The 2026 Budget Law, the third, to be precise, of the Meloni government, has not failed to spark controversy and criticism on various grounds, not least that it presents itself (at least this is the impression one gets) in substantial continuity with the policies of the previous Draghi government. Several factors potentially impact the government's decisions, including, for example, the potential repercussions of the Middle East and Russian-Ukrainian conflicts.
The budget law, moreover, is being introduced in the midst of a particularly complex economic and, consequently, productive situation, especially due to the severe effects of Donald Trump's tariffs, which appear to have already had a negative impact on exports. In essence, to put it more clearly, and considering those measures presented as favorable, but whose actual validity will be assessed at a later stage, the budget appears to include a reduction in the tax burden on the most vulnerable and the middle class, as well as incentives for births.
But can it really be considered satisfactory? Or is it a poor budget, conditioned by the need to conclude the European Infringement Procedure on the Stability Pact, which had been suspended during the pandemic, by the first few months of 2026? Is it a budget that, even if only modestly, contains favorable measures for the wealthier classes? Is it a budget that proposes policies to support growth, or is it, all things considered, a budget marked by inertia? Perhaps it would be contradictory to ask whether this Budget Law, about which many seem to have harbored comforting expectations, is instead characterized by the inclusion of certain measures of a somewhat regressive nature that would appear to limit and diminish its medium- and long-term prospects.
Put differently, the so-called fifth amnesty for tax bills would seem to be of dubious practical utility. It would appear to provide for deferred payments of up to nine years, but its favorable effects on state coffers cannot currently be estimated from an accounting perspective. Rather, the risk would appear to be that such measures would result in a contraction in state revenues, impacting and reducing social, civil, welfare, and healthcare services. Perhaps, in the current historical moment, it would have been more useful and restorative to introduce a minimum wage, which would have allowed workers to cope with rising inflation and rising prices for basic necessities. It would probably have been more useful to also focus the budget on the aforementioned measure, certainly long-awaited and far-reaching, which would have placed a significant limit on low wages. In this context, the so-called wealth tax represents a particularly divisive topic of discussion, as it is a so-called extraordinary fiscal policy instrument, potentially resorted to in times of significant public finance pressure. Even considering everything, it would be a rather thorny measure, even if taken for granted, which would impact wealth already subject to taxation, amounting to double taxation. Moreover, as noted by many, although there is no general wealth tax in Italy, comparable forms of taxation appear to exist, such as the IMU (Property Tax) and the Inheritance and Gift Tax. Although this issue has resurfaced in public debate, it still appears impractical to date, especially given relatively recent precedents, such as those attributable to the Amato Government, during which, in the early 1990s, the extraordinary levy on current accounts was introduced, which was met with a rather negative reception by the public.
As things stand, the current situation appears to be too short a blanket to meet the daily needs of citizens and taxpayers grappling with rising consumer prices and inflation.
Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro