Experts round on chancellor over ‘scattergun’ budget, saying he ducked big tax and spending decisions
John Healey has backed away from cutting the cost of welfare this parliament, amid dire warnings his first budget could lead to brutal spending cuts because of a £28bn shortfall in public finances.
Experts rounded on Healey’s steady-as-she-goes budget on Thursday, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies saying he had left himself a mountain to climb by ducking big tax and spending decisions.
Prime minister wrote to ministers saying he did not want them to ‘advocate for specific options or opine on the likely outcome of the process’
Selling nicotine-free vapes to children under the age of 18 has become illegal from today, the government has said.
Children were already banned from buying vapes containing nicotine. But, under the Tobacco and Vapes Act, shops across the UK will now be banned from selling nicotine-free vapes, and nicotine pouches, to children.
Vaping can be a way to help established adult smokers who are already addicted to nicotine from tobacco to swap to a less dangerous product. Vaping is considered safer than smoking, but that is a low bar. Vapes should therefore never be used by children or non-smokers.
Some children have already come to harm from bad reactions to vapes. The long-term health harms of vaping in today’s children will only become clear over time. They are however unlikely to be good; inhaling multiple, often heated, chemicals into the lungs may well do irreversible harm.
Prime minister wrote to ministers saying he did not want them to ‘advocate for specific options or opine on the likely outcome of the process’
Selling nicotine-free vapes to children under the age of 18 has become illegal from today, the government has said.
Children were already banned from buying vapes containing nicotine. But, under the Tobacco and Vapes Act, shops across the UK will now be banned from selling nicotine-free vapes, and nicotine pouches, to children.
Vaping can be a way to help established adult smokers who are already addicted to nicotine from tobacco to swap to a less dangerous product. Vaping is considered safer than smoking, but that is a low bar. Vapes should therefore never be used by children or non-smokers.
Some children have already come to harm from bad reactions to vapes. The long-term health harms of vaping in today’s children will only become clear over time. They are however unlikely to be good; inhaling multiple, often heated, chemicals into the lungs may well do irreversible harm.
Questo governo è stato il primo a inserire il welfare aziendale tra le priorità della sua azione: quelle parole sono diventate fatti, per la prima volta nella storia della Repubblica. Ha scelto la platea dell’evento romano di Cateno De Luca la viceministra del Lavoro e delle Politiche Sociali, Maria Teresa Bellucci, per mettere a confronto una scelta politica, quella fatta da Giorgia Meloni e dal suo esecutivo, alla voce “società più lavoro”, e il paniere di conseguenze che verrano stimolate nel breve-medio periodo. Il nodo è come inserire quelle “riforme che mancavano da decenni” all’interno di un sistema-Paese che deve guardare al futuro con uno spirito di programmazione. E farlo in un evento politico come quello di Sud chiama Nord, con moltissimi amministratori meridionali assume un significato particolare. Punto di partenza del ragionamento fatto dalla viceministra Bellucci è nel legame tra anziani, giovani e tasse. Perché se non si mettono i più giovani nella condizione di lavorare senza una pressione fiscale controproducente, allora non si possono garantire i servizi necessari ai più fragili. Il sistema va messo in sicurezza, dunque. Ma come?
Bellucci spiega che insieme alla riforma fiscale il governo ne ha fatta un’altra, quella in favore della terza età con la prima legge, che prima di oggi in 80 anni di Repubblica italiana non c’era mai stata, che si è occupata di questa stagione della vita. “Noi avevamo moltissime leggi che si occupavano dell’infanzia e dell’adolescenza, con il diritto all’istruzione. Avevamo leggi che si sono occupate dell’altra parte dell’esistenza umana, trentennale più o meno, che riguarda il lavoro. Non avevamo una riforma che si occupasse di quest’altro tempo. Sembra quasi che le politiche in favore di una stagione della vita siano contro quelle di un’altra. Quando noi parliamo di protezione degli anziani, degli over 65, sembra quasi che poi creiamo un danno ai più giovani nello stanziamento delle risorse economiche, e in particolare al diritto al lavoro”. Non è stato così, dal momento che ha rivendicato l’attenzione alla vita, dal concepimento fino alla morte. Per cui si va dal miliardo e mezzo di euro stanziato per il Piano nazionale non autosufficienza anziani, fino al superamento ideale di quell’idea che il welfare debba essere meramente assistenzialista.
