Imu or not Imu? That is the question. Or maybe not. While the new premier Enrico Letta concludes his European tour and returns to Rome to draw the conclusions, Italian politics continues to rack his brains over the question of the much-hated single municipal tax. And the OECD has also taken part in the debate, which today presented its latest report on the economy of our country.
According to the Organization's chief economist, Gian Carlo Padoan, the main objective for Italy is not the abolition of the IMU at all, but "recovery and employment" and "the fiscal choice consistent with these priorities and the reduction of labor costs: other choices will have to be made later, but coverage will have to be guaranteed”; in any case, "if the government wants to continue along the path of growth, the first thing to cut are taxes on labour". He thought about making matters worse Angel Gurria: “The Imu is not a tax that causes a distortion in economic choices”, said the secretary general of the OECD.
But the speech that most of all triggered the reactions of Italian politicians was that of Mario Monti. “Right now there is a subject of heated discussion, which is the subject of the IMU – said the former prime minister -. This is an important topic for businesses and households, a relevant topic, but not worthy of the exclusive and almost morbid consideration of the current political debate. I believe – added Monti – that there are very big problems in the Italian economy of excess tax burden, but above all I believe there is a huge problem, not yet adequately addressed, of competitiveness”.
According to Monti "there is a fundamental problem of lack of growth for the Italian economy" and the causes of this situation "are not sufficiently at the center of the current political debate".
He replied to the Professor Renato Brunetta, president of the PDL deputies, arguing that "the Imu is not at all a morbid obsession", since "the introduction of this odious tax by the Monti government has depressed our economy: in 2012, real estate decreased by 23,7%, mortgages by 39.5%, construction production decreased by 13,6% and investments by 7,6% (Ance data)”.
Furthermore, according to Brunetta, “the thesis of the Monti government, according to which the Italian tax burden on real estate until 2011 represented an anomaly, as it was too low, compared to the average of the main European countries, is unfounded. In 2010, Italy had a direct wealth tax on real estate of 0,70% of GDP, perfectly in line with the 0,69% average for OECD countries. Following the introduction of the Imu by the Monti government, the percentage of 0,70% increased to 1,35% of GDP, i.e. almost doubled".
From the front of the Democratic Party, the economic manager Stefano Fassina chooses the path of pragmatism: “Cancel the Imu? – he said today on radio 24 -. I make a practical point of it: if we suddenly find 10-12 billion to spend, so be it, but it won't be like this. Better to avoid the increase in VAT which weighs on consumption and therefore on the productive activity of companies and on work and to cancel the increase in tickets foreseen for 2014. These measures would be more equitable and useful for the economy”.
Fassina then recalled how during the electoral campaign the Democratic Party also “proposed to intervene in an incisive way on the IMU, raising the deduction for the first home from 200 to 500 euros. But let's face it: from 4,5st July we will have an increase in VAT worth 2014 billion; from 2 January 100 an increase in health care tickets worth 200 billion. What is the point of removing the Imu and saving a family XNUMX euros a year when we make them pay VAT a few weeks later, which costs an average of XNUMX euros a year, plus tickets?”.
But the vice president of the Senate, Maurizio Gasparri, reiterated that the PDL does not want to listen to reasons: “On the Imu there is no going back compared to what Prime Minister Letta himself said, who has committed himself to Parliament. And even at work, the commitment of the executive will immediately be directed towards the substantial reduction of taxation. A double track on which it is essential to act immediately”.
