social card on the website of the Ministry of Economy (This article is based on information found on November 28, 2008) and Article 81 of Decree-Law June 25, 2008.
(2) The bonus families is described in a decree of November 28, 2008 .
(3) On the redistributive effects of the two measures and budgetary cf. lavoce.info on the contributions of Boeri, Baldini and Pellegrino and Mountains.
(4) See the page devoted to the calculation of INPS ' ISEE .
(5) For poverty line 2007 cf. Istat ( 2008), pg. 10.
(6) For a review, although not very up to date, the nature of welfare measures applied in Italy can be found in S. Spirit 2003, Istat Documents Series, No. 3, 2003, Rome.
(7) On the removal of poverty made by political, cf. Saraceno (2007 )
(8) The positive effects of equality in terms of economic growth are well known to scholars, cf. Eicher, T. S and SJ Turnovsky (eds. 2003), "Inequality and Growth ", MIT Press, Boston (in particular the contribution of Bourguignon, F., "The Growth Elasticity of Poverty Reduction: Explaining heterogeneity across Countries and Time Periods ").
0 comments:
Post a Comment