“Oggi noi abbiamo voluto superare quest’ottica. Le politiche sociali, lo dirò chiaramente, si fondano soprattutto su lavoro – aggiunge la viceministra – e non è vero che il lavoro riguarda qualcuno e non riguarda altri, che il lavoro riguarda chi sta bene, chi è in forze, chi ha tutte le condizioni per poter fare da sé e bastare a sé stesso. Il lavoro è qualcosa che riguarda tutti, anche le persone in stato di fragilità. Anche chi ha superato i 55, 60 anni, anche una persona che ha delle disabilità”.
Per questa ragione rivendica che le politiche sociali devono soprattutto puntare sul lavoro, al fine di rompere quei compartimenti stagni in voga fino a ieri, ovvero politiche del lavoro da un lato e welfare dall’altro. La sostenibilità del welfare secondo l’esponente del governo si può reggere se non le si vive come un unico asset della sostenibilità dell’Italia e del welfare, ma se si intrecciano con tematiche demografiche come la denatalità e l’invecchiamento della popolazione. I dati in questo senso lo dimostrano. Bellucci cita il record di occupazione, superando il 63%, il record di occupazione femminile, superando il 54%: “Non si può dire che la prima presidente del Consiglio donna si sia distratta dal protagonismo femminile, perché questo non è vero. Lo dicono i dati, lo dicono le risorse stanziate, lo dicono gli strumenti inseriti, come il congedo parentale all’80% per i primi tre mesi, e anche il welfare aziendale”. E rivendica che Giorgia Meloni quando si è insediata, nel primo discorso del 2022, è stata la prima presidente del Consiglio a inserire il welfare aziendale tra le priorità della sua azione di governo. “Siamo noi che abbiamo aumentato il welfare aziendale, lo abbiamo aumentato con i benefit, arrivando fino a 5.000 euro per chi si sposta dal proprio luogo di nascita o di residenza. L’abbiamo fatto anche con altre iniziative, come i premi di produttività, detassando fino all’1%. Perché se voglio aumentare la produttività devo premiare di più chi partecipa attivamente a quella produttività. E questo significa anche cambiare un paradigma del welfare”.
Infine il nesso con la cooperazione, il terzo settore e i servizi pubblici. Il welfare aveva una patologia, spiega, quella di credere che fosse materia di esclusiva pertinenza dello Stato. “Sì, il Terzo settore, l’associazionismo, la cooperazione potevano intervenire, ma soltanto per dare servizi a basso costo e con precarietà del lavoro”. E invece il jolly è da ritrovare nell’alleanza tra pubblico, privato e privato sociale, anche al fine di superare contesti di serie A e contesti di serie B.
“Essere cittadini di pari dignità si misura nella capacità di soddisfare i bisogni delle persone, non dal ruolo che si occupa in un contesto piuttosto che in un altro. Anche qui abbiamo rivoluzionato il welfare. L’abbiamo fatto inserendo nel Codice degli appalti pubblici l’amministrazione condivisa, e quindi quell’azione che passa per la co-programmazione e la co-progettazione. Metto intorno a un tavolo le persone di buona volontà e di competenza, che appartengano al settore privato o al settore pubblico, e insieme cerchiamo di capire quali sono i bisogni del territorio e di costruire politiche che non sono proprietà dello Stato, ma devono essere proprietà dei cittadini”.
