The escalation of the war in the Middle East has once again exposed one of the structural weaknesses of our economy, its energy dependence and consequent vulnerability to external shocks.
The immediate effect has been visible, the increase in fuel prices, but the real impact is deeper and more transversal.
Through a well-known knock-on effect, transport, food, services and, ultimately, the cost of living in society become more expensive.
This inflationary phenomenon, although penalizing for families, generates a paradoxical effect from the point of view of public finances.
The State sees its tax revenues grow without the need to resort to politically unpopular measures such as direct tax increases.
The mechanism is simple, as prices rise, the calculation base increases, which translates into higher collection of ICMS and other indirect taxes.
Inflation, so often presented as the enemy of purchasing power, thus reveals itself to be a silent ally of public coffers.
It is precisely at this point that a reflection of a political and ethical nature is necessary.
If the State benefits from an increased tax break, even if it is cyclical, is it legitimate to keep the tax burden on citizens unchanged?
Or, on the contrary, shouldn’t this margin be mobilized to alleviate the impact that falls, disproportionately, on the middle class and the most vulnerable?
Measures such as the replacement of zero VAT on essential goods or a more significant reduction in taxes on fuel do not constitute mere gestures of governmental benevolence, but rather represent an instrument of distributive justice in crisis contexts.
In a context in which disposable income decreases and uncertainty increases, the role of the State cannot be limited to accounting neutrality, it requires a balanced intervention, capable of mitigating asymmetries and preserving social cohesion.
But the issue does not end at the economic level.
There is a sociological dimension that needs to be considered, public perception.
Recent history demonstrates that it is not just macroeconomic indicators that determine political stability, but above all the way citizens feel and interpret their material reality.
The erosion of purchasing power, when prolonged, tends to transform into diffuse discontent, which can evolve into open contestation.
In this context, party dynamics acquire particular relevance.
Contrary to what is sometimes suggested in official discourse, government stability is not a given.
It is, rather, a delicate balance between electoral legitimacy, economic performance and social trust.
The growth of contestation, combined with the natural electoral ambitions of political forces such as the Socialist Party and Chega, could intensify pressure on the Government, reconfiguring the political space in an unpredictable way.
If an eventual government crisis were to occur, it would be difficult to explain it solely by institutional factors.
It would be, above all, the expression of a deeper malaise, the perception of inequality, the feeling of fiscal injustice and the growing difficulty in maintaining standards of living that were considered basic just a few months ago.
Politics, after all, does not just live on numbers, it lives on narratives, expectations and trust.
From a philosophical point of view, this situation brings us to a classic question.
What, after all, is the role of the State in times of crisis?
Will it be to maximize revenue and preserve budget balance, or to act as the ultimate guarantor of collective well-being, even if this means giving up part of that financial slack?
Between financial orthodoxy and social responsibility, the choice is not merely technical but deeply political.
The Government still has time to correct course.
Not through isolated or symbolic measures, but through a coherent strategy that recognizes the real weight that the international situation is imposing on Portuguese families.
Ignoring this signal could be costly, not only in economic terms, but above all in terms of government trust.
But perhaps this is nothing more than a digression.
After all, I know little about politics, or perhaps I know enough to distrust them.
Also read:
