In the 2018 the Italians have paid 33,4 billions of euros more taxes than the total average amount paid by the citizens of the European Union. This is a differential that "weighs" almost 2 points of GDP. In per capita terms, instead, we paid the 552 revenue more than the average of European citizens. To say it is the Study Office of the CGIA which compared the tax burden of the 28 EU countries and, subsequently, calculated the gap between Italy and each country belonging to the Union.
Report the coordinator of the Research Department, Paolo Zabeo:
"The time for slogans and promises is over. With the next Budget maneuver a shock is needed that in a few years will reduce the weight of taxes by 3-4. Considering the delicate situation of our public accounts, this intervention will be feasible only if we succeed in lowering unproductive public spending and part of the tax bonuses by the same amount. Operation, the latter, which appears difficult to pursue. This is confirmed by the results obtained in these last 10 years. All the executives who have followed have dealt with great determination on the spending review side; the results, however, were unsatisfactory. The hope is that the Conte Government will have greater luck".
Too many taxes, however, are a problem not only because they jeopardize the financial stability of so many families and just as many companies, but also because they have triggered very dangerous vicious processes in the economic system. The secretary of the CGIA, Renato Mason, states:
"With an oppressive tax burden and a range of services provided by the public administration which in recent years has decreased both in terms of quality and quantity, domestic demand and investments have fallen vertically. Furthermore, it has become increasingly difficult to do business, create new jobs and redistribute wealth. The small and very small businesses also saw the combined effect of the decline in household consumption and the contraction in bank loans caused many financial imbalances, forcing a large number of self-employed to close the business and change jobs.".
And while waiting for the 2020 Budget maneuver to clarify how the 23,1 billions of euros needed to be recovered to prevent the VAT from rising again from the next 1 in January, the CGIA recalls that the "real" tax burden in our country 6 points well above the "official" figure.
In fact, our GDP, like that of other EU countries, also includes the effects of the unobserved economy which, according to the latest Istat estimates, amount to 209 billion per year. This "wealth", generated by irregular and illegal activities, if on the one hand does not provide any contribution to the increase in tax revenues, on the other increases the size of the GDP.
Recalling that the tax burden is obtained from the ratio between tax revenues and GDP, if from the wealth produced (or from the denominator) we remove the component attributable to the economy "in the black", the result of the relationship (ie the tax burden) the honest tax payers increase, giving us a "real" tax burden much higher than the "official" one (48 per cent instead of 42,1 per cent).
Returning to the data of the comparison, again in the 2018 it emerged that in Europe only France, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Austria and Finland paid on average on average more taxes than us. The "surprise" comes from Paris: every citizen from across the Alps has paid 1.830 euro more than us to the tax authorities. In absolute terms, the tax gap is favorable to us and amounts to 110,7 billion. Compared to the other main competitors, however, "we succumb" always. If we had the fiscal pressure of Germany we would pay 24,6 billions less taxes (407 euro per capita), Holland 56,2 (930 euro per capita), the United Kingdom 114,2 (1.888 euro per capita) and Spain 119,5 (1.975 euro pro capita).
Can the flat tax be the medicine that will allow the Italian tax burden to fall to an acceptable level? Given that any measure that reduces the weight of taxes can only be greeted positively, we must be very careful. If the numbers in circulation in these weeks will be confirmed, it seems that already today on most taxpayers with a fixed income, an effective rate lower than 15 per cent is serious. Therefore, the application of the flat tax risks involving a small number of subjects with medium-high incomes.
However, the real question will be where to find the resources to achieve this decisive tax reduction. If they are unlikely to be compensated by a saving in spending, Minister Tria, although critical of the flat tax, seems to have the solution in mind: the cut in personal income tax could be partly covered by an increase in VAT, even in selective form. An operation that, according to the CGIA, would certainly favor exports, as the technicians of Via Venti Settembre claim, but would penalize domestic consumption. And to pay the bill would not only be families, especially the less well-off, but also artisans, small traders and self-employed workers who live almost exclusively on domestic demand.
Furthermore, the artisans from Mestre recall that, in the worst case scenario, if 23,1 billions of euros are not recovered by the end of this year, the ordinary rate will increase from 22 to 25,2 per cent, while the reduced rate will rise from 10 to 13 percent.
The coordinator of the CGIA Studies Office, Paolo Zabeo concludes:
"We must absolutely avoid the increase in VAT, even in a selective manner. And barter plus VAT less income tax is also not acceptable. I remember that from a possible exchange of this kind, most of the 10 million taxpayer taxpayers who fall under the so-called no tax area, which consists in particular of retirees at the minimum, would have no economic benefit. As well as the unemployed and people in serious economic difficulties. Not paying Irpef, they would not benefit from any tax reduction. On the other hand, instead, they would find themselves paying more VAT".