It is as if suddenly, the honeymoon between Mario Draghi and the great institutions of the country was over. There is no conflict, God forbid, but the dynamics have returned to the standards of politics with relief – even harsh ones – against the measures passed by the government. And the differences emerge clearly in the hearings on the maneuver. Even according to the president of the UPB, Giuseppe Pisauro, the interventions included in the budget law “present elements of indeterminacy and, in some respects, a maneuver in progress is envisaged, in which the postponement of some choices is made, the definition of which will probably take place along the parliamentary approval process “. In particular, “the tax reform is for now outlined only in its fundamental principles, with only the overall definition of the allocation of the fund for the reduction of the tax burden and the general indication of the field of intervention”.
For the Bank of Italy, however, the choices regarding pensions «are rightly prudent. The marginal contents available immediately can be used to facilitate the exit from work of those who perform particularly tough jobs or are in poor health conditions. When the pressures on public finances have been reduced, the margins of flexibility in exit will be able to be extended ». Instead, as regards the fiscal aspect, the Bank of Italy explains that “since the compensation of employees represents just over half of the total declared income, the objective of reducing the tax wedge that weighs on them would be more effectively achievable with the revision of deductions and supplementary treatment, rather than with the sole reduction of the rates which would also favor income other than those from dependent work “. Skepticism also about the cut of the IRAP for which it will be necessary to take into account the financing of the national health system “identifying alternative solutions”.
For the Court of Auditors, therefore, the overall assessment of the pension measures contained in the budget “is not entirely positive”. And even if “full adherence to the contributory principle is confirmed, the strong uncertainty that has arisen in the system is not removed” with Quota 100.
The judgment of the CNEL is harsher which – in line with what Confindustria has said – considers the 8 billion allocated by the maneuver for the reduction of taxes, “even more so if spread over two taxes”, namely Irpef and Irap, “not sufficient to achieve a structural reform of the personal income tax, which is the real knot of the reform as well as the field of choice for combining equity and sustainability. If a radical intervention on personal income tax appears necessary with a view to supporting the purchasing power of families of workers and retirees, operations on IRAP risk jeopardizing the resources that the Regions allocate to health care “. All the more so because as the UPB notes, from a financial point of view, the maneuver “does not seem to intend to give rise to an effective structural strengthening of the NHS, but the previous choices of allocation of resources, which placed Italy among the European countries with lower and progressively decreasing health expenditure ”. Assuming that the greater funding of the maneuver for 2022 “translates entirely into greater disbursements, the impact on GDP of health expenditure would be equal to 6.3% in 2024″, a percentage lower than in 2019 (6.4% ).