Confidentiality Clause On A Fax Cover Page

evaders??

THERE IS ANTI evaders??

We all talk about rush to escape, giving each of our version of events. One of the versions

riding is "NOT FOR ALL CHARGES NOT ESCAPE ="
This view, however, clashes with some principles and some statistics.

• Some neighboring countries with us, have a tax burden almost identical to ours, and yet not have the levels of tax evasion Italian. (This is enough for me to say that is not true that if you lower taxes, pay them all, in other countries, are high and are charged the same.)


• In times of less tax burden, tax evasion was always equal percentage. In the five years Berlusconi


• the tax burden has decreased, but increased the submerged.
  

It's not a question of tax burden but it is a matter of culture.
while lowering taxes, the evader does not increase its contribution. Ergo

must find another way.

State for its livelihood, has two main streets:

· The
· the direct taxes to indirect taxes.

Direct taxes have 3 chances to input:

1. the companies' taxable income
2. taxable income end-users (read citizens)
3. the taxable income of both.

The companies' taxable income, arises from the difference between what you buy and how much you sell, is that the value of sales excluding all charges.

The taxable income of end-users (read ordinary citizens) is "normal" salary, that is gross income minus some minor expenses and family expenses.
Remember that normally, what can be deduced from the gross is about 25%.

Now if we consider a share of avoidance in the category of firms, it seems natural to say "we infer users Finished all the costs so we bring to the surface and evasion. "
If you did so, since the average savings for end users, (and sometimes not true) is about 1 / 12 of the income year, means that the rest of the income end-user spends it; deduced if all these costs, we ARE an advantage for end users who would increase their average incidence of deductions from 25% to 95%, but the State would be to "lose" almost all of the taxes resulting from step 2.

order to lose the taxes resulting from step 2, should increase taxes resulting from step 1 and indirect taxes. With what result

?

1. Disappears SI tax evasion
2. loses an input of money from end users
3. hampers the development of businesses because more taxes.
4. use the type of tax as unfair (and indirect) that hits regardless of income.

The revenue for the State remains alone on VAT, which today, in fact, pay you (the only one who can not deduct the purchases).

To avoid a loss so great, the state should "SELECTIVE" grant, the deduction of expenses, only those from categories where the risk of escape is higher.

Why not do it on all charges, is also comforted by the fact that some categories (see example supermarkets) have a lower risk of escape, then issue the receipt as "normal." Other categories
issuing the ticket and this is used as the starting date for the warranty purchase.

So if, for example, was apparent in the "SELLERS of razor blades" high fill rate, well, purchases from that category would become deductible. ISTAT

There is a category more likely to escape. Of course this speech

the most unhappy, because it is like saying that there are categories of tax evaders ... ... but the statistics do not hide anything.

Here's an example of evasion ........
(do not have it with plumbers and ..... just an example)
If you change a tap at home and the system makes you ALL without invoice
1. its workforce is in black ............
2. also is black cock ..............

But this means that: • if
can sell a faucet a black man, bought it in black ..... (A wholesaler)
°, but if the wholesaler sold it in black, bought it in black ... (the manufacturer) then

:
• The 1 st evader is Producer ...... .......... • The 2 °
evader is the wholesaler .......... ........ • The 3 rd
evader is the electrician .......... .. ....

Ergo, should be cataloged all the categories that can sell the "goods" and / or labor + and / or services without getting an invoice, because that is where most of escape lurks ....
evasion of labor on the part of a plant has only a fugitive .... implantation. When there is also good, evaders are all steps in the range of goods.

If you adopt a similar system in the categories which meet, the state has a gain (and the end user as well), instead of adopting this method on all classes, State loses more than it currently loses with evasion.
alice
This could be one of the methods ... ... ... ...

Use Wireless Adapter As Hdtv Antenna

FINANCING FOR EVER??

