The maneuver was defined as “unjust and inadequate” by Christian Ferrari, confederal secretary of the CGIL. With the net cuts to pensions and healthcare, the reduction of Irpef and the ISEE reform, the Government is not taking into account the real living conditions of citizens.
The union’s number one did not spare criticism during the hearing on the 2026 Budget Law, which was held on Tuesday 4 November before the Senate and House Budget Committees.
Irpef cut useless against inflation
The cut in the Irpef rate from 35% to 33% for incomes between 28,000 and 50,000 euros would be a measure that is more propaganda than real. The estimated economic benefit for the mid-range would amount to around 60 euros per year, a figure that has no impact on the purchasing power eroded by inflation.
The failure to adapt rates and deductions to the increase in prices, underlines the CGIL, has robbed workers of around 25 billion euros in recent years. with no equitable redistribution on the horizon.
Retired later, older and poorer
Another critical point concerns social security measures. The increase of 260 euros per year for pensioners in difficult conditions would be purely symbolic. This would be, explains the CGIL, around 21 euros per month, a sum which also in this case does not even cover the loss of purchasing power caused by inflation.
The confederate union also contests the increase in the retirement age (one month more in 2027 and two months in 2028) considering it
a step backwards on a social level.
The CGIL instead calls for real flexibility on exit, with the possibility of retirement at 62 without penalties and the introduction of a guarantee contributory pension for young people and precarious workers.
The current system affects those with intermittent careers and those who carry out demanding jobs, worsening the generation gap.
Funding for public health has never been so low in 20 years
On the health front, the Budget foresees an increase of 2.4 billion euros for 2026, but the CGIL judges the figure dramatically insufficient.
According to estimates by the union’s Research Office, even with these resources the National Health Fund will fall to 6.15% of GDP in 2026 and 5.93% in 2028: the lowest level in the last 20 years.
The progressive reduction in public health spending will undermine the universal right to health, lengthening waiting lists, impoverishing staff and pushing millions of citizens towards private healthcare that they cannot afford to pay for.
Criticism of bonuses and “emergency logic”
There is not a single item in the Budget Law that is safe from the harsh criticism of the CGIL. As regards the renewal or reformulation of bonuses, for example, a lack of organicity and overall vision is criticized.
The union highlights that it seems impossible to escape the emergency logic of bonuses to imagine a coherent economic and industrial policy.
Thus the bonus for working mothers should be accompanied by policies that protect the birth rate and poor female employment. The building bonus should be accompanied by a general rethinking of public housing that takes care of the housing and social emergency that especially afflicts large cities.
In essence, for the CGIL the 2026 Budget Law does not redistribute wealth, does not protect those who work and does not strengthen public services. As Christian Ferrari states:
The country needs fiscal justice, decent wages and strong public health, not temporary bonuses and disguised cuts.
A clear criticism, which brings the need for a maneuver capable of combining growth, equity and social rights back to the center of the debate.
