Ho la sensazione che, in coerenza con quanto detto da molti altri, la riforma fiscale così come immaginata possa essere conclusa se accompagnata da un cocktail che sia composto pure da riforma della giustizia (riforma vera della giustizia), lotta alla criminalità organizzata e liberazione del sud dal doppio stato ed infime riforma della P.A. per efficientarla e ridurne il costo.

I conti ci obbligano di guardare con un occhio alle riforme e con l’altro, ahinoi, al debito con l’attenzione che scenda in termini relativi sul pil.

Mi pare facile, no?

An example of fad economics occurred in 1980, when a small group of economists advised Presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan, that an across-the-board cut in income tax rates would raise tax revenue. They argued that if people could keep a higher fraction of their income, people would work harder to earn more income. Even though tax rates would be lower, income would rise by so much, they claimed, that tax revenues would rise. Almost all professional economists, including most of those who supported Reagan’s proposal to cut taxes, viewed this outcome as far too optimistic. Lower tax rates might encourage people to work harder and this extra effort would offset the direct effects of lower tax rates to some extent, but there was no credible evidence that work effort would rise by enough to cause tax revenues to rise in the face of lower tax rates. … People on fad diets put their health at risk but rarely achieve the permanent weight loss they desire. Similarly, when politicians rely on the advice of charlatans and cranks, they rarely get the desirable results they anticipate. After Reagan’s election, Congress passed the cut in tax rates that Reagan advocated, but the tax cut did not cause tax revenues to rise.