John Healey had said there will be a reduction in the welfare bill before the next election, with a “tough” approach to young people who do not accept support to get a job or training.
The chancellor was repeatedly pressed on the issue in broadcast interviews after documents from the Office for Budget Responsibility suggested sickness and disability benefits would cost £100bn a year before the end of the decade.
Labour Chancellor John Healey has hit struggling workers, savers and landlords as he drives the tax burden to a new record high to fund energy bailouts and a mushrooming welfare bill in his Budget today.
The left-wing Labour Party government will raise fresh taxes on savings and property income as spending on welfare and foreign subsidies will continue to grow, recently installed Chancellor John Healey told the House of Commons on Wednesday.
Online hate is spilling into the real world, AFP warns
AFP Commissioner KrissyBarrett began her late-night appearance at the Senate estimates hearing noting “a heaviness that hangs across Australia” after the alleged attack on independent MP HelenHaines.
Lone actors are being motivated by a convergence of personal grievances, mental health vulnerabilities and ideological concerns …
What helped keep us safe in recent times, such as our geography, analogue systems and far away criminals, has been impacted by fully integrated technology, social media and artificial intelligence.
We hear about the devastating impacts of racism from communities every day. But many experiences go unreported or uncounted, and our systems often do not capture the full picture.
This is not about collecting more data to prove racism exists. We already know it does. It is about making inequality visible, holding institutions to account and giving communities greater agency over their data to drive real change.
Italy has hit record-high employment of over 63 percent and historic low unemployment of 6.3 percent amid a major welfare overhaul led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. By Q2 2026, the workforce expanded to 24.36 million people.
In January 2024, Italy completely replaced its old guaranteed minimum income with two targeted programs. Averaging €672/month for 690,000 vulnerable households (elderly, disabled, families with kids), as of June 2026, active benefits are tied to mandatory job training, covering over 84,000 individuals, writes La Gaceta, citing data out of Istat.
Of former welfare recipients, 60 percent transitioned to the new benefits, and 26 percent of these households had at least one member find a job in 2024. However, around 850,000 families saw their income drop by an average of €2,600 per year due to stricter welfare criteria.
Especially in historically lagging Southern Italy (Mezzogiorno), the results have been impressive. The region grew 8.5 percent between 2021 and 2024 and creating nearly 500,000 jobs via tourism, construction, and EU funds.
Italy’s employment rate still lags 8 percentage points behind the eurozone average, bogged down by low youth and female workforce participation.
Backed by strong employment and business resilience, Scope Ratings affirmed Italy’s BBB+ rating with a positive outlook. The agency forecasts 1 percent GDP growth, 3 percent inflation, and a reduced public deficit of 2.9 percent for 2026, noting positive consumption while low productivity remains a weak spot for the country.
Real GDP growth for 2026 for all of the EU is forecasted at 1.1 percent.
Last month, Italian PM Giorgia Meloni touted tourism and “Made in Italy” exports as key factors for helping the economy stay resilient.
On Monday's broadcast of the Fox News Channel's "Special Report," British Ambassador to the U.S. Christian Turner discussed the situation in France and said that "the weight of welfare for aging populations, that's a challenge."
The prime minister previously said that he wanted a debate on how Britain can establish a closer relationship
Speaking at his rough sleeping summit in Downing Street this morning, Andy Burnham expanded on the claim he made on Good Morning Britain about tackling rough sleeping being cheaper than ignoring the problem. (See 11.13am.)
He said:
We’ve also got to be conscious when we speak to the rest of the country, the taxpayers of this country, that actually to leave people sleeping rough has financial consequences. It doesn’t work for anybody and it doesn’t work for the public purse, because if you leave people in a position where they are in and out of A&E, and in and out of a hospital bed, that doesn’t make sense for anybody.
There is a rock-solid business case to do something to end homelessness, to put people on a path to recovery, so that they can contribute once again. And that should be the thinking that we take to this conversation.
