ROMA – A measure born badly, underestimated, gradually prolonged and expanded: like this he Superbonus it became an avalanche with devastating effects on public coffers. Which the government has tried to contain, limit, stop. But by granting “very broad” exemptions, the attempt failed.
To reveal it is a memory on building bonuses filed in the Senate byParliamentary Budget Officeas part of the work in the Finance Commission on the decree that blocks the transfer of credit and the invoice discount.
The Public Accounts Authority recognizes right from its preamble that “the Superbonus and the facade bonus have had a significant and growing impact on the public administration deficit over the years”. Here is the bill: 170 billion in 2020-23 only for these two types.
The 110%, we read in the document, was a measure whose effects “reached a macroscopic dimension that was difficult to contain also in light of the rights gradually acquired by the taxpayers who resorted to it. The absence of adequate monitoring and limits on spending determined the rest”.
Superbonus, the majority wants to loosen the squeeze. Pressure from Forza Italia for the discount on the invoice
by Giuseppe Colombo
And so “the difference between results and expectations was macroscopic in the case of the Superbonus e it has no precedent”.
Too many objectives and exemptions
The measure held together several objectives (relaunching post-Covid construction but also meeting the energy efficiency targets of the Pnrr) and gradually expanded (one fact above all: initially scheduled for works until 2021, it then arrived to 2025): “The expansion of the objectives and the repeated extensions of the measure have generated an increase in spending well beyond initial expectations”, says the PBO.
Having started slowly, the measure gradually gathered more and more support and only the year following its launch did we begin to understand the extent of the problem. Furthermore, as recently stated by the president of Intesa Gian Maria Gros-Pietro, it represented an inflationary element: “The characteristics of the concessions may have induced an increase in prices in the construction sector, with an increase in overall expenditure”, notes the memorandum.
Superbonus, this is how the government’s tightening failed. The Treasury: “Spending increased by 42 billion”
by Giuseppe Colombo
Another factor that exploded the financial impact of the measure was undoubtedly “the spread of fraudulent behaviour”, linked by the PBO to the “generosity of the relief and the transferability of the tax credit to third parties”.
The transfer of credits has taken place several times. And several times the government has entered into a sort of ‘final squeeze’ but in the end “the attempt to limit the financial impact of the Superbonus through subsequent restrictions was hindered by the need to protect beneficiaries who had not yet completed the work undertaken. The exemptions were extensive”.
The Office shows this clearly by retracing the entire regulatory evolution of the measure, from 2020 onwards. An “extremely complex regulatory framework”, which also includes the latest decree. And in which, “even in the case of measures explicitly launched with the aim of containing the impact of the Superbonus on public finances”, the provision “of exemptions and corrective measures, with effects that are often difficult to evaluate, has contributed to limiting its effectiveness” .
The effect on debt
The deductions for construction work are spread over several years and in fact their effect on the public debt can be seen over time. A heavy boulder, as the government’s Def and also the International Monetary Fund recalled. “What was detected in terms of economic competence in the four-year period 2020-23 will affect the debt especially in the three-year period 2024-26: an average annual impact of 0.5 percent of GDP in the three-year period 2021-23 will be followed by a higher and equal burden to around 1.8 percent of GDP in the following one”, explains the Upb.
Superbonus, this is how the government’s tightening failed. The Treasury: “Spending increased by 42 billion”
by Giuseppe Colombo
The deduction in 10 years
Precisely to try to cushion the impact, spreading it over several years, the Minister of Economy Giancarlo Giorgetti he clearly said that he was in favor of an ongoing extension of the possibility of exploiting the deductions, spreading them over ten years compared to the four provided for by the current legislation.
How would the debt profile change if the 10-year deduction for 2023 expenses were to pass? The Public Accounts Authority calculates it. The debt/GDP would be reduced “from the 137.8 percent indicated in the Def to 137.3 in 2024 (thus being stable in relation to the GDP compared to the result of 2023), from 138.9 to 137.9 in 2025, from 139 .8 to 138.3 in 2026 and from 139.6 to 137.7 in 2027 (in that year, the reduction compared to the previous one would go from 0.2 to 0.7 percentage points of GDP)”.
Practically a less heavy impact on the three-year period 2024-2027by virtue of a dilution which would however place a greater burden on 2028-2033.
Compensations increasing in 2024
The PBO predicts a real boom in compensation. After having gone from 6.4 billion in 2022 to 20.9 in 2023, “for 2024 we can expect a further growth in the amount due to the effects of the construction investments made in 2023”, note the technicians.
The trend is already evident if you look at what happened in the first quarter: the compensations amounted to 14.3 billionmore than twice (2.3) those of the same quarter last year and over 68% more than those of the whole of 2023.
Controls in Municipalities and exemptions for non-profit organisations
In the Finance Committee, in the Senate, the parliamentary groups have begun to outline the proposed changes to the decree that introduced the new tightening. The deadline for submitting amendments is April 24th but, as anticipated by Republicthe hypothesis of restoring the transfer of credit and the discount on the invoice for the properties of the non-profit organisations. They are also expected bipartisan proposals to extend the exemption to the earthquake-stricken areas (Emilia, Ischia, Molise, Etna) excluded from the perimeter set by the government, which currently includes only Abruzzo (2009 earthquake) and Central Italy (2016).
The League and Forza Italia are calling for more controls. The Azzurri, in particular, want the Municipalities to “find out” the scams on the works already completed: the recovered resources – this is the proposal – would go to finance the extension of the transfer of credit for those who were unable to access this channel before of the government lockout. But the director of the MEF Finance Department, Giovanni Spalletta, has already expressed strong doubts about whether municipalities can support this effort. This is why in the last few hours the proposal has focused on voluntary membership of the Municipalities, with an economic return of 30%.
The future: stop automation, selective bonuses
Drawing on the Superbonus experience, the PBO suggests to the government how to redesign construction bonuses. “In the first place, the rate of the relief it should be set at a level such as to incentivize behavior deemed worthy without placing the burden of expenditure on the State entirely: cost-sharing in fact helps to limit opportunistic behaviour”, says the PBO.
In particular, it suggests taking into account how long the energy savings generated will allow the interventions to pay for themselves. “Furthermore, the subsidy should be selective with regard to both the incentivized activities and the beneficiaries”.
Even in light of green homes directive, already with the Superbonus “it would have been possible to better condition the recognition of concessions on interventions that guarantee the greatest energy savings”. And for the beneficiaries, it would have been better to limit the discount on the invoice “to those who would have had problems with fiscal capacity and liquidity constraints to advance expenses”. It is then essential to introduce prior authorizations to monitor spending: the Treasury also asks for it.
Just as the Finance Department of the MEF already thinks, the PBO indicates that it is necessary to “replace a benefit like the current one with a monetary transfer (a direct contribution to the expense), modulated based on the economic condition of the family unit and the energy class of the building, subjected to prior authorizations and subject to a spending limit, or with subsidized loans”.
#Superbonus #governments #neversuccessful #squeeze #Upb #Exemptions #corrections #limited #effectiveness
– 2024-04-20 20:47:48
