To paraphrase Shakespeare, one might say “much ado about nothing”; but since we are talking about taxes – that is, the flesh and blood of each of us – “much ado about nothing” is never. However, the impression remains that, in the public debate that has raged around the tax issue, with Prime Minister Meloni harshly opposed to the Democratic Party secretary (and vice versa), there is a lot of propaganda: political claims that have overflowed beyond the reality of the facts and their weight.

On the one hand, the Prime Minister, who for days has been flaunting a tax reduction which has therefore turned out to be a small thing: a few pennies (when politicians talk about a “signal” they confess the irrelevance of their actions). On the other hand, the leader of the opposition (at least that’s what she thinks; buzz Giuseppe Conte) has returned to unleashing buzzwords in vogue in the battles of the twentieth-century left, evergreen like “patrimonial” and the mythical “redistribution” (here we are pure Marxism, mid-nineteenth century).

“408 euros for managers, 23 for workers”: here’s who earns the most with the Meloni maneuver

The truth, as usual, lies beyond political controversy and cannot ignore the numbers. The first to keep an eye on are those of the budget law, whose general outlines are known: we are talking about 18 billion, one of the lightest maneuvers of recent years, aimed above all at achieving two objectives. The first is to keep the country’s accounts in order so as to allow Italy to return early from the European infringement procedure and have a good result to spend in the electoral campaign (in fact the slogan “with us the accounts are back under control” has its intrinsic impact). The government’s second objective is to set aside a little treasure to put on the table next year, again in this period, for the latest budget law in view of the elections: perhaps in the form of a significant fiscal intervention on average incomes (a very noticeable big cut in tax rates) or a significant flurry of hiring, perhaps in the sectors in which the left’s attack campaign could be more effective (one above all: healthcare).

Thus, on the one hand, Schlein is not wrong when she claims – citing the observations of Bankitalia and the Parliamentary Budget Office – that the reduction of the Irpef rate from 35 to 33 percent for incomes up to 50 thousand euros, provided for in the current budget law, has mainly rewarded medium-high incomes (to give an idea: 408 euros gross per year for managers, 123 for office workers, 23 for workers). On the other hand, it must be said that we are still talking about sums that are little more than negligible: at the time Renzi was criticized for the 80 euros net per month, considered a handout, but here we are at much, much less. Four hundred euros gross per year means, for a manager (who can also be a pensioner with an average pension), less than twenty euros net per month: that is, a pizza, but alone, because in company you need double that amount. And on the other hand, Giorgetti is right when, in the “Corriere della Sera”, he explains that “earning two thousand euros does not mean being rich”, claiming that for incomes up to 35 thousand euros the intervention already took place last year and recalling that the government’s action must be evaluated over a legislative horizon: here the previous discussion returns, on what can be implemented next year. Also because, as Minister Ciriani said in another interview, “there are no resources”. In some way, an explanation of the reason for such a poor intervention.

Thus the opposing propaganda remains, as befits this time of perpetual electoral campaign (in less than two weeks there will be voting in three large regions). From this perspective, the Democratic Party secretary’s call for patrimonial issues, i.e. a European tax on the super-rich, was important: a proposal that aroused the coldness of the allies (Renzi distanced himself from Schlein, which hasn’t been so usual lately; Conte has done the same) and the speculative enthusiasm of the prime minister, who when she hears someone from the left talk about patrimonial issues goes into jujube soup, thinking about how many votes that exit will earn her.

As you can see, there is very little beyond words. On one side and on the other.