Burnham is throwing another £432m at a problem he failed to solve in Greater Manchester. Under Labour, rough sleeping has hit record highs – yet their answer is always more taxpayers’ money and more empty promises.
[John] Healey must use his budget this week to cut taxes for working people, get the ballooning benefits bill under control, and stop pushing up energy prices.
John Healey is expected to confirm on Wednesday that the full state pension will rise by £489 to £13,036 – equivalent to 3.9%.
However, the rise will push about one million people on low incomes who rely on the state pension above the £12,570 personal allowance threshold, meaning they would be dragged into paying income tax.
Flávio Bolsonaro admitted he was wrong to oppose extending maternity leave and apologized to Lula for a personal insult during a heated debate.
Brazilian presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro apologized to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva during a televised debate after Lula challenged him over his past opposition to extending maternity leave, sparking a heated exchange over social welfare, poverty and personal attacks.
Flávio Bolsonaro, who represents the Liberal Party (PL), acknowledged that his earlier vote was a mistake and said he would take a different position today. He also apologized for calling Lula “nine fingers,” a reference to the president’s missing finger, but followed the apology by demanding that Lula answer for his government’s record on poverty and social assistance.
The confrontation unfolded during the debate’s second segment, after Lula requested a right of reply over remarks he considered offensive. The production team had yet to rule on the request when the candidates resumed their exchanges.
Lula chose social policy as the subject of his question and returned to an issue he said Flávio Bolsonaro had left unanswered in the previous debate. He challenged his opponent to explain why he had been the only state legislator in Rio de Janeiro to vote against extending maternity leave.
Qual a justificativa para votar contra a licença-maternidade? Contra o direito das mulheres e da família? Explique, Flávio Bolsonaro. pic.twitter.com/17ibHC7knP
Text Reads: What is the justification for voting against maternity leave? Against the rights of women and the family? Explain, Flávio Bolsonaro.
Flávio Bolsonaro defended his earlier decision by saying he had believed the measure could make employers less willing to hire women. He acknowledged that he had been wrong, adding that marriage and having two children had changed his perspective.
He said he now understood the importance of mothers staying close to their children and would support extending maternity leave beyond 180 days where possible. He maintained that he would vote differently today.
Lula dismissed the explanation, arguing that Flávio Bolsonaro had failed to support the measure when he had the opportunity and was now changing his position as women became more politically active and fought for their rights.
The president then challenged his rival over the term “Bolsa Farelo,” which Flávio Bolsonaro had used to disparage Bolsa Família, Brazil’s income-transfer program. Lula called the expression disrespectful to poor people, arguing that those removed from economic hardship often treated the poor as though they had no value.
The exchange escalated when Lula responded to Flávio Bolsonaro’s use of the nickname “nine fingers.” The president explained that he had lost a finger at age 17 while working the night shift at a factory, saying he had needed the job to afford food.
“I will not allow a militiaman to call me ‘nine fingers,’” Lula declared. He also accused Flávio Bolsonaro of never having worked, alleging that the first job recorded in his rival’s employment record was a fictitious position arranged by his father.
Flávio Bolsonaro offered an apology, saying he had not intended to offend Lula with the remark. He then turned the criticism back on the president, demanding that Lula apologize to people experiencing homelessness and recipients of Bolsa Família.
Flávio Bolsonaro claimed that the number of people living on the streets had nearly doubled under Lula’s current government, citing a figure of 199,000 people as the starting point. He also accused the president of neglecting Bolsa Família beneficiaries for four years and addressing their concerns only 17 days before the election.
The candidate criticized a recent adjustment to the benefit, claiming the increase amounted to three Brazilian reais a day — enough, he quipped, to buy three eggs.
The exchange brought the candidates’ competing arguments over social policy into sharp focus. Lula pressed Flávio Bolsonaro to account for his legislative record on maternity leave, while his opponent sought to shift scrutiny toward the government’s handling of homelessness and income support.
