Discontent mounted on Monday in Italy over cuts to a poverty relief scheme by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's rightist government that will affect hundreds of thousands of people.

ROME, July 31 (Reuters) - Discontent mounted on Monday in Italy over cuts to a poverty relief scheme by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s rightist government that will affect hundreds of thousands of people.

In Naples, trade unionists and far-left activists organised a rally outside the headquarters of welfare agency INPS, while in a small town in Sicily an unemployed man threatened to set the office of the mayor on fire.

They are all set to lose the so-called “citizen wage”, a subsidy introduced in 2019 and due to be gradually withdrawn between August and December and replaced with less generous programmes.

INPS last week sent a text message to roughly 160,000 people to warn them they would be excluded from the scheme - a method of communication that has been criticised as “brutal” by the leader of the opposition Democratic Party, Elly Schlein.

“I’m 58 and I cannot enter the labour market because they always tell me that at my age, 58, I am not (employable), just a few odd jobs, always off the books, underpaid”, one of the Naples protesters told RAI public TV.

The “citizen wage” benefited 1.7 million households and 3.6 million people last year, with average monthly payments per household of 551 euros ($607.81), according to INPS. It had no expiry date provided recipients did not refuse job offers.

The government curtailed the scheme in May arguing that it allowed people to be lazy and live off subsidies, stating that only those physically unable to work should be allowed to rely on benefits.

As part of Meloni’s reform, some 436,000 families with able-bodied people are due to receive starting from September a smaller 350-euro monthly subsidy, provided they sign up for job training schemes, and for no more than 12 months.

The snag is that registration procedures to access the new subsidies are not yet fully available, raising fears payments will not start for a while, leaving people with no form of income support for months.

Parliamentary Affairs Minister Luca Ciriani defended the cut, telling La Stampa daily: “Support is there for those who cannot work, but it’s right that those who can, work, because that’s the only way a person can have their dignity. We won’t backtrack.”

    • Moonrise2473@feddit.itEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      The idea was ok but the way it was implemented it was idiotic. The government knows everything, every year when I do the taxes they already prefill all my bank accounts info, but this was so rushed that they didn’t implement any single check. Anyone could login, type that they’re poor, check the “I solemnly swear that everything is true” checkbox and voila, free money every month. No checks at all, maybe sometimes they catch the biggest thief’s but there were really too many getting money without reason.

      • honey_im_meat_grindingEnglish
        23·
        1 year ago

        Universal welfare is objectively economically superior to bureaucratic means tested welfare. Calling it “abuse” is just how they get away with turning you into bigger wage slaves with less bargaining power

        The findings of the report include: moving from universalism to selectivity increases social and economic inequality and diminishes rather than enhances the status of the poor; selectivity requires processes and procedures that separate benefit recipients from the rest of society, increasing stigmatisation and reducing take-up; universalism is incredibly efficient – the selective element of pension entitlement is more than 50 times more inefficient than the universal element measured in terms of fraud and error alone and without even taking into account the cost of administration; universalism creates positive economic stability by mitigating the swings in the business cycle and creating much more economic independence among the population; on virtually every possible measure of social and economic success, all league tables are topped by societies with strong universal welfare states; universalism creates a higher and more progressive tax base which also improves economic stability, reduces price bubbles and creates more efficient flatter income distributions; and universal benefits promote gender equality and do not suffer from the inherent bias built into a system designed within a framework of assuming a male breadwinner model of welfare.

        • Moonrise2473@feddit.itEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          yes but this is not universal welfare, but something that is only for the unemployed under the line of poverty (and it was already available, but more difficult to get)

          the fact that the complete lack of any basic check made it available to anyone who just asked for it, does not make it an universal welfare

          it was just a failed attempt to let people vote for their party

          • honey_im_meat_grindingEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            the fact that the complete lack of any basic check made it available to anyone who just asked for it, does not make it an universal welfare

            it measurably does make it closer to universalism than the selectivism you seem to be championing here. They’re not replacing it with a better system, they’re removing something that was closer to universal welfare and leaving poor people to suffer even more. Austerity policies are not new and you can literally just google “austerity excess deaths” for various countries and see the impact of those policies

            it was just a failed attempt to let people vote for their party

            You have fallen for their rhetoric. This is exactly how they justify anti-welfare policies in many countries around the world - “it was just there to win votes”… yes, good things tend to win votes. Like welfare.

            • Moonrise2473@feddit.itEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              the party that proposed and passed this law has fallen in popularity from #1 to #3. The party that before the election said “one of the first things we will do if we are elected will be to eliminate the free money scheme” got a sudden increase in popularity rose from #6 to #1.

              Does not seem a measure that’s fair for the average taxpayer and it was shown in the elections. With the changes, the people who’s poor and unable to work, will still get free money and free healthcare.