Super bonus, costs are out of control: Now government wants to limit damage

Regarding the super bonus, the government is ready to take measures to contain the impact on public finances. As it is known, the incentive has already been weakened by the Draghi government, and according to the current regulations, from 2024 the subsidy for apartments will fall to 70 percent, in 2025 again to 65 percent and for detached buildings to 65 percent. (read villette) stopping is now a matter of a few months. However, more or less recently introduced changes to the measure (first the executive branch led by the former ECB wing and then the current incumbent) may not be enough to stop the ever-increasing costs that come with the stimulus. . To give an idea, it is enough to say that the originally planned expenditure for the super bonus was 35 billion euros, whereas today we are rapidly heading towards 100 with the data we have. Behind the taxpayers is the bonus front in the ’90s. Another stimulus introduced by the Conte 2 government, which should have cost 5.9 billion by estimates and instead saw spending reach five times, or almost 26 billion.

Now the imperative of the majority is to reduce costs and free up resources in light of tax maneuvering and reform. For this reason, incentives have now become the constant target of government parties. According to Defense Minister Guido Crosetto, the 110% super bonus is “a disaster for public accounts”; Economy Minister Giorgetti explained in his speech at the Cernobbio Forum that even thinking about the super bonus makes his stomach ache. According to Forza Italia’s Licia Ronzulli, “the rule was badly written, especially for the controls”; According to Fratelli d’Italia senator Marco Silvestroni, “the bonuses rained down by the yellow-red governments” are “flash in the pan”.

In short, the majority seems to want to lay the groundwork for further tightening of ties and lowering the costs of the public coffers. Definitely not a bad success. What should we do? There are basically two ways: to further reduce the rate or to reduce the number of beneficiaries. Nothing official, but rumors circulated by multiple newspapers that the manager may consider the second option. In other words, to limit the use of the super bonus. In particular, it is aimed to introduce income requirements as currently in single-family buildings. But linking the use of the incentive in condominiums to ISEE would be much more technically complex for obvious reasons. We’ll see.

Another broad idea being worked on (and certainly not immediately realizable) is to rationalize bonuses, perhaps pooling them into one measure, as Erica Mazzetti, a Forza Italia member who signed the bill on new building bonuses, explained to The aim is to link the use of construction incentives to the taxpayer’s income. The reform under review could result in a higher rate of disruption, depending on the improvements that the building will achieve through interventions at various priority levels.

On the other hand, pressure is increasing on the government to increase the subsidy to 110 percent in the first months of 2024, provided that the work progresses. A countermeasure to protect apartments that will not be able to complete the work by the end of the year. And so who takes the risk of paying out of their own pocket?

Continue reading today…

Source: Today IT