Saturday , March 6 2021

IVA bullfighting

A public debate on the Prime Minister's statement that he did not like seeing bulls live or on television when he praised what he called "art" and honored the bull's head when he was the mayor of Lisbon. away from the fundamental question – economic and fiscal – that triggered this controversy no matter how much you want or hate in bullfighting.

The government agreed to change the 13% VAT rate for bullfights, promoted by the pressure of PAN and BE (which claimed a change of up to 23% as well as the end of VAT exemptions), based on the argument that it is not a miracle comparable to a theater or cinema , because of civilization and respect for animal life, which suppresses the fan and changes anti-wrestling movements.

This means that it is worth remembering that there are three VAT rates in mainland Portugal: ordinary (23%), average (13%) and reduced (6%). Thus, the state differentiates the most important products (such as food and water or some medicines) from seemingly superfluous people, who mostly pay higher taxes.

If you go to a cinema or theater or a music, dance or bullfight show, the fee is 13%. This may be controversial, but the legislator considered it not to be a substantial benefit or service and has benefited from it. If you buy milk, fish, meat, bread, rice or flour, the VAT collected is 6%, which makes sense on the list of the most important foods, but it will be controversial if you pay for the hotel's stay.

If you go to a restaurant, VAT on food is 13%. There are many examples, and prosecutors have theories about what is or not relevant (rate 6%) in order to capture the criterion and the principle of fairness by giving benefits to goods or services that would pay the normal rate.

It would be worth discussing outside the debate and voting for the state budget, there would be a need to reduce the rate from 23% to 21% or 18%, for example, to fight the parallel economy, tax evasion and injustice in other European countries. What could be a useful discussion to understand rational criteria (not political, partisan and corporate games) for the inclusion of products at a provisional rate, the existence of which is contestable.

What would be an incentive was to perceive the rational and detailed explanation of the costs of central, regional and local government to find out where most of the taxes are charged to a citizen. In fact, the taxpayer is the real target of government weapons, which is a segment of the fiscal installation. Regardless of whether the iron is long or short, because the taxpayer is always stuck without thinking about the motive of the task and the train. After all, before clapping knights and forks, the competition always ends with a hunting game to collect in the arena.

Source link