No one can know how future historians will define the current legislature untilarrival of Professor Mario Draghi and to its hoped-for success, also due to its recent past, accompanied by the clarity of the lexicon, by the proposals and by the Government's action, which have contributed to the reputation it enjoys.
In this sense, I allow myself today, with remarkable dose of historical risk and cultural, to suggest to future historians to outline the last years, the use of expressions that Russian historians use for the history of Russia (for example Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, History of Russia, Bompiani, 1989/2013,, pp.163-180) at the turn of the 1500s and 1600s: “Time of Troubles” which refers to the interregnum in Russia dominated by absolute anarchy following the end of the Rurik dynasty (1598) and preceding the Romanov dynasty (1613). Instead, for their part, lovers of opera will rediscover the period of troubles in Boris Godunov, Tsar of all Russia, by Modest Petrovič Musorgskij, on a libretto by Pushkin.
The first field to get out of the "time of troubles" and from the conceptual and propositional anarchy concerns the crucial reform of our tax system, whose history is also inseparable from the political and social history of each country. In this crucial sector, the proposals, usually reduced to a tweet, never refer to texts and documents written by important public research centers such as those produced by Bank of Italy, UPB or Cnel, which can be freely consulted and compared.
The various proponents should refer to these studies, without the usual and perverse intellectual impudence, to motivate the most varied and often ramshackle tax reform proposals ranging from the generic tax reduction to the equally generic proposal to restore progressiveness to personal income tax.
Indeed, all the documents cited pose the purely political problem of the progressive erosion of the income tax base reduced to a sieve. As underlined by the recent "Notes for the fact-finding survey on the Irpef reform" presented to the Cnel on January 9, 2021, which refers ("p.25") as "the extension of preferential, substitutive, subsidized regimes and exemptions that characterize our tax system, with negative effects both as regards the horizontal and vertical fairness of the withdrawal, and its efficiency". This type of differential treatment falls under the notion of “tax erosion”, i.e. a legal reduction of the taxable income compared to the ordinary treatment”.
It is evident that the Irpef reform it is an important and fundamental action of a purely political nature that cannot leave everyone happy: the political forces that are preparing to support Professor Mario Draghi must therefore emerge from the lexical and proactive "period of troubles" for the tax reform invoked.
