The topic for today is to reduce the cost of politics. This is a battle with many good reasons, however, which is performed by several different environments with biased methods and purpose, often far less noble. First of all, it focuses mainly on the parliament and the government. Instead, there are also the costs of regional, provincial, municipal and costs of big finance, and between salaries, bonuses and severance pay figures come to no response in normal life. And I do not think that the media campaigns on the costs of politics have made them all innocent thoughts.
In fact one of the aims of these campaigns is to discredit the political system of parliamentary base to replace a bad habit in which the rulers are not chosen from among the politicians, but among the technocrats and, anyway, do not emerge from the political confrontation, but from the indications of groups interest who control the media, so-called independent. In addition, it is worth repeating, as they discuss the costs of politics, as a matter of ethics, they are silent about the costs and privileges of another caste, that of managers and executives of public bodies and that of managers and executives of banks and other financial institutions. Consider the issue of self representation. The "blue car" politicians are certainly reduced to a minimum, but perhaps we could minimize a better system that what they are disposed of only to the members whom it is performed in government and parliament.
It could be that those who benefits from these services is taxed on the benefits that it derives, as taxable income, calculated on the basis of their cost, net of a minimum ceiling cost of service. This understanding that will be exempt from taxation to service cars which are used for the personal safety of their users. The rule to include these benefits in taxable income, personal users should also be extended to other "benefits", such as free use of cell phones, credit cards, letterhead institution to which the user belongs, tickets Free travel by rail, air, sea and local transport and meals in restaurant and hotel accommodations, without intensive service logic. Again, the benefit to be calculated on the basis of the amounts of expenditure, should be considered taxable income of the persons concerned, beyond certain minimum credit limit.
The advantage of this rule is that it can be applied to all users of such services, whether they are people belonging to the body politic of the state, regions, local bodies, or heads of state or government of "separate bodies" : universities, social security institutions, supervisory authorities and supervisory state, parastatal, regional and local people at the top of companies and public entities independent of the state of municipalities, provinces, regions and their consortia. It also automatically adjusts the tax would apply also to the management structures and management of banks, insurance, industrial and commercial enterprises, and leaders of professional associations, labor organizations, foundations and cooperatives.
I imagine that this rule can be forward of the tax objections. There will be those who suggest that we must not tax, but prohibit them directly to "waste". In this case, however, need to adopt a different procedure for the public sector and the market price. In fact, while it may prohibit the State, Regions, local authorities attribute to "blue car" free and other benefits to directors and advisors with specific duties and managers of public bureaucracies, we can not prohibit that benefit managers enterprises, which can not be subject to prohibitions on their spending. In the latter case must apply the rule that, beyond a certain minimum, these benefits are taxable income.
But it does not seem reasonable that the cost reduction policy should be to reduce benefits only in the side of the members of the political class and the upper echelons of the administrative and technocratic. The main task, which needs to be done, for ethical and economic reasons is another. It is the reduction of the members of the political class, using three types of thinning operations. The first is reducing the number of deputies, senators, municipal and regional councilors and of members of the Presidency of the Republic, which includes a reduction in costs, which concerns not only the political staff, but also to support and spending on local goods and services and where it is stowed. Provided that certain sites are, however, even now too large, no such layoffs. So is that of the Presidency of the Republic, whose premises could be reduced at least by half, turning the other into a museum in which to place some of the paintings and archaeological finds now stationed in the basement.
The second type of intervention consists in the abolition of thinning of the provinces, as local elected body. They can remain as consortia of municipalities, while their skills may go in part to the municipalities and their associations as such and partly to the regions, with a reduction of staff and premises and a reduction of electoral costs. It should be noted that, however, as the province remains the administrative district of the state. What is needed is to eliminate duplication of policy, with its bureaucracy, its taxation, its interventionism, its clientele. The third type of pruning is to intervene in the privatization of public entities, the repeal of unnecessary entities, nell'accorpamento of entities that perform similar. Is not surprising that the question of the repeal of the amalgamation of duplication and unnecessary entities continue to recur. In fact, the bureaucracy is like the grass on the roadsides: continues to sprout, to proliferate and grow. And we must continually tosarla, to avoid invading the streets, blocking traffic.
These thinning operations have a double beneficial effect: they reduce costs and increase efficiency of public sector decision-making processes. Indeed, a parliament with fewer MPs and senators are leaner, have less people have to discuss, deliberate, intervene in debates, to agree among themselves, in the majority and opposition. And 'more efficient. A system with less subject to the territorial government has fewer constraints and doors to ask permission. The timing of decisions become shorter. Therefore, it is good policy to cut costs (and its bureaucracy) because it improves and makes it more citizen friendly. But woe to conceive of representative democracy as a dead weight, to affect a boil. You take away the blue car, but did not utter the phrase "deaf and gloomy this hall."
