{"id":12393,"date":"2026-03-17T18:15:46","date_gmt":"2026-03-17T17:15:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/?p=12393"},"modified":"2026-03-17T18:15:46","modified_gmt":"2026-03-17T17:15:46","slug":"irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/03\/17\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\/","title":{"rendered":"IRPEF: A Tax Pillaged by Politics"},"content":{"rendered":"

Over time, IRPEF has been distorted by a large number of tax breaks and special provisions that have undermined its fairness and efficiency, turning it increasingly into a tax on wages and pensions. The measures that have compromised the structure of the personal income tax fall under the category of \u201ctax expenditures.\u201d Many grant advantages to small groups of taxpayers who are able to make their voices heard and, for this reason, are difficult to eliminate once introduced. Adding to the injustice is the fact that they are often exploited only by middle- and high-income earners. Their proliferation is largely explained by their ability to generate political consensus, with costs that are barely visible and spread across all taxpayers. There are ways to restore coherence to the tax system. What may be lacking is the political will to act. <\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In all countries, tax systems are complex and full of special cases, exceptions, and preferential treatments. Italy, however, stands out as it likely holds the record for both the number and cost of deviations from a rational tax design. This is particularly evident when considering IRPEF, the tax that consistently attracts the attention of voters and policymakers. In principle, it is a simple tax: from a taxpayer\u2019s total income, certain deductions are subtracted to determine the taxable base, to which progressive tax rates are applied across brackets. Then, various tax credits reduce the resulting amount to determine the actual tax due.<\/p>\n

Even from this basic structure, it is clear how complications can arise. For example, one may decide that certain types of income are excluded\u2014either entirely or partially\u2014from the tax base. Alternatively, deductions or tax credits may be introduced for specific categories of taxpayers. In the case of IRPEF, no such complication has been spared.<\/p>\n

All the Income Removed from IRPEF<\/strong><\/h3>\n

To begin with, the IRPEF tax base has never coincided with the sum of all income. Since its introduction in 1974, the tax has not applied to capital income\u2014although dividends were included in some periods\u2014nor to most capital gains: in both cases, proportional taxation applies. Other types of income, such as those from land and buildings, are only partially included.<\/p>\n

In recent years, additional segments of income have been removed from IRPEF. The most striking case is the flat-rate regime for self-employed individuals with turnover (not income) below \u20ac85,000, who can opt for a 15 percent flat tax in place of progressive IRPEF, local surtaxes, VAT, and IRAP. Simplified regimes for low levels of activity exist in many countries, but when they cover roughly half of all self-employed workers, they effectively become an alternative tax system, further skewing and weakening IRPEF. In practice, IRPEF has now become a tax on wages and pensions, the two categories that account for about 95 percent of IRPEF revenue under the standard progressive structure.<\/p>\n

The flat tax is not only inequitable: it also incentivizes beneficiaries to remain \u201csmall\u201d in order to stay below the eligibility threshold, even though it is widely recognized that the small average size of firms is one of the structural weaknesses of the Italian economy. Other recent and significant exclusions from the tax base include rental income (under an optional regime) and productivity bonuses for employees earning up to \u20ac80,000, which are generally taxed at a 10 percent rate.<\/p>\n

How Much Do \u201cTax Expenditures\u201d Cost?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The number of special treatments and deviations from the logical structure of taxation is so large that, for over a decade, a ministerial commission has been tasked with publishing an annual report on so-called \u201ctax expenditures\u201d\u2014that is, the set of measures that reduce tax revenue for specific categories of taxpayers or economic activities compared to the \u201cnormal\u201d structure of the tax.<\/p>\n

Two concrete examples help clarify what qualifies as a tax expenditure and what does not. Tax credits for employee income or for dependent spouses are not considered tax expenditures, as they are integral to the IRPEF mechanism and contribute to achieving vertical and horizontal equity: the former requires that those with greater ability to pay contribute proportionally more, while the latter ensures that taxpayers with equal ability to pay are taxed equally.<\/p>\n

By contrast, the full exemption of agricultural income\u2014already underestimated\u2014from the IRPEF tax base between 2017 and 2023 clearly represented a deviation from the general rule and is therefore classified as a tax expenditure. According to commission estimates, in 2025 the Italian tax system includes 575 tax expenditures, a sharp increase over the commission\u2019s decade of activity, with a total revenue loss of approximately \u20ac119 billion. Of these, 187 concern IRPEF, with a cost of \u20ac66 billion.<\/p>\n

