Facts first. A. The Government has not found the key to fight against inflation, which has disrupted its intentions. Two, the regulatory complexity and administrative tangle have reduced the efficiency of social support measures. Three, it has decided that it will not lower taxes as other countries have done, it will not even deflate them, as the three Basque Provincial Councils decided yesterday. Four. It will not lower taxes and it will not reduce expenses. Not even the duplicates or the inefficient ones. The latter we do not know well, since he refuses to carry out a cost/benefit analysis of them. Five. You must ask for a new fiscal consolidation plan in Brussels, see that the previous one has been overtaken by events. How many times have you revised your forecasts and all of them down? six. We are leaders in Europe when it comes to obtaining European funds (the expected manna), but then we lose many positions by channeling them to their recipients. France has already delivered the equivalent of 0,5% of its GDP, we less than half, 0,2%. Now the ideology. Seven. The only way to square all that is by raising the collection. It could have chosen to act on the tax base, but that does not give electoral returns. What they do give them are tax increases, whenever they affect the hated banking and the hateful energy companies. Eight. There is too much improvisation here. When it was announced fifteen days ago, the increase in collection was advanced, but it was not known what the base of the tax was going to be (it has changed since the announcement) or what the rate. That is to say, he shot volleyball. New. It is very curious. When financial institutions lose money and savings banks have to be rescued with public money, we get upset. Related News standard No Treasury will tax energy sales at 1.2% and interest and bank commissions at 4.8% the cost to users Say. If the energy companies earn too much and obtain extraordinary profits (an impossible concept to be precise), much of the fault will lie with the government itself, which has regulated and subjected the entire system to its criteria. Ounce. This decision sounds arbitrary, since sectoral discrimination is not understood, nor by size. Based on what criteria is it justified? Doc. Let's suppose an attack against legal certainty in sectors that raise money -especially foreign- to finance their bulky investments and remain at the mercy of the political authorities' tax collection whim. Ounce. In any case, not even in the most favorable scenario in which all the forecasts were fulfilled, the money collected will not be enough to cover our deficiency. 7.000 million in two years, not enough for pensions, debt interest, aid programs, already committed deficit and NATO. Not far.