The City Council voted 40 to 7 to ban the carriages from Central Park starting in 2028. But the carriage drivers vowed to fight their loss of livelihood in court.
Due giorni fa il Ministero del Lavoro e il Mef hanno aggiornato i coefficienti di trasformazione per il biennio che va dal 2027 al 2028.
Secondo le simulazioni elaborate dall’Osservatorio Previdenza della Cgil, a parità di età anagrafica e di capitale accumulato, i lavoratori che accederanno al riposo dal 1° gennaio 2027 subiranno riduzioni degli assegni che possono tradursi in perdite complessive fino a oltre 35.000 euro nell’arco dell’intero pensionamento.
Come cambiano i coefficienti dal 2027
Nel sistema contributivo, l’importo della pensione non si calcola sull’ultimo stipendio ma sulla somma totale delle cifre versate durante la carriera (il cosiddetto montante contributivo). Per trasformare questo capitale in una rata mensile, l’Inps lo multiplies per un coefficiente percentuale che cresce con l’età di uscita. Poiché i dati demografici mostrano un aumento della longevità, le tabelle vengono ricalcolate ogni due anni al ribasso, spalmando lo stesso tesoretto su un periodo di vita stimato più lungo.
Per esempio, chi è andato in pensione di vecchiaia a 67 anni nel 2026 aveva una percentuale di trasformazione al 5,608%, che scenderà al 5,514% dal prossimo anno. Questo aggiornamento comporta, a pari anzianità contributiva, una contrazione immediata dell’assegno pari all’1,68% rispetto al 2026. Se si allarga il confronto ai coefficienti del 2024, si nota una curva discendente del 3,65% a 67 anni che supera il 4% per uscite a 71 anni.
Cosa indicano i numeri delle simulazioni
Per leggere correttamente i numeri elaborati dal sindacato, è importante chiarire cosa rappresentano le fasce di importo analizzate:
i valori nella prima colonna non rappresentano l’ultimo stipendio percepito, ma la pensione mensile lorda che si sarebbe ottenuta a 67 anni con i parametri del 2024;
per raggiungere una pensione contributiva da 1.000 euro mensili serve un montante accantonato di circa 230.000 euro, che corrisponde mediamente a una Ral di circa 20.000-22.000 euro mantenuta per 35-40 anni di carriera continuativa;
si devono differenziare gli uomini dalle donne, a parità di coefficiente moltiplicatore, perché gli indici demografici danno alle ultime un’aspettativa di vita più lunga, dunque una perdita accumulata maggiore.
Quanto si perde da 1.000 a 4.000 euro al mese
Le simulazioni della Cgil mettono a confronto gli importi teorici maturati a 67 anni sulla quota contributiva della pensione. L’impatto economico cresce in valore assoluto all’aumentare della retribuzione pensionabile, incidendo in misura rilevante anche sui redditi medi e bassi:
Assegno mensile teorico nel 2024
Nuovo assegno mensile lordo nel 2027
Perdita mensile lorda
Perdita annuale lorda
Mancato incasso totale stimato (uomini)
Mancato incasso totale stimato (donne)
1.000 euro
963,48 euro
-36,50 euro
-475 euro
-6.923 euro
-8.822 euro
1.500 euro
1.445,00 euro
-55,00 euro
-712 euro
-10.385 euro
-13.234 euro
2.000 euro
1.926,96 euro
-73,04 euro
-950 euro
-13.846 euro
-17.645 euro
3.000 euro
2.890,44 euro
-109,56 euro
-1.424 euro
-20.769 euro
-26.467 euro
4.000 euro
3.854,00 euro
-146,00 euro
-1.898 euro
-27.694 euro
-35.290 euro
Chi viene colpito dai nuovi coefficienti e le regole di calcolo
Il ricalcolo delle tabelle riguarda esclusivamente chi accederà al pensionamento a partire dal 1° gennaio 2027. Le pensioni già in corso di erogazione non subiranno alcuna modifica. L’incidenza sui trattamenti futuri varia in base al sistema di calcolo applicato dall’Inps:
per chi ha iniziato a versare dal 1° gennaio 1996, col sistema interamente contributivo, la revisione al ribasso si applica all’intero importo della prestazione;
per chi possiede anzianità contributiva antecedente al 1996, la contrazione interessa unicamente la quota di pensione calcolata con il metodo contributivo;
chi sceglie di rimanere nei ranghi aziendali, oltre la scadenza, può compensare in parte il calo accumulando ulteriore montante e beneficiando di un coefficiente legato a un’età anagrafica più avanzata.
