The mystery of the IMU rates is not resolved. In fact, it gets even thicker. If up to now citizens have waited for the response of the municipalities on the basis of the parameters decided by the government (standard rates of 0,4% on first homes and 0,76% on second homes, with fluctuations at the discretion of the mayors of 0,2% respectively and 0,3%), now a new alarm is coming from the municipalities: to obtain the desired revenue, it will be necessary to raise the standard thresholds by at least 0,1%.
According to a study by Ifel - the research institute of the Anci -, with current criteria, collections risk being less than those of 2010 by more than two billion. But how is this possible? Wasn't it said until now that with the new tax we would have paid more?
To understand something we need to start from the numbers. In reality, with the IMU the municipalities will collect 2,4 billion more than with the ICI of 2010. The problem is that at the same time they will suffer cuts in transfers and the rebalancing fund for almost 5 billion. It would therefore be necessary to raise taxes only in order not to reduce the finances available to the municipalities and to continue to provide the same services as always.
But it also seems that the 21 billion in total revenue expected by the government are exaggerated. Anci estimates that collections will be lower by a figure between 1,9 and 2,5 billion. On average, 2,2 billion. To recoup such a fortune and actually achieve a balanced budget in 2013, the government would need to arm itself with drastically increase the standard rates: that on first homes would go to 0,5%, that on all other properties to 0,86%. An increase that will weigh like a ton on the second and (possible) third installments.
“We said from the outset that the estimates of IMU revenues were higher than we expected – Graziano Del Rio, president of Anci, said today to the microphones of Agorà, on Rai Tre -: the government has established 21 billion but there will be less revenue and this is a big problem. I hope I'm wrong otherwise the citizen will find himself paying much more ".
In the absence of a correction, there is a risk of producing a hole of 8-900 million in state coffers, which would entail a new cut in the resources of the mayors of 1,3 billion on 2012. In short, the real problem of the new tax - the mayors underline piquedly - is at its origins: the IMU was not created for the needs of the local administrations, but to allow the country to achieve the longed-for budget balance in 2013.
UNDERSECRETARY CERIANI: UNRELIABLE CALCULATIONS
“We reasonably hope not to have to intervene further on the rates” of the IMU. So the undersecretary of the Ministry of the Economy, Vieri Ceriani, replied in the early afternoon to the alarm raised by the Anci.
“It's a hypothesis that, frankly, I prefer not to consider”, continued Ceriani, underlining that in any case the Dpcm on the changes to the IMU rates “can be issued until 10 December. But let's hope we don't have to use it."
“If the economy does less well than expected, it is clear that the revenue will be lower. It is too early, however, to say how much the shortfall will be and whether there will be a shortage”. To get a clearer picture, "we are waiting for the self-taxation down payment in June" and "in July we will be able to make a projection that is well founded". The first tranche of the Imu should bring "10-11 billion" into the state coffers.
“The Imu, compared to the ICI, should give the Municipalities three billion more. Municipalities – Ceriani explained – complain of a lack of resources which is not connected to the IMU”, but to the “discourse on transfers”. Data in hand, Ceriani recalled that out of an estimated 21 billion in revenue from IMU, "9 go to the State and 12 to the Municipalities", while last year "nine billion" came from ICI, again for the Municipalities.
Returning, then, to the calculations of the ANCI which estimated a revenue from the IMU 2,5 billion lower than expected, the undersecretary said: "the reliability of this figure is absolutely doubtful and cannot be demonstrated". The survey took into consideration "a non-random sample" and "over 70%" of the sample "sent answers before the publication of the Mef's estimates," he explained.
