Another day of hearings for the text of the 2027 Budget. Among the interventions, that of Andrea Brandolini, head of the Economics and Statistics Department of the Bank of Italy. According to the rich analysis presented at the hearing, the measures applicable to banks and insurance companies contained in the Maneuver determine a burden for credit intermediaries and insurance companies.
We cannot speak of a failure on all fronts, but the maneuver is described as capable of creating limited benefits for families, with the risk of increasing debt instead.
Maneuver at risk of debt
In the overall picture, Brandolini describes a maneuver that risks increasing net debt compared to current legislation by 13.1 billion euros on average per year over the next two years and by 3.7 billion euros in 2029.
It has been estimated that the net impact of the Budget derives from measures that increase the deficit in the order of:
- 26 billion euros on average per year over the next two years;
- 20 billion euros in 2029;
- against coverage of approximately 13 billion euros on average in 2027-2028;
- almost 16 billion euros in 2029.
This is because the Budget intervenes in numerous specific areas with measures which are often of limited extent or yet to be defined.
According to Bank of Italy, the measures that risk increasing the deficit are mainly related to:
- defense;
- energy transition.
Among the other cost items of the Maneuver there are family, pensions and tax credits for investments in the Single ZES. According to official estimates, the expansionary stimulus of the Budget should generate greater tax and social security revenues of an average of 3.4 billion euros per year.
What he proposes to intervene on
Bank of Italy focuses on various points, from family to pensions. Regarding the pension system, for example, he comments on how the continuous and frequent changes to the mechanisms for revaluing checks risk harming pensioners and reducing confidence in the social security system.
In the analysis, Brandolini explains that as a whole it is estimated that the budget law can increase the disposable income of families, even if in a limited way. Families with medium-low incomes should benefit the most.
On the healthcare front, public spending stops at 6.3% of GDP, significantly lower than the levels of other countries such as France and Germany which hover around 10%. For this reason, the analysis highlights how the Italian level is not very different from that of twenty years ago, despite the aging of the population.
The Maneuver is limited to increasing the National Health Fund by approximately 2.4 billion euros per year compared to the current one, bringing it to 146.3 billion in 2027. Data considered insufficient by the Regions, and which have found the health and hospital sector in agreement so much so that on 5 December 2026 they will take to the streets to strike against the Maneuver.
Also criticized is the 300 euro card for the over 75s with a low pension, which costs 1.6 billion euros distributed on the basis of pension income and not ISEE. According to the Bank of Italy, this does not allow us to correctly identify those who find themselves in the most difficult economic conditions.
Who helps the Newborn Fund
As regards bonuses for families, another point touched upon by the analysis is the Fund for newborns. Bank of Italy asks for reflection on the topic. From 2027 the State should pay these 100 euros per year for each new born until they reach the age of 18. From the proposal, parents and relatives will be able to add voluntary contributions, deductible from Irpef at 19% up to a maximum of 1,000 euros per year per taxpayer.
For the Bank of Italy, the objective is acceptable, namely that of allowing younger people to start accumulating resources with a view to future integration of the public pension. But the tax deduction may not produce an increase in overall savings, but instead a shift in resources.
Another problem that requires reflection is equity, because families with low incomes have less ability to save and therefore less possibility of making these voluntary payments. The risk therefore is that the instrument ends up offering greater advantages to families who already have resources to invest.