PUBLIC FINANCING OF POLITICAL PARTIES We

in 1993 when a referendum posed the question on public financing to political parties, and 90% of voters were opposed. "

What happened then??

On 10 December 1993 (Ciampi government. ... Coalition PDS, GREEN, DC, PRI, PSI, PSDI, PLI), Law 515, it ended the controversy ... ... .... But how ...??
no longer called " public financing of parties" but it introduces the reimbursement for election expenses. "

this already, in itself, is a clear manipulation of the will of the voters.
But we see the escalation of the "costs paid" ... ... ..

Law 515, art. 10 from:

• pounds 800 for each registered voter.
• only parties who had passed the barrier of 4%
• rounds of elections for the House and Senate (ie, during elections)
  

But June 3, 1999 (the D'Alema government .... Olive Tree coalition - PDCI - UDR - INDEPENDENT) Law 157 "change" slightly ... ... ... as these amounts:

• Lire 4000 for each electoral roll for the parliamentary elections and regional
• + Lira in 3400 for each member electoral lists for elections
• + 4000 Lira for every registered to vote in each referendum
• only parties who had passed the barrier of 1% (virtually all)
• These "refunds" are no longer on the occasion of rounds of elections, but the data once a year regardless of how many rounds you were held in the year (Ie "is not a reimbursement, but funding)
  
  

But, again on July 11, 2002 (Berlusconi's government coalition center-right ... ... ..) the law still suffered a" small tweaks " ... ... ... such as:

Reimbursement is "aligned" to 1 € per year (ie € 5 to term regardless of how many rounds you play).

The difference in spending between the state rules set out in Law 157 and the last amendment of 2002, it weighs a lot.
If we think that voters are 47,160,000, the extra cost is € 129,214,000 for each year of the legislature.

Naturalmente dove si legge “aggravio” per lo stato, è da intendersi “incasso” per i partiti.

Se a ciò aggiungiamo che non esiste nessun controllo da parte dello stato se i costi elettorali sono stati poi sostenuti (e non potrebbe essere altrimenti, dato che non è un vero rimborso spese),si arriva a degli assurdi quali, ad esempio il Partito dei Pensionati, che, non è neppure in parlamento con un seggio, ma ha incassato 3 milioni di euro a fronte di una spesa elettorale dichiarata di 14.300 euro.
A questo va aggiunto, che quasi tutti i partiti, oltre ad avere il tesseramento, come introito, godono di “elargizioni” piuttosto abbondanti da parte di privati, aziende (pubbliche e private)…… Basta ricordarsi la trasmissione che REPORT ha dedicato al problema………
Risulta evidente che bisogna TOGLIERE dalle mani dei parlamentari questa vergognosa libertà…..
A tale scopo va stesa una petizione per riformare questo istituto.

Fermo restando i valori espressi dalla norma del 2002, i rimborsi dovrebbero essere riconosciuti così:

• Il rimborso non avrà più carattere annuale, ma sarà elargito solo in concomitanza di un turno elettorale.
• L’accesso al rimborso terrà, quale sbarramento, lo stesso indicato per l’accesso alle graduatorie
• Il rimborso sarà effettuato, previa documentazione della spesa, onde verificare che la spesa sia inerente il turno elettorale.
• Il rimborso sarà dato a copertura delle spese dichiarate inerenti, fissando un tetto massimo pari al numero dei voti espressi dall’elettorato per quel partito moltiplicato 1 euro.
• Ai partiti è consentita l’entrata di beneficenze e donazioni da estranei, purché dichiarate, qualunque somma siano.
• Se un partito riceve donazioni e non le dichiara, dovrà rimborsare allo stato i rimborsi presi, dall’inizio della legislatura per qualsiasi tipo di turno elettorale, fermo restando quanto previsto dalle norme penali e fiscali sul finanziamento illecito dei partiti.
• Tutte le spese regarding election campaigns, they lose the tax benefits and tax, up to now recognized (see eg. 4% VAT on the posters)