The painting

Positive, but sectoral and time-bound interventions: the tax becomes a patchwork of levies

Complex management also for employers, who will have to split income

Songsak C - stock.adobe.com

4' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

4' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

 Irpef, along with the reduction of the intermediate rate from 35 to 33%, is preparing to embark on a significant number of measures, heterogeneous among themselves, yet united by a distinctive feature: the taxation with substitute rates of specific income components of employees, both in the private and public sectors. These interventions respond to the objective of improving, albeit selectively and temporarily, the disposable income of specific groups of workers in a context of still high inflation.

We are not facing the flat tax, the true tax dream of the political right, but rather a multiplication of 'micro' flat taxes: many, different from each other and also different from those already in force. The Budget Bill in fact introduces - generally for 2026 only - a package of concessions aimed exclusively at employees, public and private, financed with a dowry of 1.7 billion euro.

Loading...

The declared objective is to support the purchasing power of households by relieving the levy on certain incremental and additional items of wages through taxes replacing Irpef and related surcharges.

The measurements

In detail, for private sector workers with incomes not exceeding 28 thousand euro, a 5% substitute tax will be applied to salary increases resulting from contractual renewals for the two-year period 2025-2026. Also in the private sector, the deduction of taxation on overtime and night work is introduced, which will be subject to a rate of 15%, within the income limit of EUR 40 thousand and with a maximum benefit, in terms of taxable income, of EUR 1.500 euro.A similar measure concerns employees of the tourism sector. In addition, a strengthening is envisaged - for 2026-2027 - of the regulations on the subsidised taxation of productivity bonuses for private employees with incomes not exceeding EUR 80,000: the substitute rate drops to 1 per cent (compared to the current 5 per cent) and the limit of the bonus that can be subsidised rises from EUR 3,000 to EUR 5,000. Finally, for public employees with income up to EUR 50 thousand, a 15% substitute tax is introduced on the bonus, with a maximum benefit of EUR 800.

These measures are in addition to those already in operation - from the flat tax on tips in tourism to the preferential taxation of teachers' private tuition, to the de-taxation of nurses' overtime - and aim to reduce the tax burden on at least some parts of the salary.

Effects and criticalities

All well, then? The objective is certainly shareable. However, from a systemic perspective, it is difficult to ignore the effect that these interventions end up producing on the already fragile structure of the Irpef. A tax that, with the enabling act, should have been the subject of an organic intervention of simplification, rationalisation and greater equity and that, instead, with the accumulation of measures that are disconnected from each other risks seeing its structural criticalities further aggravated.

It is no coincidence that all the main institutions heard in the Senate during the examination of the Budget Bill - from Istat to the Court of Auditors, from the Bank of Italy to the Parliamentary Budget Office - have pointed out that, while having positive effects, the fragmented nature of these interventions risks compromising the overall consistency and fairness of the tax system.

Irpef no longer appears to be a unitary tax, but a patchwork of different taxes: an increasingly chaotic system, differentiated by type of income, by categories of taxpayers, and now even within the same categories. Emblematic is the case of those who will benefit from the contractual renewal in 2026 and those who will have it in 2027 or not at all. Discounts are becoming more and more selective and the differences are also widening between the private and public sector.

The goal of horizontal equity - the rule according to which identical incomes should be taxed in the same way - seems increasingly distant. It is no longer just a question of the historical disparity of treatment between employees, pensioners and the self-employed, but also of the divergences emerging within the same category of workers.

The decision to take temporary measures, understandable from a public finance perspective, sterilises but does not solve the problem of high taxation on labour. In 2026 there will be a benefit, but from 2027 there will be a return to ordinary rates. For many taxpayers this will result in the feeling - and not only the feeling - of a tax increase due to the cessation of the benefit.

Also on the administrative side, the administration of these measures does not seem to be oriented towards simplification. Tax withholding agents will have to apply different rates on different income components; workers, in some cases and for specific income brackets, even risk a tax increase instead of a saving, to the point of having to double-count (with and without relief) in order to decide whether to renounce the benefit, as provided for by the rule.

The criticalities generated by this Irpef à la carte end up being heavy ballasts for a tax that would need an organic reorganisation intervention and not a multiplication of temporary and partial measures that - although useful in the immediate future - make the design of the main tax of our tax system even more confusing.

Copyright reserved ©
Loading...

Brand connect

Loading...

Newsletter

Notizie e approfondimenti sugli avvenimenti politici, economici e finanziari.

Iscriviti