There is a lot of talk these days about property tax. A theme that is re-proposed every time governments need to raise cash. So what better solution than the taxation of more or less high assets? There is no doubt that the principle of equity and economic efficiency dictates that those with more assets contribute to the expenses to a greater extent than those who do not have that assets. But, on closer inspection, once again an attempt is made to tackle a structural problem with a last minute solution, without clarity either on what the tax base should be, or on the implications of this solution in this historical moment.
A tax on wealth, which in past experience has already proved to be of a laughable size compared to the total revenue, would find itself subjecting already taxed income and assets to taxation and is emotionally perceived as unfair and vexatious, especially at the moment. A tax that adds to that large number of charges that can already be considered of a "patrimonial" nature: IMU, Tasi, stamp duty on current accounts, car tax, boat taxes, Rai license fee, etc… And then: what is the destination of this revenue? What is the tax base and rate? Nobody made it clear.
A high rate facilitates evasive reactions, risks encouraging the transfer of capital abroad, to increase the use of "black", to depress the economy. A low rate would make it possible to collect more or less crumbs, therefore harmful to its own advertisement but useless. As for the tax base, a balance sheet on the first home would be completely unfair since it would also affect the less well-off classes, given that over two thirds of Italians have invested their savings in the home. And then it could also affect "static" assets that do not produce income. If we then think of a balance sheet on financial assets, we reflect on the fact that Italians hold a large part of the country's public debt. It would be an incentive to divest and move savings towards operations capable of escaping the taxman.
Let's change our point of view. If the government's goal is to encourage structural economic growth, capable of generating adequate tax revenues while respecting equity (horizontal: equal treatment; vertical: principle of progressivity), then the solution cannot be found in a different tax, but in a radical tax reform based on structural measures capable of guiding the choices of households and businesses in the direction of productivity. In this sense, the "macroeconomic" variables - consumption, investment, savings, public spending, etc. – should be observed and planned with a medium-term time horizon (at least 10 years), so that they can produce the expected effects.
This means locate tax measures capable of stimulating GDP growth, foster labor market flexibility, encourage investment, reduce the "scissor" between wealth and poverty by allowing the redistribution of the former, direct the use of wealth to support consumption, efficient and equitable production, work, circulation of money, encouraging the so-called leading sectors in our area (e.g. construction, tourism, catering...) and the ecological economy (so-called green economy sustainability). If necessary, also by deducting expenses and interventions from taxes, granting tax credits and greater deductibility of costs, in terms of nature and quantity.
In summary, we should not talk about assets at this time, but of a real reform of the taxation system, capable of stimulating economic growth, guaranteeing adequate revenue, operating a monetary redistribution of income and making the system more transparent.