It should be noted, however, that only a limited number of measures account for the bulk of the revenue loss. Among the most significant are standard building renovation incentives, the flat tax for the self-employed, the flat tax on rental income (cedolare secca), deductions for voluntary contributions to pension funds, exemptions for war pensions, and the deduction of imputed income from owner-occupied housing. Many other tax expenditures affect very few taxpayers and generate only limited aggregate tax relief, although the benefit may be substantial for individual recipients.<\/p>\n

The chart shows the distribution of total tax expenditures across all taxes and their beneficiaries in 2025, limited to cases for which estimates are available. More than half of tax expenditures have a very low total cost but apply to less than 1 percent of beneficiaries, with relatively high average benefits. Conversely, the few measures with a cost exceeding \u20ac1 billion each reach a very large number of taxpayers.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

In recent years, the most striking case of tax relief has been the superbonus for building renovation, which effectively turned into a direct monetary transfer from the state to certain taxpayers. This occurred thanks to the possibility of invoice discounts and transferable tax credits, mechanisms that made the benefit entirely independent of beneficiaries\u2019 income.<\/p>\n

Precisely because of these features, the superbonus is effectively equivalent to public spending and therefore does not fall within the scope of the commission\u2019s report on tax expenditures, except for the residual share\u2014around 4 percent\u2014actually claimed as IRPEF deductions.<\/p>\n

Damage to Efficiency and Equity<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Not all tax expenditures are harmful: those linked to socially desirable choices\u2014such as encouraging supplementary pensions\u2014have a clear justification. The Italian problem lies instead in the large number of micro-level tax breaks. Their proliferation can generate negative effects both in terms of efficiency and equity.<\/p>\n

From an efficiency perspective, a well-designed tax expenditure should influence taxpayer behavior, encouraging certain choices\u2014for example, investing in a pension fund or improving the energy efficiency of one\u2019s home. In many cases, however, the effect is simply to grant advantages to specific groups. Examples include the special tax regime for amateur sports associations, which may encourage irregular practices to qualify, and the tax treatment of agritourism: when the activity is carried out by IRPEF taxpayers, the tax base can be calculated on a flat basis at 25 percent of revenues. This is clearly advantageous for at least some beneficiaries; otherwise, the rule would already have been changed.<\/p>\n

From an equity perspective, many \u201cstructural\u201d tax credits increase the progressivity of IRPEF, favoring lower-income groups. By contrast, many tax expenditures disproportionately benefit middle- and high-income taxpayers. They can be used only by those who pay IRPEF and have the financial capacity to incur upfront expenses\u2014such as building renovations, pension contributions, private education, and so on.<\/p>\n

Lower-income taxpayers, by contrast, often do not pay IRPEF due to standard deductions or those for dependent spouses and, precisely for this reason, cannot benefit from additional tax breaks. To limit the concentration of benefits among higher-income groups, a mechanism has been introduced in recent years whereby certain tax credits\u2014particularly those equal to 19 percent of specific expenditures\u2014are gradually reduced as income increases, eventually disappearing.<\/p>\n

Tax relief linked to employer-provided welfare benefits, which excludes certain employer-provided goods and services from taxable income, as well as favorable taxation of productivity bonuses, also tends to benefit workers in medium- and large-sized firms, often located in the northern regions of the country. The same applies to meal vouchers.<\/p>\n

What Lies Inside the \u201cPork Barrel\u201d<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Why has IRPEF been effectively pillaged by special provisions\u2014and why does this continue? The main reason is that tax expenditures are an extremely effective tool for generating political consensus. They are, in effect, equivalent to public spending, but are less visible and easier to approve than explicit transfers to specific groups. Moreover, they allow politicians and social partners to signal attention to beneficiaries, offering tangible results. Once introduced, tax expenditures tend to persist indefinitely. This is because they create a diffuse cost\u2014through lost revenue\u2014spread across all taxpayers, which rarely provokes opposition, while the benefits are concentrated among small groups that strongly defend them. This mechanism encourages both the proliferation and persistence of tax breaks over time.<\/p>\n