L’aumento dell’età di vecchiaia dal 2027
Agli effetti penalizzanti sui coefficienti si somma lo scatto delle soglie anagrafiche. Dal 2027 il requisito ordinario per la pensione di vecchiaia salirà a 67 anni e 1 mese (per poi attestarsi a 67 anni e 3 mesi nel 2028), mentre per la prestazione anticipata contributiva occorreranno 64 anni e 1 mese.
Come confermato dalle simulazioni dei sindacati, l’obbligo di lavorare un mese in più apporta un beneficio contributivo marginale sul capitale complessivo, insufficiente a neutralizzare la contrazione percentuale applicata dalle nuove tabelle di trasformazione.
Of all the arguments for protectionism, the infant industry argument probably has the strongest theoretical appeal. By protecting a new industry from its more developed foreign competition, the story goes, tariffs give domestic producers the time to grow, learn, and become efficient enough to stand on their own. Domestic consumers feel the short-term pains of higher prices, but they enjoy the long-term gains of job growth and lower prices as the new industry blossoms.
It's no secret that tariffs have driven significant price increases over the last year and a half. A study from the New York Federal Reserve finds that tariffs "contributed 2.9 percentage points to goods price inflation" and that without tariffs those prices would have slightly declined. Tariff defenders, looking for a new reason to claim these higher prices are only temporary, have reimagined the infant industry argument. Now it's being used to support trade barriers in industries that are over a century old, but the promise is exactly the same: Domestic firms need the protection so they can compete, innovate, and cut costs until prices come back down even further than they were before the tariffs.
Michael Brendan Dougherty recently made such an argument in National Review, arguing that "tariffs can, over time, bring prices below where they started." When economist Don Boudreaux called the argument "bizarre," Dougherty replied that critics had failed to acknowledge the dynamic process by which markets respond to tariffs "by adapting and cutting costs." Although he is light on specific details, he posits that the changed incentives of a "paradigm shift" in tariff policy will spur domestic competition, leading to the theorized price reduction. Of course, firms would still respond to the dynamic processes of domestic competition without a tariff wall, but the point stands.
From there, the reworked infant industry argument becomes the standard version advanced more than two centuries ago by Alexander Hamilton and his disciple Friedrich List. When Hamilton made this claim in 1791, his argument may have seemed suitable for a new nation seeking to firm up its economy and security against established European powers.
Others at the time pointed out that special interest groups—a manifestation of the "violence of faction" so thoroughly dissected in theFederalist Papers—had already begun to coalesce around the fledgling iron industry in Pennsylvania, clamoring for protective tariffs. Two years earlier, James Madison had warned about a "premature policy of stimulating manufactures" driving tariffs too high. In the end, Hamilton recommended and Congress enacted a far more moderate tariff schedule than his theoretical musings portended. American iron manufacturers received a consolation prize of a higher tariff on their competitors than the rate for most general imports. Hamiltonians have been touting the infant industry argument ever since.
Nearly 250 years later, those same infants apparently have yet to advance into adulthood. Steel, the direct successor to the founding-era iron manufacturers, remains a singular focus of President Donald Trump's protectionist tariff policies, just as it was under former President Joe Biden. And former President George W. Bush before him. Indeed, steel has been a recurring beneficiary of protectionism for most of America's existence.
