Let’s start with the good news hopefully next January will not be marred by painful spot with which, for years, Rai has recalled the impending expiry of the outstanding balance. Undoubtedly, this grotesque pounding helped make the tribute more hated by the Italians, was mocked by the ambiguity of advertising it as the price of a service freely chosen by the consumer and not a tax, as such, detached from any possibility of enjoyment. Horned and taxed.
It has been much discussion of the dilemmas and practical repercussions that the government’s decision to replace the electricity suppliers to levying the tax brings. How to adjust and coordinate the pricing schemes? As reward operators for that chores Junk? How to share the risk of non-payment? Of course, these questions – that affect the system as a whole – are flanked by those closest to the concerns of taxpayers. It will ensure continuity of the exemptions? There will be tools to prevent undue incidents of double taxation? There is a risk that acquiescence to the new pick mechanism proves to be a Trojan horse for a finding that the failure to pay past?
At the discontent of the power companies, turned into esattrici spite of themselves, and taxpayers, forced a paradigm shift that reserve their only disadvantages – considered that even the tiny benefit of rescheduling is lost in the succession of drafts – is in contrast to the obvious satisfaction of RAI, pocketing a lavish compensation (recurring) against the deduction of 150 million sanctioned ( one-off ) with the last Stability.
According to a simulation organized by I-Com and recovery from our sister blog Info Date Blog, the collection of the fee in the bill to the extent of 100 € per year identified by the executive, it will imply an increase in revenue of 700-800 million compared to the anomalous result of 2014 and 550 to 650 million compared to 2013. Considering, for excessive caution, a rate non-payment of 10%, would be enough for a fee of € 80 to keep overall revenue at the level of 2013 – reflecting the fact that to “buy for less pay for everyone” is a principle rather malleable.
The aspect that is being investigated is less than that of the political-economic conditions and the impact of the measure. The institution of the fee goes back to 1938: a period, that is, when television for the Italians was still an exotic hobby. It went through the different stages of development of the television phenomenon, essentially unchanged in the letter, but profoundly innovated interpretation: the original configuration as payment has been exceeded by accreditation of its fiscal nature (tax, first, and finally d ‘ sets). The cyclical attempts to adapt the system to the changing technological scenario have consistently aimed to beef up the revenue from the levy – imaginatively extending the scope: memorable diatribes on smartphones and video – rather than to rethink the overall function.
In particular, it is always considered apodictically that he could not keep himself in public service television without fee: hired denied, without wandering too geographically and ideologically, from the large patrol of the EU countries that have opted for alternative funding methods (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia , Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Hungary).
Even more upstream processing matters has invariably spot the raison d’être of public service television too often overlapped with the protection of the dealership. So much so that today the government is anxious to reformulating financing and governance , while the company operates without maintenance for almost three years and the impending deadline for the renewal of the concession – an ideal opportunity for a ‘wide-ranging reflection on the prospects of our television system – takes second place.
What kind of tax is now the canon? What exactly is funding? A public good? Of course not, because the technology to exclude non-paying audience is widely available. A meritorious good? Opinion bold, if it is used to support productions edifying as “A Place in the Sun” and “Voyager”. A guarantee of pluralism? Labilissima justification, in the digital terrestrial, satellite, internet. A redistributive mechanism? Hard to argue that possession of a television manifest a significant ability to pay, especially if we compare the average value of the unit and the amount of the tax.
And if indeed the government is of the opinion that the public service TV still makes sense and that its funding should be placed against an audience as wide as taxpayers, why not put it to general income taxation? Simply because this would impose to raise those resources elsewhere, cutting spending or increasing taxes by a corresponding amount. Much better to take a tax visible and hated, couple it to a tariff with the first has no relation, bury it in a document already rather abstruse, reduce the amount of a fraction to flaunt magnanimity and hope that taxpayers they soon forget .
With this operation, Renzi demonstrates that he has internalized a great tradition of government: that of ” financial illusion, “masterfully unveiled by Amilcare Puviani early twentieth century. Even earlier, Jean-Baptiste Colbert remarked that “taxation is the art of plucking the goose to obtain the largest amount of feathers with the least amount of screaming.” The outline of the fee in the bill is not new, but is also found as this is measured civilization tax of a country.
Twittermasstrovato
No comments:
Post a Comment