Majority divided on how to replace the cut in excise duties on fuel

The majority shares the need to intervene quickly and to shelve a measure which, especially in the case of diesel, ends up favoring taxpayers with greater spending capacity in particular. However, both the beneficiaries and the mechanism through which the aid will be provided remain to be defined. The choice will be influenced above all by financial availability.

For further information: Fuel excise duty cut, Meloni: "Provision with targeted aid next week"

Among the solutions examined is the return of a fuel bonus through fringe benefits, on the model of what was experienced in 2022 during the government led by Mario Draghi. In that circumstance, private companies were able to provide employees with vouchers that could be used to purchase fuel, with an advantage linked to the preferential tax treatment. A new version could provide a benefit of up to 200 euros, again via companies. The mechanism, however, presents an aspect that raises some caution in the business world: the employer should initially bear the cost, subsequently recovering the sum through the tax system. Furthermore, it is not yet established whether companies would be given full power to grant the contribution or whether the recognition would become mandatory in some way. Even the final figure has not been set and could be modified during the process of the measure.

For further information: Fuel, a month of increases: how much petrol and diesel have increased

The discussion within the majority concerns above all the size of the audience. The League is pushing to also include VAT numbers who frequently use cars to work, such as sales agents and other categories particularly sensitive to price fluctuations. Forza Italia, on the other hand, draws attention to pensioners, considering the role that many of them play in the daily management of families, especially with the resumption of school activities and the travel of grandchildren. Another shared priority concerns road transport, to prevent the increase in costs incurred by hauliers from being passed on to the final prices of the products. The possibility of intervening on local public transport is also being evaluated, for example through reductions in the cost of tickets. A measure of this type would have a dual purpose: to lighten the expense of the most economically fragile groups and to encourage, where possible, the use of public transport instead of private cars.

Another avenue being studied would be to concentrate resources directly on families with lower incomes. Among the proposals being circulated is the creation, in 2026, of a fund of one billion euros for families with ISEE of up to 20 thousand euros, who could be granted a fuel voucher worth a maximum of 100 euros. In this case too, this is a hypothesis and not an already approved measure. However, its functioning would be very different from that of the fringe benefit: access would not depend on the relationship with the employer, but on the economic situation of the family unit. The choice of the audience will therefore be decisive. A criterion based exclusively on the ISEE could in fact exclude a part of the middle class who, although not falling within the economically weakest groups, incurs considerable costs every day to reach the workplace. The system entrusted to companies would instead be simpler for employees, but would not solve the problem of self-employed workers and professionals.

For professionals, artisans, agents and small entrepreneurs it would not be possible to propose the fringe benefit mechanism without modifications. For these categories we could then intervene on the fiscal side, introducing a deduction or an additional deduction for fuel costs. In this scenario, the support would not appear directly in the pay slip, but would be recovered during the tax return, within the thresholds and conditions established by the legislation. However, it would be essential to establish which supplies can be considered effectively linked to professional activity, distinguishing them from travel for personal needs. The topic concerns a significant group of workers for whom petrol and diesel represent a recurring expense item closely linked to carrying out the activity.

What makes the final measure still uncertain is above all the finding of resources. Interventions on fuels cannot be financed using European flexibility, which does not allow those margins to be used for expenses related to fossil fuels. Even the possible use of resources linked to energy efficiency would require discussion with Brussels, with times incompatible with immediate intervention. The precedent gives the measure of the sums at stake: the extensions of the excise duty cut have so far entailed an overall cost of more than 2.6 billion euros, only partially covered by the increase in VAT revenue produced by the same increases in fuel prices. For the remaining portion, other forms of financing were used, including spending cuts and advances relating to taxes on dividends from large energy groups. The League would like to identify new resources in extra-profits, involving both energy companies and the banking sector. Forza Italia, however, does not support this approach, unless a shared agreement can be reached through discussion with the interested parties. The balance point will have to be found quickly: the majority's objective is to arrive at a solution before the end of the extension, replacing the generalized discount at the pump with more selective aid calibrated to the economic condition or actual needs of those who use the fuel.

For further information: Increase in fuel, towards the mini-extension of the excise duty cut