Il-magazine “The Economist” ta’ dil-ġimgħa għandu diskussjoni interessanti dwar jekk it-taxxi mħallsa minn politikanti u/jew ċittadini kull sena għandhomx jiġu pubblikati. F’isem it-trasparenza, hekk qed jissuġġerixxu ċerti esperti fil-qasam tat-taxxa u hekk diġà qed jagħmlu l-pajjiżi Skandinavi.

Fatt kurjuż li donnu ntesa hu li kien daħħal dis-sistema l-gvern Laburista tas-snin tmenin, minkejja li kien jiġi mixli kuljum b’elf dnub kontra l-governanza tajba, ħafna minnhom montaturi.

L-Oppożizzjoni Nazzjonalista kienet kompletamanet kontra. Ikkritikaw il-publikazzjoni tat-taxxi mħallsa bħala mezz ta’ spjunaġġ fuq iċ-ċittadin. Fl-istess żmien kienu organizzaw sistema ta’ rappreżentant f’kull triq tal-pajjiż biex jirrapportalhom dwar il-politika tal-ġirien.

Il-gvern kien joħroġ kull sena ktieb oħxon biċ-ċifri dovuti f’taxxa tad-dħul minn kulħadd. Bit-teknoloġija ta’ dak iż-żmien, il-proċedura kienet komplikata u tqila. U sabet min ikompli jtaqqalha u jikkomplikaha.

Il-publikazzjoni annwali tal-ktieb tat-taxxi waqgħet lura. Meta nbidel il-gvern wara l-1987, il-proġett twaqqaf.

***

Luxleaks vs Panama

Fil-Parlament Ewropew qamet diskussjoni dwar kif titmexxa investigazzjoni fuq l-iskandlu tal-karti tal-Panama li kulħadd qabel li jeħtieġ issir.

L-investigazzjoni għandha tkun separata u għaliha? Jew kellha tingħaqad ma’ dik li ilha mibdija dwar l-iskandlu tal-Luxleaks billi l-kumitat parlamentari li qed imexxi d-diskors dwar il-Luxleaks jingħata inkarigu simili dwar il-karti tal-Panama?

Fin-nofs naturalment daħlu l-ambizzjonijiet parlamentari ta’ min qiegħed f’kumitat u jrid ikabbar ir-responsabbiltajiet tiegħu. Imma dan hu punt sekondarju.

Aktar importanti hu l-fatt li waqt li l-Luxleaks ikkonċernaw il-kumpaniji multinazzjonali l-“kbar”, il-karti tal-Panama jikkonċernaw l-aktar individwi li għandhom setgħa, influwenza jew flus, jew it-tlieta f’salt. Mhumiex tal-istess pezza. Il-Kummissjoni Ewropea pproponiet li ġġibhom aktar qrib il-mira billi tbaxxi d-definizzjoni ta’ kemm għandu jkun kbir il-bejgħ ta’ kumpanija biex din taqa’ taħt il-miżuri li qed tressaq ħalli tikkumbatti d-dnubiet żvelati minn Luxleaks.

Dan żgur mhux biżżejjed. L-istrateġiji tal-elites li jaraw kif jaħbu flushom huma kompletament differenti minn tal-multinazzjonali żgħar jew kbar meta jaraw kif se jevitaw taxxi dovuti.

***

Dwejjaq bl-Ewropa

Aktar ma jgħaddi ż-żmien, aktar ninnota kemm hi kbira l-firda bejn dak li jkun qed jiġri fi Brussell dwar l-Unjoni Ewropea, u dak li qed iseħħ fil-fehma publika tal-votanti nazzjonali. Riżultat elettorali wara l-ieħor, mill-Polonja sal-Portugall jew jekk trid, sar-referendum Olandiż, jagħtu xhieda tad-dwejjaq bl-Ewropa li donnhom infirxu.

Wara kull riżultat, fi Brussell tinżamm diskussjoni dwar ix-“xokk” ikkawżat mill-aħħar riżultat u ssir kundanna tal-“populiżmu”. Imbagħad kulħadd jibqa’ għaddej b’li kien qed jgħid u jagħmel qabel. Business as usual.

L-aqwa tama hi: li l-Brexit jisfa miċħud.

English Version – Should tax dues be published?

This week’s The Economist magazine carried an interesting editorial regarding whether the tax dues of politicians and/or citizens should be published. Some experts in taxation are making this proposal in order to promote transparency. Scandinavian countries are already implementing it.

Actually, there’s a curious fact that seems to have been overlooked: in the eighties of the previous century, the measure was introduced by the Labour government of the day (even as it was being daily accused of a thousand sins against good governance, many of which were in truth, manipulations).

The then Nationalist Opposition was totally against the measure. It criticized the publication of citizens’ tax liabilities as a form of espionage. Meanwhile, it was busy organizing street by street, all over the island, a network of informants, tasked with reporting about the political behaviour of their neighbours.

Every year, the government would publish a fat book containing the sums due in income tax from everybody. With the technology of those days, it was a complicated and burdensome procedure. It found people eager to help make it more burdensome and complicated.

The annual publication of the report lost steam. When post 1987, there was a change of government, the project was halted altogether.

***

Lux Leaks vs Panama

A discussion arose in the European Parliament regarding how to carry out the investigation into the Panama papers scandal that everybody agreed must be launched.

Should it be a stand alone and separate investigation? Or should it be linked to the longer standing process triggered in the wake of the Luxleaks scandal, by carrying over to the committee which is addressing Luxleaks issues, a similar mandate for the Panama papers?

Naturally, the parliamentary aspirations of members of a committee who would wish to widen the area of their responsibility came into play. But this is a secondary consideration.

Of greater relevance is that fact that while Luxleaks focussed on the “large” multinational companies, the Panama papers mainly covered people with power, influence or money, or the three together. The issues raised are hardly the same. The European Commission did propose to bring them closer by further decreasing the lower bound of a company’s sales that would require it to satisfy the measures the Commission has proposed to counter the abuses revealed by Luxleaks.

This is certaily not enough. The strategies adopted by elites to salt away their funds are completely different to those followed by multinationals big and small, as they seek to evade taxes due.

***

The sorrows of Europe

With time, the divide is growing wider between developments in Brussels regarding the European Union, and the way how public opinion is shaping up among national electorates. The sorrows of Europe seem to be spreading if successive election results from Poland to Portugal, or if you like, to the Dutch referendum, are taken into account.

Following each result, discussions are held in Brussels about the “shock” caused by the most recent result and “populism” is duly condemned. Then everybody continues with what was being said and done before this happened. It’s business as usual.

All express their greatest hope: that Brexit gets rejected.

Facebook Comments

Post a comment