The same reasoning applies in other countries as well. Not surprisingly, in the United States such clientelistic measures are referred to as pork barrel<\/em>, a term that dates back to colonial times, when servants or enslaved people were occasionally granted access to barrels of meat as a reward for their work.<\/p>\n

Tax Expenditures in the 2026 Budget Law<\/strong><\/h3>\n

This year\u2019s budget law meets expectations by introducing new tax expenditures alongside adjustments to existing ones.<\/p>\n

The reduction of the second IRPEF rate from 35 percent to 33 percent does not qualify as a tax expenditure, as it affects a standard component of the tax. A different case is a measure that, for 2026 only, applies a 15 percent flat tax to a small portion of compensation for public and private employees with middle-low incomes, limited to additional pay components and within certain thresholds. Also for 2026 only, the budget introduces a flat tax on bonuses and allowances for night work, holidays, Sundays, or shift work for private-sector employees earning up to \u20ac40,000. Instead of IRPEF and local surtaxes, these components will be subject to a substitute rate of 15 percent, limited to bonuses up to \u20ac1,500 per year, with an estimated revenue loss of \u20ac620 million.<\/p>\n

A completely new measure concerns wage increases agreed between 2024 and 2026 for private-sector employees earning up to \u20ac33,000, which will be taxed at a substitute rate of 5 percent, again only for 2026, with an estimated revenue loss of about \u20ac640 million. This is an inequitable and distortive measure, as those who renewed their contracts just before or will do so just after will not benefit from any tax relief and, for the same income and wage increases, will pay more IRPEF. It is more problematic than other measures introduced in the budget, as it concerns ordinary income increases rather than overtime or bonuses. The hope is that it will not set a precedent encouraging further demands for similar tax breaks, once again undermining the generality and universality of IRPEF.<\/p>\n

Also for the private sector, for 2026 and 2027 the substitute tax rate on productivity bonuses is reduced from 5 percent to 1 percent, and the ceiling on eligible income is increased from \u20ac3,000 to \u20ac5,000. All these measures directly affect employee income and aim to compensate for increases that, in principle, should result from higher productivity. However, resources are limited: these are often temporary measures or relatively small in scale. They may nonetheless foster the perception that policymakers are supporting workers and that social partners have achieved meaningful results. It is somewhat like administering a painkiller to someone with a serious illness: the relief is temporary, but the underlying problem\u2014in this case, economic stagnation\u2014remains. In any event, these temporary and sometimes ad hoc measures divert resources that could instead be allocated to growth-enhancing investments or a broad-based reduction in the tax burden.<\/p>\n

Is it possible to restore order by returning to a more rational and equitable IRPEF? In theory, there are several options. For example, one could establish by law that all tax expenditures are temporary and that their renewal requires explicit parliamentary approval, thereby increasing the political cost of extension. Alternatively, one could require that each new tax expenditure be accompanied by a technical analysis defining its objectives and duration, enabling ex post evaluation of its effectiveness.<\/p>\n

So far, the government has limited itself to reducing certain tax credits for higher-income taxpayers, without reducing their overall number. A decisive intervention on tax expenditures may occur only within the framework of a comprehensive IRPEF reform, promoted by a politically strong government at the beginning of its term\u2014or, less desirably, in the event of a public finance crisis.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Massimo Baldini teaches Economic Policy at the \u201cMarco Biagi\u201d Department of Economics, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia.<\/em><\/p>\n

