Questo articolo è stato pubblicato il 04 maggio 2012 alle ore 05:57.
L'ultima modifica è del 04 maggio 2012 alle ore 04:04.
Vieri Ceriani, undersecretary of Economy, is right. The IMU, Italy’s new Unique Municipal Tax, was not invented by the technician government, as the Monti administration is often called. Instead, it was good and ready, an inheritance from the previous administration and its federalist leanings. However, the undersecretary undervalues the level of discontent if he believes that this “disavowal of paternity” could make the municipal (or the state-municipal) tax on properties less despised by citizens and local administrators. The IMU is still perceived as an unequal taxation, perhaps because it is needlessly complicated and not at all transparent.
One can justly argue that the anomalously low taxation on real estate in Italy had to be corrected, especially in a situation where the public finances are one step away from collapsing, and the speculations are ready to throw a party. Or one could repeat that the exception of the primary residence created a peculiarity unique to Italy, so much so that after the swift repeal of the ICI (the previous real-estate tax) in 2008, even the previous administration was trying to fix it by introducing the service tax. This is all true: these are surely goals that we should achieve, but not at any cost. Not by sacrificing common sense and transparency. Not by subjecting taxpayers and communities to the hardships they currently face.
That is why we must appreciate the new avenues proposed yesterday by Undersecretary Ceriani. What we need, however, are solutions for the immediate future, not for next year. There will be time to intervene and correct the most flagrant mistakes (Ceriani indicated a few and proposed solutions). There is also the possibility for a “soft” application of the sanctions; it remains to be seen how Ceriani’s suggestions could be turned into law, which sounds like an admission and recognition of the tax’s many defects.
But is it really possible to find a solution for the most pressing problems today? It is inconceivable that the taxpayers will not have to calculate themselves what part of the tax must go to the state and which to the local authorities, as is currently required by form F24. Is it heresy to ask that taxpayer know from today how much the tax will cost them, rather than waiting for the government’s deadline for setting the rates, in December? It is true that there is little time, but an effort must be made to make this tax a little less opaque.
NEW YORK – Almost immediately after the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings were revealed to be immigrants, opponents of immigration reform in the United States seized on the case to ...
FRANKFURT – During the recent hearing on the constitutionality of the European Central Bank’s measures to prevent the eurozone from falling apart, Andreas Vosskuhle, President of Germany’s ...