This extended period of protectionist infancy suggests that the argument needs a new name. We propose the "Peter Pan industry argument" for companies that never grow up because tariffs make sure they never have to.
The question tariff advocates rarely ask is: Why do some American producers have higher costs than foreign rivals even in the face of lower-cost foreign competition? The answer comes down to specific rules and choices within particular firms and industries. Tariffs, and protectionism in general, address none of these. No industry illustrates this like steel, but it is far from the only one.
In 1947, United Steelworkers won a contract provision known as Section 2-B. Among other things, this barred mill managers from changing established work practices unless new technology required it. Steel companies tried to get rid of this in 1959, finding it difficult (given union incentives) to establish that technology required change. In response, 500,000 steelworkers went on strike for 116 days. This strike sent buyers abroad, causing 1959 to be the first year the U.S. imported more steel than it exported. One of the then-new technologies that was delayed was basic oxygen furnaces, which could produce steel far faster and cheaper than the open-hearth furnaces that were so common. In 1965, only about 17 percent of steel made in the U.S. was made using the basic oxygen furnace. Japan produced 55 percent of its steel with this faster, more efficient method.
Change finally came from a steel customer. Vulcraft, a maker of steel joists, grew tired of paying Big Steel's prices and waiting for Big Steel's deliveries. In 1969, free from steel unions and preconceived notions, the company looked for new steel-producing technologies and found the answer in the electric arc furnaces that had been adopted in much of the world throughout the 1950s and '60s. Vulcraft's parent company later renamed itself Nucor, and minimills like the ones it pioneered now make most of America's steel.
So the modern steel industry was built by a frustrated steel buyer who found a way around protected companies. In other words, the U.S. steel industry has lagged behind the technologies found around the world.
We could go on, but the broad point here is that the "relatively higher domestic production costs that made the tariff 'necessary' in the first place," as one critic put it, are often the result of preventing competition in the first place. It's odd to suggest that further preventing competition through tariffs will somehow alleviate the ills of already-prevented competition.
Tariff advocates fail to acknowledge that the ability to import steel also comes with the benefit of access to cheaper steel for steel-using industries, such as manufacturing. A 50 percent tariff on steel further closes the release valve that imported steel offers. Buyers of steel are then left to purchase more of the more expensive domestic steel. Because new steel mills take years to bring online, this causes delays and longer delivery times for manufacturers.
We don't have to wonder what happens when a country lowers its tariffs on materials used by manufacturers. India did this in the '90s, and researchers found that newly available inputs accounted for 31 percent of the new products that Indian manufacturers introduced. And what happens when the U.S. imposes tariffs on steel? Downstream U.S. firms become less competitive. This is why American businesses clamor for exemptions to tariffs, especially for tariffs on materials like steel.
Perhaps all this could be forgiven if tariffs advanced national security concerns, as tariff advocates assert. They point out that an adversarial nation could cut off supplies of critical materials during wartime and cripple America's ability to defend itself. Unfortunately, tariffs fail there too.
First, this conflates production with access. While domestic production does ensure domestic access, access can be secured without production. In the case of steel, the Commerce Department reports that in 2025, the U.S. imported steel from 79 countries, with Canada being our top foreign supplier. The top 10 sources of steel are responsible for 77.8 percent of America's steel imports. None of those countries were considered adversaries—at least not until the tariff crusades pushed these friends away. What's more, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute, only 23 percent of finished steel in the U.S. was imported in 2024. Far from being exposed to foreign states' whims, American access to steel is incredibly resilient.
Second, this view ignores the positive effects of trade and globalization on national security. The Center for Strategic & International Studies finds that increased trade between countries reduces the likelihood that they'll go to war against one another. Globalization helps ensure that domestic access continues unabated should war break out, thanks to the diversity of trading partners.
