In a country where the gap between rich and poor widens oni day more, the proposed Franceschini for a 'special tax of 2% on income over one hundred and twenty thousand euro, while it has the merit to revive the issue of social justice, the other shows some limitations.
Wanting to provide an assessment is not subject to ideological, I think I can say that in principle, it follows the idea that taxation, through the policy of progressive, can attribute the state some power redistribution.
This idea is even more justified in times of crisis like the present and can not be passed off as a choice of the Bolshevik type, as you would like to believe, because it represents an option often experienced in many of the most advanced liberal democracies of the world, the United States of America in the first place. What
but it weakens its impromptu, probably dictated by the time and mode of political ads and now reduced to the most irresponsible demagoguery.
In fact, it would exclude a number of considerations that should need to be prepended to the use of taxation, well summarized in Article 81 of the Republican Constitution, increasingly ignored by the practice.
First you must take into account that this levy would act on the taxpayer but 0.4 represents 12% of total revenues, consisting primarily of fixed income, distinguishing trait for this by a high level of loyalty to the Treasury.
In this maneuver would seize second place in the presence of a high level of tax evasion, thus having the effect to pay to be always the same for other categories to be represented in this case, certainly the most capacious, but more exposed to risks and competition of the market and therefore more pay. Also
its Article 81 provides that the balance laws can not incorporate new taxes and that the greatest need should be covered primarily by action on the expenditure side, a choice that requires more rigorous and useful tool to stimulate a greater virtue in the management of public affairs.
The proposal, which I personally I also feel supported, have more credibility if it were accompanied by further commitments on the front of the rationalization of expenditure, the reclamation of the state and search for more equitable conditions in the field of social protection.
What is the point to ask sacrifices from a state incapable to reform its structures, its articolazioniperiferiche and welfare, which keeps alive obvious generational inequalities, privileges and distortions of all types?
I think many would be willing to pay this solidarity contribution if they had the perception of a real change, able to ensure that these resources would not be wasted to maintain an unbalanced pension system, a redundant and outdated state law, a political apparatus so bloated, and prebends favoristismi unjustified.
Moreover these reflections are also supported by some strange suspicious signatures, for example coming from the League, which particularly interested at this stage to obtain the consensus necessary to enact a federal reform, whose costs are still to be verified. Therefore
in my view is not shocked by the political content of the proposal Franceschini (a real economic right would contest the legality of all from his point of view) but rather we must criticize the limits that are in for an approach rifomista its inability to produce something really innovative in terms of modernization, social equity and the relationship between the citizen and the state.
"When the son of the poor will be offered the same opportunities for study and education that are owned by the son of rich, when the sons of the rich will be forced to work from, if you wish to keep the fortune inherited ...... .. "and even" The progressivity of taxes shall give the State the means to provide common goods Colleviti social security and education ...." Perhaps liberalism
Einaudi would do more good for the PD of La Pira.
0 comments:
Post a Comment