The assault to the gambling sector to find funds to cover the second instalment of 2013’s IMU tax is creating a strange alliance between PD and M5S parties. It is an uncomfortable alliance for PD that is compelled to keep its feet in two fields. The PD’s majors of Emilia-Romagna are making a gift to the M5S, letting it to demagogically gain more consensus. This is the current result of the panting quest to avoid to the Italians to pay the so-called mini-IMU tax next January 24th.
This is the story. Last January 2nd the majors sent to the President of the Republic Napolitano and to the First Minister Letta a letter recommending cancellation of the second IMU tax instalment by the adoption of a “una tantum” tax on gambling. Minister of Regional Affairs Delrio deluded the majors as he said the measure would be “non applicable”. Then the IMU-Bank Italia decree had been approved by the Senate, confirming the mini-IMU tax with the opposition of the M5S party while the PD voted in favour. The majors did not give up and wrote to Renzi, head of PD party, and to the PD group leaders at the Chamber and at the Senate. But now it will be the M5S to submit at the Chamber an amendment for the approval of the majors’ proposal. What the PD will do? For now Delrio announced the intention to hold an inter-ministerial table to discuss the revision of gambling taxation.
The initiative of the majors is the umpteenth pretence to treat gambling as the “bancomat of the State”. It is an “addiction” contracted by politics in the past when it was possible to increase tax income by introducing further new games. For M5S this issue could have a tactical meaning: it fuels the populism that can bring voters for the next elections. But this issue is good for several different uses, consistently with different interests and political wisdom of M5S’s people. In any case both the majors and the M5S party support the claim with arguments that do not listen to reason and with a harsh opposition to the gambling concessionaires. Pizzarotti, M5S majors of Parma affirms: “in Italy this sector has a turnover equal to 100 billions per year. How can they pretend we believe it is impossible to add a tax on it?”. Matteuzzi, PD’s major of Ravenna, claims it is “scandalous that the tax percentage dropped from 30% in 2004 to 9% in 2011” (to be accurate it is from 29,4% to 11,9%).
Dear Mr Matteuzzi, between 2004 and 2011 there had been the introduction of several new games with much higher payout that make it necessary to commit to the “gambling chain” a percentage proportionally bigger of the margin, to cover costs of gambling activity. Dear Mr Pizzarotti, provided that the gross gambling revenues are equal only to 17 billion per year and are dropping in the last two years, there are evident signals that any further increase of tax percentage and consequent lowering of payout can bring to a reduction of volume that can determine a reduction of the State income. Demand is much elastic, this is it. The market asks for new games with higher payout and higher payout on traditional games also, which is logical for expert users in a mature market. An analogous situation had been recently experienced in the tobacco sector and also in the case of the so-called super road tax and in the boat industry, where the tax increase brought to disastrous results from all points of view. There is the risk to act hastily. The Government seems to be aware of.
The proposal of the majors adopted by the M5S party is the result of an ideological approach. Some people holding a hard line position against gambling, like M5S senator Endrizzi, would be well happy if the result of the initiative was the collapse of gambling volume. But if that is the aim, this must be pursued by a law that expressly claim it, and that clearly shows the financial backing and not by a law which on the contrary pursues the objective to increase the State’s income and consequently gambling revenues and volume.
Furthermore it deserves attention Endrizzi affirms: “the majors … want there will not the citizens to pay (the IMU tax), they want it will be charged a una tantum tax to those that in the last years made money on citizens’ pockets, on pockets of families and sometime on their wealth also”. Costa, the PD’s provincial secretary of Reggio Emilia, claims in tune with Endrizzi: “we know very well how Minister Delrio welcomes an increase of tax against those that manage gambling”.
Putting it like that this is not a una tantum on gambling but a una tantum on concessionaires. It seems a sort of moral sanction against concessionaires to charge social impact of gambling. But that should possibly be considered a State’s responsibility, that holds the reserve on gambling. It would be logic and welcomed to devote a share of gambling tax to prevent and care for social impact. Concessionaires carry out the activity they are obliged, comply with the obligations stated by the concession agreement and are submitted to strict control.
Can we ask to a specific taxpayers category to take upon the cost of the second IMU tax instalment? Why not to tax the banks then? Or the oil companies, or the singles, or the retirees? It is not legitimate to tax unfairly and discriminatorily a single category of subjects. It had been already tried to do that, for the truth. But it had been stated illegitimate even for the so-called “golden pensions”. Last June the Constitutional Court stated by the judgement n. 116/2013 the constitutional illegitimacy of the special tax on pensions over 90 thousands euros, because “it does not guarantee the respect of equality principles of taxation on equal income, through an unreasonable limitation of taxable entities”.
