Il Super bonus 110% had a less regressive effect than all the others building bonuses previously launched, improving the distribution of resources and doubling the share allocated to Noon, but it has also had costs for the State almost double than expected: 68,5 billion euros as of February 2023, compared to an official expenditure forecast of 35 billion. The president of theParliamentary Budget Office (Upb), Lilla Cavallari, during the hearing held at the Budget, Treasury and Planning Commission of the Chamber of Deputies in the context of the fact-finding investigation on the macroeconomic and public finance effects deriving from tax incentives in the building sector.
Superbonus: the resources destined for the South have doubled, but the greater incidence is in the North-East
From 2008 to 2019, the deductions actually used by taxpayers increased from 2,6 billion to 9,2 billion. However, half of the total amount went to just over 10% of the richest taxpayers and over 60% to those residing in the North. According to the president of the Upb, the Superbonus 110% has led to an important "change in the distribution of benefits compared to the original building bonuses”. In particular, it has significantly increased "the use of energy saving concessions in municipalities with lower incomes, an indication of a less regressive nature” and “the share of resources allocated to the Noon”, says Cavallari.
Despite this, according to the Upb, the territorial distribution highlights a greater incidence in the use of the measure in the North-East of the country, "with an average investment per inhabitant of around 1.379 euros, higher than the national average (1.160 euros) by around 19 per cent".
Superbonus: spending soars to 68,5 billion
During her hearing, the president of the UPB answered the most popular question of the moment: how much did the Superbonus 110% cost the State? The answer is that, overall, the full cost of the intervention to the public finances reached i 68,5 billion, of which 53,2 completed.
“The public finance burden has significantly exceeded initial expectations, based on a official expenditure forecast of 35 billion for the entire period of validity of the measure”, says Cavallari who then adds: “Added to the other building bonuses – facade bonuses, renovations, etc. – the cost of the concessions is also destined to exceed the amount, already revised upwards, of 110 billion underlying the official forecasts of the general government income statement dating back to last autumn's NADEF".
The PBO also underlines that "the change in the accounting criterion for credits relating to the Superbonus and the facade bonus will inevitably produce, other things being equal, a deficit improvement of the coming years". However, he adds, "considering that the reclassification has no impact on the public debt, the possible use of the spaces that will emerge in terms of deficit will imply, other conditions being equal, a worsening public debt foreseen, putting at risk the reduction trajectory of the same programmed on the occasion of the NADEF".
Tax credits constantly increasing
In 2019, the offsetting of the total tax credits amounted to 8,4 billion. In 2022 they rose to 30 billion, of which 6,5 relating to building credits. A share, the latter, from which "further growth can be expected for 2023 and 2024" due to new building investments, predicts the Upb.
Speaking only of the Superbonus, the annual quotas of deductions and potential credits for the works completed by 2022 would be equal to approximately 12 billion in 2023, ”approximately 4,8 times those potential in 2021“. However, the figure could further increase because “if we also consider the investments not concluded in 2022, and those sworn in February 2023, to the extent that they manage to be completed, they will be able to generate other potential credits of up to 2024 billion in 6. Up to a total of 18 billion”, explains the president of the Parliamentary Budget Office.
Superbonus 110%: "It is not a multiplier, it has no effect on income"
According to the latest data, “the contribution of investment in residential construction to GDP growth in the past two years was two percentage points”. Cavallari underlines that "on the basis of the macro-econometric model used by the PBO it is possible to reconstruct that half of the contribution would be attributable to the positive shock generated by the tax incentive, i.e. to the additional investment in housing compared to what would have been made in any case in two-year period in the absence of the subsidy."
Not only that, "since it is a shock that concerns the single sector, without taking into account the repercussions on the rest of the system (therefore without considering the repercussions on the other components of aggregate demand), this measure should not be interpreted as a multiplier”. In detail: “the additional impulse of the measure, which we have estimated to be of the order of 16 billion, it activates added value in the economy on a roughly one-to-one basis. To have an effect on revenue, for the measure to be repaid, a multiplier of at least 2″ would be needed, concludes the president of the UPB.
