For now it is a political intention: strong. And a number to cover: 2.7 billion. The 2027 maneuver, the one at the end of the legislature, also wants to pin as a flagship another cut to the Irpef. After the interventions on the tax wedge, the shift from four to three rates (first for one year and then made permanent) with the merging of the first bracket up to 28,000 euros and the reduction of the second rate from 35% to 33%, the goal now is to extend the second rate bracket (precisely at 33%) from 50,000 to 60,000 euros.
Read more Gdo, Filcams Cgil: «Part time imposed in six cases out of ten, decent wages and hours are needed …
Ask the Sun
The questions are automatically suggested by 24Ore AI
based on the content viewed.
The taxpayers involved
Let’s start with a premise, as long as it remains a technical hypothesis, we can only reason in general terms. So how many taxpayers are potentially involved? Between 50,000 and 60,000 euros of declared income (it is always good to add this considering the spread of tax evasion in Italy) according to the latest tax statistics there are just over one million taxpayers between 50,000 and 60,000 euros. But, due to the structure of the Irpef, those benefiting from this further extension would also be taxpayers above 60,000 euros. This means that without a cap up to 3.3 million taxpayers would benefit from the intervention. In fact, even those above 60,000 euros would see part of their declared income (precisely that between 50,000 and 60,000 euros) removed from the highest 43% rate and attracted to the lower 33 percent rate.
How much you save
And now let’s come to the aspect that interests Italian taxpayers the most. But how much do you save? Let’s try to get on the elevator of declared incomes, always with the premise that for now it is a reasoning without rules in hand and without considering the “specificities” of individual taxpayers. So these are gross numbers that do not take into account potential additional tax savings, which can come for example from the use of tax deductions for facilitated expense charges. And anyway it should not be forgotten that from theory to reality, the weight of municipal and regional additional taxes on Irpef must also be considered, which change the calculation. From 51,000 euros of income you start saving, with the simple linear effect of the bracket expansion, 100 euros per year. At 52,000 euros it becomes 200 and so on: basically 100 euros of savings for every 1,000 euros of income up to 60,000 euros. At this income threshold you reach the maximum saving of 1,000 euros per year, which means about 77 euros calculated over 13 months. And from 60,000 euros onwards the tax saving stabilizes at one thousand euros. Naturally 1,000 euros at 60,000 euros do not “value” the same as when you have 100,000 euros of income. At 60,000, in fact, the saving accounts for 1.7% while at 100,000 only 1% and as income increases the incidence decreases almost to disappear.
Read more Explosion at former Simmel Difesa ammunition factory, no injuries
The sterilization
That is why a possible solution involves a sterilization of the tax saving. As happened with the 2026 Budget Law which essentially excluded the effects of the rate reduction from 35% to 33% for those with incomes above 200,000 euros. In practice, for those above this threshold, the amount of the deduction from the gross tax decreased by an amount equal to 440 euros, calculated taking into account the reductions that kick in beyond 75,000 euros and linked according to the coefficients for the number of family members, in relation to the following charges:: charges whose deductibility is set at 19% by the Tuir or any other tax provision, except for medical expenses; donations in favor of political parties which are deductible from income tax for an amount equal to 26%, for amounts between 30 and 30,000 euros annually; insurance premiums for the risk of calamity events.
Who knows if this might be the path to follow on this occasion as well. Also because by bringing the sterilization even lower, one could think of trimming something compared to the estimate of the necessary coverage. In this way, even the estimate of the taxpayers involved is destined to change.
