The Italian public debt running dispatched to the 2,000 billion euro. Europe is asking for the bill and in Italy takes off the idea of \u200b\u200ba tax on wealth. We talked about con Roberto Petrini, giornalista d'economia e scrittore.
Cos'è la tassa patrimoniale?
Attenzione quando si parla di patrimoniale, perché il termine significa due cose e si presta ad equivoci. Non facciamoci imbrogliare. La prima è la tassazione strutturale e continua sui patrimoni, immobiliari e mobiliari: da noi questa tassazione già c'è con l'Ici (la tassa su chi possiede una casa), che si chiamerà Imu con il federalismo, e con un livello - non alto per la verità - della tassazione delle rendite finanziarie. Tuttavia in Italia attualmente le tasse gravano più su redditi e consumi ma sarebbe meglio, to promote development, outweigh the assets. The OECD gives this advice to all countries. And this seems to agree even Economy Minister Tremonti.
But in recent weeks has triggered the uproar, Mr Berlusconi has accused the left of it ready in the drawer to attack private property.
The debate of recent weeks has been around the one-off capital. They proposed two grand old men of the Republic, Giuliano Amato and Pellegrino Capaldo, two intellectuals represent, respectively, socialist and Catholic who had major roles in the last thirty years. Their idea is that the public debt which is costing us 80 billion euro a year in interest, is unsustainable and that, if we find money for development, we must avoid to pay for all these interests. Right: in fact, as we know, the Italian public debt is 1.867 billion euro, an enormous sum: Amato proposed to reduce it to 620 billion. How to earn these 620 billion? By charging the richest, or the 2.4 million Italian families who hold 45 percent of the wealth, or those who have on average assets of about € 529 000. To do that we should impose a tax rate of 16 percent of their assets. The version of Capaldo is a bit 'different: it would collect € 900 billion, but pay attention not on capital but on increasing the current value of houses in recent years. In practice you do not pay for all income brackets, but would be affected, wealthy and single owners. Simple, no?
is the first time that the spectrum is looming in the mist of the capital of the Republic?
Actually no. In 1992 there was a fair capital. Even then there was the hand of Giuliano Amato: he was prime minister when Italy was hit by one of the biggest financial crises of recent times and was forced to devalue. Amato was forced to make at night time, a special levy on bank accounts dello 0,6 per mille. Toccò tutti e incassò 3 miliardi di euro. Niente di nuovo sotto il sole.
Perché si parla di patrimoniale? Vuol dire che i soldi sono finiti?
Mettiamola così: se spendiamo ci attacca la speculazione, se non spendiamo strangoliamo il Welfare e ci tagliamo ogni speranza di crescita. Da qualche parte i soldi bisognerà trovarli.
Ecco, appunto. Ma dove?
Questo è il punto. C'è il rischio che con la patrimoniale, come spiega Salvatore Tutino del Cer, uno dei massimi esperti di fisco in Italia, si intervenga sul result and not the causes. Would not it be better to intervene upstream, on tax evasion and wasteful public spending? In addition there are many who say that the asset may not be able to identify all owners of property, having regard to company magheggi in vogue in our system. This does not mean that the asset is a taboo: there is a proposal for a Member of the Democratic Party, specializing in economics, Massimo Vannucci does not sound that bad: we put a sheet on the "dead hand", only increasing the levy on real property not used, vacant houses, non-cultivated land, unused areas, shops made unavailable. It would affect the economy of laziness. Adapted from
www.marcoabrate.blogspot.com 
0 comments:
Post a Comment