Pensions, from 1 January 2026 increase of 1.4 %. Here are the CGIL simulations

 For CGIL and SPI, "it is evident that, after a cumulative loss of purchasing power of more than 10% in 2022-2023 alone, an increase of this magnitude is insufficient to restore the economic balance of pensioners".

Between 2022 and 2026, the 16% increase is only on paper, in most cases it is 12-13%

The CGIL and SPI analysis broadens the look at pension trends between 2022 and 2026, a period in which the gross increase resulting from pension equalisation alone was 16.46%. A gross pension of 800 euros per month in 2022 increases to 932 euros gross in 2026 (+16.46%), while the net only increases from 757 to 850 euros (+12.27%). Take a gross pension of €1,000, which rises to €1,165 gross in 2026 (+16.46%), but the net rises from €898 to €1,014 (+12.93%). Even for higher amounts the phenomenon is similar: a gross pension of €2,000 rises to €2,329 (+16.46%), but the net rises from €1,591 to €1,824 (+14.68%). In summary, "the gross increase of +16.46% in most cases stops at around 12-13% increase, well below inflation, marking an increasing gap between formal increase and real spending capacity".

The dynamics of the average Irpef tax rates confirms this effect: for a gross pension of € 800 the average tax rate rises from 5.38% in 2022 to 8.78% in 2026, for a gross pension of € 1,000 it rises from 10.19% in 2022 to 12.91% in 2026, and for a pension of € 1,500 the tax burden rises from 17.07% in 2022 to 18.42% in 2026.

"It is clear that a non-negligible share of the revaluation ends up being absorbed by the tax authorities, transforming equalisation not into a real restoration of purchasing power, but into a mechanism that contributes above all to the recovery of tax revenues eroded by inflation," conclude CGIL and SPI, which call on pensioners to participate in the general strike on 12 December.

The CGIL and SPI analysis highlights the 'redistributive paradox' that characterises the relationship between low social security pensions and welfare benefits or minimum pensions supplemented with social surcharges. In essence we have pensioners with longer contributory careers and higher calculated pensions who may find themselves, after the application of Irpef and surcharges, with lower net amounts than those who receive welfare benefits totally exempt from taxation.

Let us take an accrued pension of 384.62 euros per month, which is supplemented to the minimum pension and further increased by social surcharges, until it reaches 749.11 euros net per month, without any tax deduction. On the other hand, a higher accrued pension, of 692.31 euros per month, even though it benefits from a modest social increase, exceeds the threshold of the no tax area and becomes taxable: the IRPEF deductions and surcharges, amounting to more than 25 euros per month, reduce the net amount to 710.47 euros, that is 38 euros less than the previous assisted pension, even though it is built on a more consistent contribution history. Finally, let us take an accrued pension of €807.69 per month, which is therefore not entitled to a surcharge. In this case, the tax deductions erode the net amount to €745.97, and the pensioner gets €3 less than the pensioner who benefits from the welfare benefit, and with more than €10,500 per year of taxable income has a greater past contribution burden.

The conclusion is that 'those who have worked and contributed more may end up with less in their pockets than welfare recipients, even though they are both in a fragile economic condition'; this happens as a result of several combined factors: 'due to the rigidity of the no-tax area stuck at EUR 8,500 per year and the lack of harmonisation between equalisation policies, taxation and social surcharges'.