I have already written several times that politics is just another category of aesthetic thinking, so I am surprised to see on blogs all these discussions about the "holding" government and what it "does not hold". This "government" exists because this is the narrative required to obtain some results, that is the aesthetics that satisfy the requests of some observers.
First of all: why was this government needed? The most important observatories of Italy are the EU and "the markets", that is the institutions that have lent money to the country. These observers want a particular aesthetic to be satisfied: to show that the government does not spend much more than it receives, that is, that it "contains the deficit". The deficit is simply the situation for which the government collects less than it spends, or spends more than it collects, depending on how you like to see it.
And like every year, the Italian government is preparing to FALSE the budget, even if it is an aesthetic to speak of "false" is stupid: otherwise we will begin to think that Stallone has made the boxer and the military, that the porn actresses have an orgasm, etc. It is all aesthetic, therefore an artifact: and even the budget, that is the financial, is.
There are two ways to FALSE a state budget. One way is on the right and one on the left.
When there are few entrances but many exits, since you can't hide the exits you have to invent some revenue. And there are two ways to do it, as I wrote. The "right" way consists in "forecasting" a growth in GDP (and therefore in tax revenues, taxes). It means they say "we spend five billion more, but as the country grows, citizens become rich, and pay more taxes, and then we earn another five billion".
Then there is the "left" way: it consists in saying that there is a kind of St. Patrick's well, called "submerged", from which the government can magically extract any amount, saying to do "fight against evasion" .
|Lowering taxes companies enrich and earn more||By paying all taxes we will collect more.|
|Next year will be a fantastic year because we are lowering taxes.||By removing the cash, there will be less evasion and we will collect more.|
|All growth forecasts say that GDP will rise.||Studies indicate that the undeclared is enormous.|
So what happened? It has happened that we need to make a credible financial, we must invent revenue, but the "right-wing fraud" does not work. It doesn't work because all the forecasts for next year are very bad. And even lowering taxes, as it all depends on foreign countries and the global market, it is not credible to say "we will grow by 3.1%", a figure that serves to make ends meet.
So the aesthetics must change. And we move on to the usual left-wing aesthetic, which promises more revenue using "the fight against tax evasion".
In particular, this aesthetic says this:
- We can lower undeclared using traceable electronic payments. Since "traceable" does not mean "track", in fact they are just filling in some storage numbers, but nothing more. For example, even the "electronic land register" was supposed to lower evasion on property taxes, it was built, but it is not used for tax purposes. So Renzi, in his time, budgeted new tax receipts thanks to the electronic register, but then it was never used. Here is an example of "traceable but not tracked".
- By charging taxes to everyone, the government will collect more . Not necessarily. It depends on how the tax burden is distributed. If we are going to withdraw from categories that invest is different from the withdrawal on categories that wanted to keep the money in the bank. The impact can 'lower the GDP, as happens when you fight VAT evasion of some categories that invest. In the past, VAT has increased, resulting in a drop in revenue due to the resulting crisis. Moreover, if the phenomenon has lasted for decades and not everyone pays taxes, someone is failing to collect them. Do you name the heads to be cut?
- "Studies indicate that the underground is huge . " I think Popper is turning in his grave every time he hears it, since the extent of the undeclared is not falsifiable. Moreover, if the undeclared were measurable it would be possible to tax it at least indirectly (by categories, by geographical area, by meteorological category, through proxies as it is done with tax substitutes, through suppliers such as when the RAI fee is charged on the bill) , etc), if the undeclared is submerged by definition , then writing the definition we also write the entity and we are only measuring the goodness of our definition.
In reality the Italian submerged (criminal or not) is something that has lasted for decades, if not centuries. If he is so tall, clearly someone has failed in the task of collecting taxes: who has ever resigned from the revenue ministry because the undeclared is very high? Who failed, exactly? Any general GdF? Revenue ministry executives? Answer: none. If the health disgusts the Health Minister resigns, if there is too much crime someone resigns to the ministry of the interior, but who is the incompetent to accuse if the tax collection does not work? Obviously it is "the system", "bureaucracy", "complexity", and so on. But there is never the name of one who fails. A sign that they are all balls.
With this I just want to say that it is aesthetic: there is nothing concrete behind the well of St. Patrick called "submerged".
What's going to happen now is that:
- They will bomb your balls saying that the undeclared is enormous, to the point of convincing you that it is enough to fight tax evasion to collect any sum. TV and newspapers will only talk about submerged and evasion.
- They will show you dozens of excellent proposals to lower the hidden economy, promising you new revenues, which will be put on the balance sheet as if they were real money. Then, in a year, you will see that there is no money and the government will make another debt to cover the hole.
- The mythological GdF will go to fine children who buy ice cream, and it will come out saying "we have done 10 BILLION fines, recovering money". 10 BILLION that will end up in the budget. After two years of appeals, the 10 BILLIONS will end up being (if all goes well) two hundred million, but meanwhile they write them on the budget.
In two months, the new financial will present a budget in which all the money that is missing is taken from the well of St. Patrick of the "submerged". The money will exist on the card, making the EU and "the markets" happy (for some time) until the appeals for fines do not cancel the vaunted figures, and until the "traceability" will prove to be ineffective.
There are therefore two aesthetics, and two different "governments":
- if the financial forecasts make it possible to boast GDP growth, a "right" government goes to the government, filling the holes in the budget, making deficits, saying "let's cover the gap with future growth gains".
- if the financial forecasts DO NOT allow to boast of growth, AUTOMATICALLY the left goes to power, which MILLANTA enters for "contrast to the evasion", therefore it compensates the holes with future "income from fight to the evasion"
The proof of all this is very simple: Italy is a parliamentary republic. Every law must be approved by parliament, sooner or later. The parliament has NOT changed. So the change of government is quite aesthetic. Whatever the government wants or does not want, including decrees, must pass by parliament. If the parliament is identical, in reality this change of aesthetics is NOT due to a change of contents, but can only be a change of methods.
So, be prepared for the buzz of tax evasion.
Tax evader is the new Negro Immigrato Clandestino.
More guard of Finance in the Mediterranean, crucified on the cash register, and pure pig tortellini against Merkel.