194 M. Ferrera of political support, integration and bonding.22 Even a recourse to ‘the most Europeanised of all taxes’, i.e. the VAT, could be counterproductive.23 In the present context, the only feasible strategy would probably be to introduce some voluntary financial contribution ‘for Europe’ by means of nudging incentives. In some countries, when filling in their forms, taxpayers have the option to earmark a certain percentage (or per thousand) of their taxes for certain activities or institutions: churches, philanthropic, third sector, humanitarian institutions, political parties, cultural associations and so on. In Italy, 0.8 per cent is mandatory (taxpayers must choose between the state or a church among a list of different denominations); 0.5 per cent is voluntary (it can be earmarked for a long list of recognised institutions engaged in social, humanitarian and scientific research activities). An additional 0.2 per cent can be earmarked for political parties. The cinquexmille is chosen by more than 16 million taxpayers and produces an annual revenue of half a billion euros. A similar system could be established by all national tax authorities of the member states, giving the option of earmarking a small quota of personal taxes in favour of the EU as such (or, better still, of some of the abovementioned social funds). A bolder move of nudging would be to reverse the sequence of choice: the contribution for Europe (its social funds) is mandatory, unless the taxpayer explicitly opts out of it (‘automatic enrolment’). Another possibility would be to use the co-payment or fee-for-service route in exchange for the array of facilitating initiatives that the EU already provides to ease the exercise of free movement and related rights. If access to the benefits and services of these initiatives (and the new ones that might be added) were filtered through an EU social card, the issuing (and renewal) of such card could be subject to a fee, to be used for funding the most expensive schemes (such as the above-mentioned voucher system). The UK scheme for easing the impact of migration was funded through a levy of 50 pounds on immigration permits. The possible fund for compensating the 22 23 Italy did introduce a tassa per l’Europa in 1997, to meet the deficit target required to join the euro. Nobody protested: but it was an extraordinary levy, for a defined goal, at the time perceived as beneficial for the whole nation. And then prime minister Romano Prodi promised that the tax would be paid back – a promise that was at least partially kept. Van Parijs has proposed, for instance, an EU-wide VAT of 20 per cent to finance a monthly universal euro-dividend of 200 euros per month, for reference see Bidadanure, J. (2013), ‘Rediscovering The Utopian In Europe: An Interview With Philippe Van Parijs’, The Global Journal (26 March 2013), available at http://www.theglobaljournal.net/article/view/1038/.