Ezra Ferrarini is enrolled in the Master\u2019s degree program in Data Analysis for Economics and Management at the \u201cMarco Biagi\u201d Department of Economics, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Over time, IRPEF has been distorted by a large number of tax breaks and special provisions that have undermined its fairness and efficiency, turning it […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6425,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"coauthors":[249,423],"class_list":["post-12393","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-categorizzato"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nIRPEF: A Tax Pillaged by Politics - Rivista Eco<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/03\/17\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"IRPEF: A Tax Pillaged by Politics - Rivista Eco\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Over time, IRPEF has been distorted by a large number of tax breaks and special provisions that have undermined its fairness and efficiency, turning it […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/03\/17\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Rivista Eco\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-03-17T17:15:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2026\/03\/Eco-26-1_grafici_eng_baldini-1024x952.png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Massimo Baldini, Ezra Ferrarini\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Massimo Baldini, Ezra Ferrarini\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/17\\\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/17\\\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Massimo Baldini\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/8ff374cecd1f75a8ea9044f3526d91ed\"},\"headline\":\"IRPEF: A Tax Pillaged by Politics\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-03-17T17:15:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/17\\\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2120,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/17\\\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/Eco-26-1_grafici_eng_baldini-1024x952.png\",\"articleSection\":[\"Non categorizzato\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/17\\\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/17\\\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\\\/\",\"name\":\"IRPEF: A Tax Pillaged by Politics - Rivista Eco\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/17\\\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/17\\\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/Eco-26-1_grafici_eng_baldini-1024x952.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-03-17T17:15:46+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/8ff374cecd1f75a8ea9044f3526d91ed\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/17\\\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/17\\\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/17\\\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/Eco-26-1_grafici_eng_baldini-1024x952.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/Eco-26-1_grafici_eng_baldini-1024x952.png\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/03\\\/17\\\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"IRPEF: A Tax Pillaged by Politics\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"Rivista Eco\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/8ff374cecd1f75a8ea9044f3526d91ed\",\"name\":\"Massimo Baldini\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/1d9e80ef5ef7714ec6cd26d70c603fb5ed0cf594e59b761975ab7beabdbb652d?s=96&d=mm&r=g924a70b894b885697cf4b16bb8d50add\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/1d9e80ef5ef7714ec6cd26d70c603fb5ed0cf594e59b761975ab7beabdbb652d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/1d9e80ef5ef7714ec6cd26d70c603fb5ed0cf594e59b761975ab7beabdbb652d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Massimo Baldini\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/author\\\/mbaldini\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"IRPEF: A Tax Pillaged by Politics - Rivista Eco","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/03\/17\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"IRPEF: A Tax Pillaged by Politics - Rivista Eco","og_description":"Over time, IRPEF has been distorted by a large number of tax breaks and special provisions that have undermined its fairness and efficiency, turning it […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/03\/17\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\/","og_site_name":"Rivista Eco","article_published_time":"2026-03-17T17:15:46+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2026\/03\/Eco-26-1_grafici_eng_baldini-1024x952.png","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"Massimo Baldini, Ezra Ferrarini","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Massimo Baldini, Ezra Ferrarini","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/03\/17\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/03\/17\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\/"},"author":{"name":"Massimo Baldini","@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/#\/schema\/person\/8ff374cecd1f75a8ea9044f3526d91ed"},"headline":"IRPEF: A Tax Pillaged by Politics","datePublished":"2026-03-17T17:15:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/03\/17\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\/"},"wordCount":2120,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/03\/17\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2026\/03\/Eco-26-1_grafici_eng_baldini-1024x952.png","articleSection":["Non categorizzato"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/03\/17\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\/","url":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/03\/17\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\/","name":"IRPEF: A Tax Pillaged by Politics - Rivista Eco","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/03\/17\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/03\/17\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2026\/03\/Eco-26-1_grafici_eng_baldini-1024x952.png","datePublished":"2026-03-17T17:15:46+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/#\/schema\/person\/8ff374cecd1f75a8ea9044f3526d91ed"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/03\/17\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/03\/17\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/03\/17\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2026\/03\/Eco-26-1_grafici_eng_baldini-1024x952.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2026\/03\/Eco-26-1_grafici_eng_baldini-1024x952.png"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/03\/17\/irpef-a-tax-pillaged-by-politics\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"http:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"IRPEF: A Tax Pillaged by Politics"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/","name":"Rivista Eco","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/#\/schema\/person\/8ff374cecd1f75a8ea9044f3526d91ed","name":"Massimo Baldini","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1d9e80ef5ef7714ec6cd26d70c603fb5ed0cf594e59b761975ab7beabdbb652d?s=96&d=mm&r=g924a70b894b885697cf4b16bb8d50add","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1d9e80ef5ef7714ec6cd26d70c603fb5ed0cf594e59b761975ab7beabdbb652d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1d9e80ef5ef7714ec6cd26d70c603fb5ed0cf594e59b761975ab7beabdbb652d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Massimo Baldini"},"url":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/author\/mbaldini\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12393","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6425"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12393"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12393\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12396,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12393\/revisions\/12396"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12393"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=12393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}