the EU plan that Salvini boasts does not exist

A secret plan by Europe and the Conte government to reintroduce one tax on the first home in Italy: it is the League and in first person Matteo salvini argue that Brussels wants Italy to remove the IMU exemption in the first house, but this is not really the case.

We need to take a step back to July 30 when the member of the League of the European Parliament Silvia Sardone submitted a question to the European Commission asking it to indicate the position of the European executive on the taxation of Italy with respect to the first home and any assets. As you remember Europatoday The question reported some indiscretions regarding the European Union’s recommendations to Italy, one of which cites a change in housing taxes.

“The EU recommendations published after the last Ecofin meeting last year indicated that the exemption from IMU in the main residence (first house) is not very appreciated. The feeling is that the Commission does not evaluate positively this exemption, but also the fact that a progressive tax mechanism on brick based on family income has not been introduced. ”Therefore,” the Commission is asked: 1) whether it intends to ask Italy to reinstate the tax on the main residence ; 2) if your requests to Italy include the introduction of a property; 3) indicating your position on taxation in Italy “.

The Commission’s response arrived on October 15, signed by the Commissioner for the Economy, former Italian Prime Minister and member of the Democratic Party, Paolo Gentiloni. In his response, Gentiloni recalled that already in 2012 Brussels, in its recommendations to member states, had asked Italy to change taxes from work to assets taking advantage of the reintroduction of the Imu in the first house (abolished by the last Berlusconi government ).

Therefore, Gentiloni immediately clarifies that the request on the IMU is not new and is not an “indiscretion” to be connected with “hidden” plans between the EU and the Conte government, but a recommendation, and as such it may or may not be followed by the country. to which it is sent. Proof of this is that in recent years the Imu exemption has remained intact: the first home is not currently taxed, except for luxury homes.

Gentiloni explained:

“The country-specific recommendations addressed to Italy from 2012 to 2019 in the context of the European semester adopted by the Council on the basis of a Commission proposal, recommended shifting the tax burden from labor to taxes that penalize less growth, such as de Recommendations made in the context of the 2017 European Semester specified that this goal should also be achieved “with the reintroduction of the first housing tax for high-income families”.

This recommendation was never implemented and the exemption does not apply to luxury homes, but as Sole 24 Mineral, this exemption refers only to castles and villas built up to the 1930s. For example, all the luxury villas on the Costa Smeralda in Sardinia were built from the 1960s on (Flavio Briatore’s is also assumed). It is no coincidence that only 0.2% of the homes surveyed in Italy are “luxury”.

Thus, until now Brussels has not asked for an additional tax to the existing ones, but rather “to shift the tax burden of labor”, that is, taxes on companies and workers, “towards taxes that are less penalizing for growth, such as those of the active”. But not the wealth of all Italians, but only of “high-income families”. It remains to be clarified what high income means. As well as Gentiloni himself, in his reply, cites an opinion of the Commission services (to be precise, “the working document of the National Report on Italy 2020 of the Commission services”) in which, if desired , there seems to be an opening to the reintroduction of the IMU in the first house on a larger scale.

“In general – writes Gentiloni, citing this document – the main problems identified by the Commission (in Italy, nedr) are the high tax burden on labor and the high level of tax evasion. The analysis shows that, by abolishing the ‘La imu exemption on the main residence (with different degrees of progressivity) and the use of additional income to reduce taxation on work would provide greater incentives to work, determining positive repercussions on economic growth ”.

Once again, the Brussels experts explain their point of view: it is better to reduce taxes on work and increase taxes on wealth (the first home), because this would affect the income of the position and increase the incentives to do business. Compared to 2017, this time we are talking about progressive Imu and not reserved only for the wealthiest.

However, it should be noted that this is an “analysis” and not a “recommendation”. It will be seen whether or not the Commission will follow the advice of its technicians in the next recommendations. For the moment, those of 2020 remain in force, in which Brussels invites our government to spend more on the unemployed, CIF and health. There is no trace of the reintroduction of the IMU, nor are there any invitations to other types of assets. What, Gentiloni recalls, Brussels has never recommended. For now.