When Hamilton made the infant industry argument, he at least assured us that the industry would at some point advance to adulthood and stand on its own. Steel, like so many other Peter Pan industries, has proven Madison right. These industries have refused to grow up, and it's time to stop pretending that tariffs will fix that.
A passenger’s death in June became the impetus for the City Council to ban the practice, but the bill will likely face a court challenge before being implemented in 2028.
Chi deciderà di andare in pensione a partire dal 1° gennaio 2027 rischia di percepire un trattamento mensile più leggero rispetto a chi lascia l’attività entro la fine del 2026, a parità di età anagrafica e di anzianità contributiva.
A determinare la contrazione dei futuri cedolini è l’aggiornamento dei coefficienti di trasformazione pubblicato dal Ministero del Lavoro, che ricalcola il rendimento del capitale accumulato sulla base del nuovo incremento dell’aspettativa di vita.
Cosa sono i coefficienti di trasformazione e perché cambiano
Nel sistema contributivo, ormai applicato alla quasi totalità dei lavoratori prossimi al riposo, l’importo della prestazione si ottiene moltiplicando le somme accantonate durante la carriera (il cosiddetto montante contributivo) per una percentuale denominata coefficiente di trasformazione.
Il valore di questo moltiplicatore cresce con l’avanzare dell’età di uscita, garantendo un rendimento annuo più elevato a chi lavora più a lungo. Tuttavia, i parametri vengono aggiornati a cadenza biennale per adeguarsi all’evoluzione demografica. Poiché la speranza di vita media continua a salire, le tabelle per il biennio 2027-2028 subiranno una revisione al ribasso: la medesima riserva finanziaria dovrà infatti garantire la copertura di un periodo di erogazione stimato più esteso.
Le simulazioni sugli assegni
Dalle stime elaborate, la riduzione lorda varia in proporzione diretta all’età del pensionato e all’entità del capitale maturato. Di seguito la comparazione omogenea dell’impatto atteso per diverse fasce di contribuenti nel 2027 rispetto al 2026:
Profilo di uscita
Capitale accumulato
Assegno mensile lordo stima (2027)
Taglio mensile lordo
Taglio annuale lordo (13 mensilità)
Pensione di vecchiaia (63 anni)
250.000 euro
~ 935 euro al mese
-19 euro al mese
-247 euro l’anno
Pensione di vecchiaia (67 anni)
250.000 euro
~ 1.060 euro al mese
-18 euro al mese
-234 euro l’anno
Pensione di vecchiaia (67 anni)
300.000 euro
~ 1.272 euro al mese
-22 euro al mese
-286 euro l’anno
Pensione di vecchiaia (67 anni)
500.000 euro
~ 2.120 euro al mese
-36 euro al mese
-468 euro l’anno
Perché un mese di lavoro in più non basta a evitare il taglio
L’aggiornamento dei parametri si inserisce in un contesto segnato dal riavvio degli automatismi di adeguamento dei requisiti alla speranza di vita. Dal 1° gennaio 2027, la soglia minima per accedere alla pensione di vecchiaia salirà di 30 giorni, attestandosi a 67 anni e 1 mese, mentre per la prestazione anticipata contributiva occorreranno 64 anni e 1 mese.
Tuttavia, un’ulteriore contribuzione versata in un solo mese apporterebbe un beneficio marginale al capitale complessivo: per neutralizzare l’effetto delle nuove tabelle occorrerebbero tra i 5 e i 7 mesi di attività in più. Di conseguenza, chi maturerà i requisiti nel 2027 percepirà dall’Inps un importo strutturalmente inferiore rispetto a chi ha lasciato la professione l’anno precedente a parità di percorso.
Andy Burnham has announced "big changes" to welfare to get one million NEETs back into work – but only once he's "rebuilt the education system". Sounds expensive, says Mary Gilleece. It’s clearly never going to happen.
Login
