The great economist and President of the Republic Luigi Enaudi had declared "any imbecile would be able to raise taxes, rather than cut public spending". It is also demonstrated with the recent fiscal measures that as rates increase, receipts for the state decrease, as the American economist Arthur Laffer declared years ago.
The system currently applied to discourage "the black" and increase tax revenues does not achieve its intended purpose. On the contrary, consumption is decreasing, unemployment is skyrocketing – the unemployed are growing, thousands of shops and small and medium-sized enterprises are closing – without increasing state revenues. Everyone has to pay taxes: an incentive is needed to make all the types of suppliers: shopkeepers, builders, hairdressers, doctors, etc.
With the system in place, as has been amply demonstrated, it brings no benefit but only harm. Let us remember, for example, the economic policy adopted by the Monti government which destroyed the nautical sector: boat owners sell or take their boats abroad; it has brought down the auto sector thanks to the increase in the cost of fuel and higher taxes on luxury cars. Just think, by way of example, that in 2012 about 3000 cars were imported from the Porsche factory in Germany, while over 10.000 used cars were exported abroad, because the owners do not want to be seen on luxury cars, even if consistent with their tax return: they don't want to be continuously stopped for checks. Let's not forget the construction sector, completely dead thanks to the IMU and the provisions towards high-level homeowners.
The mistake is to persecute wealth and not evasion. In order to increase consumption, limit or better eliminate undeclared work, reduce unemployment and therefore increase global tax revenue, everything that can be billed and/or documented by means of a tax receipt/invoice and certain payment should be increased. In this way the citizen would become a real "debt collector", but with his own profit. Since everyone has a benefit, this would not be seen in a negative way, quite the contrary.
It is a question of being able to make natural persons fully deduct costs of any kind: cars, first and second homes, consumer electronics, telephone costs, electricity, bars, restaurants, doctors, hairdressers, etc., all that a citizen needs to buy; taxes, say 50%, should be paid only on the remaining profit calculated on the person's gross receipts minus all certified expenses. The deductible expenses can only be those made with certain payments, such as POS, credit card, bank transfer, non-transferable check. The use of credit cards would facilitate the calculation of deductions, as the same, with an annual account statement, could clearly identify the expenses taxed in a year or more years.
For some expenses, such as the purchase of a house, a boat and/or other durable goods, it would be advisable to establish a typical depreciation period for the same: for a first home 10 years, a second home 15 years, a car 3 o 5 years, differently if under or over 100Kw of power, for boating 5 years if sailing, 10 if motorized, 2 years for computer equipment, and so on. Bearing in mind that by "playing" on the years of deductibility of a certain category, it will be possible to accelerate the sales of the same. The amortization system for some expenses may differ in different locations/regions. In fact, period buildings certainly constitute an immense asset and are a source of pride in the international arena; why not try to carry out adequate and constant maintenance thus avoiding irreparable deterioration over the years, encouraging the owners to invest in restoration interventions, shortening the amortization times of the cost of the restoration. These types of interventions could be amortized over a shorter period of time and with financing facilities from credit institutions which could in turn be guaranteed with a share of taxes that the owner will pay in the following years.
Furthermore, it is inevitable to have to deal with the issue of imbalance in the case of private purchases of residential properties or other with different tax burdens in relation to the nature or choices of the seller. This system should be introduced with January 1 to make everything easier , limiting any errors. The effect that would certainly be obtained with such a fiscal revolution is: the increase in consumption; the increase in employment, the increase in VAT (which by the way is monthly and not annual like IRES and IRPEF for the part relating to withholdings made on income from employment and self-employment), the increase in IRES all thanks to the disappearance of the undeclared and of cash, possible lower IRPEF revenues.
Similarly, what is proposed for natural persons could be adopted for companies both in corporate and individual form, in particular as regards the more accelerated depreciation procedures compared to those in force with extension also to those situations in which depreciation for tax is prohibited (as in the case of residential properties leased by real estate companies) or negligible as in the unfortunately current case of car or telephone depreciation. Currently the company cannot fully deduct lunches, dinners, cars, rentals, etc. This fact means that the company does not pay only 27,5% of IRES, but much more, as the taxable base is much higher for the tax balance than for the statutory balance. It makes no sense to limit the deductibility of a car to 20% as it happens now, just as it is incorrect not to make all food and lodging expenses deductible, or the depreciation of IT products in 5 years, when they become obsolete in less than 3 .
Furthermore, what has been reported is even more serious for small-medium enterprises which, as also announced by President Squinzi, are those that actually pay taxes equal to around 60-70% of their real earnings. It is possibly appropriate, and more equitable, to increase the percentage of taxes to be paid, but on the real budget profit and not on the fiscal one, which in Italy often differs greatly from the real one. We are now talking about tax cuts. But what is the point of decreasing the percentage of a tax if in reality the tax base is widening more and more? This does not encourage investment at all, in fact it discourages it altogether.