In fact one of the aims of these campaigns is to discredit the political system of parliamentary base to replace a bad habit in which the rulers are not chosen from among the politicians, but among the technocrats and, anyway, do not emerge from the political confrontation, but from the indications of groups interest who control the media, so-called independent. In addition, it is worth repeating, as they discuss the costs of politics, as a matter of ethics, they are silent about the costs and privileges of another caste, that of managers and executives of public bodies and that of managers and executives of banks and other financial institutions. Consider the issue of self representation. The "blue car" politicians are certainly reduced to a minimum, but perhaps we could minimize a better system that what they are disposed of only to the members whom it is performed in government and parliament.
It could be that those who benefits from these services is taxed on the benefits that it derives, as taxable income, calculated on the basis of their cost, net of a minimum ceiling cost of service. This understanding that will be exempt from taxation to service cars which are used for the personal safety of their users. The rule to include these benefits in taxable income, personal users should also be extended to other "benefits", such as free use of cell phones, credit cards, letterhead institution to which the user belongs, tickets Free travel by rail, air, sea and local transport and meals in restaurant and hotel accommodations, without intensive service logic. Again, the benefit to be calculated on the basis of the amounts of expenditure, should be considered taxable income of the persons concerned, beyond certain minimum credit limit.
The advantage of this rule is that it can be applied to all users of such services, whether they are people belonging to the body politic of the state, regions, local bodies, or heads of state or government of "separate bodies" : universities, social security institutions, supervisory authorities and supervisory state, parastatal, regional and local people at the top of companies and public entities independent of the state of municipalities, provinces, regions and their consortia. It also automatically adjusts the tax would apply also to the management structures and management of banks, insurance, industrial and commercial enterprises, and leaders of professional associations, labor organizations, foundations and cooperatives.
I imagine that this rule can be forward of the tax objections. There will be those who suggest that we must not tax, but prohibit them directly to "waste". In this case, however, need to adopt a different procedure for the public sector and the market price. In fact, while it may prohibit the State, Regions, local authorities attribute to "blue car" free and other benefits to directors and advisors with specific duties and managers of public bureaucracies, we can not prohibit that benefit managers enterprises, which can not be subject to prohibitions on their spending. In the latter case must apply the rule that, beyond a certain minimum, these benefits are taxable income.
But it does not seem reasonable that the cost reduction policy should be to reduce benefits only in the side of the members of the political class and the upper echelons of the administrative and technocratic. The main task, which needs to be done, for ethical and economic reasons is another. It is the reduction of the members of the political class, using three types of thinning operations. The first is reducing the number of deputies, senators, municipal and regional councilors and of members of the Presidency of the Republic, which includes a reduction in costs, which concerns not only the political staff, but also to support and spending on local goods and services and where it is stowed. Provided that certain sites are, however, even now too large, no such layoffs. So is that of the Presidency of the Republic, whose premises could be reduced at least by half, turning the other into a museum in which to place some of the paintings and archaeological finds now stationed in the basement.
The second type of intervention consists in the abolition of thinning of the provinces, as local elected body. They can remain as consortia of municipalities, while their skills may go in part to the municipalities and their associations as such and partly to the regions, with a reduction of staff and premises and a reduction of electoral costs. It should be noted that, however, as the province remains the administrative district of the state. What is needed is to eliminate duplication of policy, with its bureaucracy, its taxation, its interventionism, its clientele. The third type of pruning is to intervene in the privatization of public entities, the repeal of unnecessary entities, nell'accorpamento of entities that perform similar. Is not surprising that the question of the repeal of the amalgamation of duplication and unnecessary entities continue to recur. In fact, the bureaucracy is like the grass on the roadsides: continues to sprout, to proliferate and grow. And we must continually tosarla, to avoid invading the streets, blocking traffic.
These thinning operations have a double beneficial effect: they reduce costs and increase efficiency of public sector decision-making processes. Indeed, a parliament with fewer MPs and senators are leaner, have less people have to discuss, deliberate, intervene in debates, to agree among themselves, in the majority and opposition. And 'more efficient. A system with less subject to the territorial government has fewer constraints and doors to ask permission. The timing of decisions become shorter. Therefore, it is good policy to cut costs (and its bureaucracy) because it improves and makes it more citizen friendly. But woe to conceive of representative democracy as a dead weight, to affect a boil. You take away the blue car, but did not utter the phrase "deaf and gloomy this hall."
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento