How do you see the position of the PS, confirmed this week by deputy Eurico Brilhante Dias, who states that the five measures of the PSD tax reform are “individual” and should only be discussed in the context of the PSD budget? Stands?
These five measures fit into a broader proposal that the party is working on. Because it concerns a series of broad tax reforms, it is by definition a coherent whole. It’s nothing unusual. In this case, we tried to address the pressing situation of many families, who are in difficulty because they pay more taxes to the state due to inflation and who suffer from rising interest rates. The PSD’s proposal is also much better than that of the PS in terms of encouraging talent retention. Individual proposals are the proposals they make [PS] made. That reminds me of lottery drawings. The PSD proposal is much more coherent; it reduces the ranking of young people by a third, forever. If you do the average, you pay nothing for the first year; in the second case they pay 25%; then pay 50%; then they pay 75% and then they pay everything. The average of all this is 40%. The PSD reduces everything by a third. It was 33.33% of what is paid now [em IRS]. This more than pays for the bribe they offer or the train ticket. The perception I have is that kids really laugh about it. Perhaps the PSD’s proposal is also insufficient, because what is missing here in Portugal is the issue of productivity. If productivity doesn’t improve, goodbye. What has been done to improve productivity in the last eight years? Something. There is a GDP [Produto Interno Bruto] potential or natural and there is the effective GDP, which circulates around the potential. But the potential gives us an idea of how much we will grow in the long term. The engine power of the Portuguese economy is comparable to that of the Fiat 500, compared to that of the European Union, namely that of a Mercedes 220.
The PSD proposal is much more coherent; it forever reduces the ranks of youth by a third. If you do the average, you pay nothing for the first year; in the second case they pay 25%; then pay 50%; then they pay 75% and then they pay everything. The average of all this is 40%. The PSD reduces everything by a third. It was 33.33% of what is paid now [em IRS].
But productivity indicators are not very clear.
I can’t just look at one year here and divide GDP by the number of employees. I shouldn’t do that, because at some point this Fiat could pass a Mercedes. If the Mercedes has a problem with a tire and is slower on a descent, the Fiat will overtake it, which is what is happening with tourism at the moment. So far we have been declining for five consecutive semesters. If we exclude tourism from the effective growth rate, our growth rate is 0.6%. The European Union average is 0.5%. The only difference is tourism. And who works in tourism? Non-routine work is used, from people who have left factories or are immigrants. Our engine power is very weak. During these eight years nothing has been done to improve the power of our engine.
Do the PSD measures for the IRS meet the needs? About 40% of the population does not pay IRS because they have a low income.
The 40% that don’t pay is the fault of the engine power. It is because we have an economy that guarantees us that there are vulnerable people at risk of poverty. In my opinion, these are the people who ensure that those in power stay because they give them some subsidies and these people do not realize that if we grew a lot more, there would be more resources and they would trouble could come. this situation. But they prefer 40 euros or 50 euros or whatever they give them. People are happy with this and think that they are being helped and that they have someone who protects them. And I think what would protect them was if they had a lot of money and could pay the taxes. Those who pay IRS, because there are also many unregistered savings, which have a very high burden, do we want them to become poor? It seems like that’s what they want. I think that these people need to be protected from very high taxes, while that is not necessary. There is no need. For example, they set the VAT basket to zero. I’m in favor of that, but they give with one hand and take away with the other. The tax burden on fuels has already increased. That is why inflation has already risen this month. Was it now necessary to increase the tax burden on fuel? I recognize that it is necessary for environmental reasons to discourage the use of fossil fuels. But right now? When people are in trouble? This increase in the tax burden affects everyone because it increases inflation. And these poor people, who do not pay the tax authorities, will also have to pay for more expensive products. The state harvests from fuels. Then there is inflation and VAT is also collected on that.
In my opinion, these are the people who ensure that those in power stay because they give them some subsidies and these people do not realize that if we grew a lot more, there would be more resources and they would trouble could come. this situation.
How do you see the criticism from the socialists who emphasize that the PSD’s measures for the IRS do not take into account social support expenditure and focus only on the income side?
The five PSD measures are financed with part of the excess tax revenue compared to what was budgeted for this year, without jeopardizing the implementation of budgeted expenditure in 2023. The tax reform will also take the social perspective into account. A revision of tax benefits is even being considered, which will have social consequences. A negative IRS investigation is also planned, which is nothing more than low-income support within the scope of this tax, potentially preventing the spread of social support. However, as I said, the commitment concerns only the study of this measure. The statement is nothing more than an opportunism typical of party political discourse. The population needs answers and not political discourse tools.
On the right, the PSD’s tax reform was also criticized as insufficient and should be extended to the banking sector. Do you agree?
The bank is already confronted with extraordinary contributions, which have now become normal. Do we want to weaken the bank and fall into the problem we already had? I think passive interest [que são pagas pelos bancos por depósitos a prazo, por exemplo] needs improvement. But I don’t think the bankroll is the problem. We also need a strong financial system. All it takes is a worsening of non-compliance and a lot of bad debts that could put the bank in a weak situation. Do we want this to happen? I don’t know if we want that. I’m glad everyone has a lot of profit. The stronger the bank, the better for us. Now I think that if the banks were to increase the passive interest rate, it would even encourage saving, which is also a Portuguese problem.
Source: DN
