Lump In Groin After Heart Cath

........ BUT ........ THERE IS AN ANTI

Dear President Napolitano,
In thanking you for your words, if I may extrapolate a part of his address at the end of the year, to externalize my own concern about the "disenchantment" of the Italians towards politics.

"If politics becomes a continuous scream, a race to who gets up most of the tones, a clash over everything, on any matter at any time, suffer from the institutions, starting with Parliament , and suffers the relationship with citizens. When the noise is generally not well can not even grasp the different positions and proposals, then many end up not moving away from this or that party, but by politics.
But be careful here. Who listens to me and to all Italians, I say, do not walk away from politics. Participatio in every way possible, bring your ideas and forces young people. "

But, Mr President, ... ... ... ... .. WHAT WE LOVE TO BE:

• a political class that has forgotten its citizens.
• Who sees us only "voting for a minute" and the conditions imposed.
• who now spectacularized policy to the extreme.
• GOSSIP those who prefer the reality of the country.
• Who wants to join the Million Briatore with a belt of bombs, and who, through many evenings in that space, is worried for his safety. Who can
• fighting over a toilet of the room, oblivious to the fact that many Italians have problems more serious than a toilet.
• Who created the political "A caste" impenetrable where the favors and benefits are wasted just for themselves and their closest associates.
• Anyone who thinks that, once in power, must act to destroy what has been done by previous opponents, without looking at what if he destroys a minimum value for the citizens (and this we see at least 12 years).
• Who can vote only in the case (if in power) or vote against (if it is in opposition) only part of faith, not wanting to accept la possibilità che se una cosa è giusta, non conta chi la propone (destra o sinistra che sia).
• Chi vota compatto (tranne poche eccezioni) soltanto quando si tratta di aumentare i benefici peri parlamentari.
• Chi riesce a far diventare problemi politici anche la coscienza umana, e su questa gioca per dividere politicamente.
• Chi ci ha tolto la possibilità di scegliere le persone, e poi candida pregiudicati e condannati in via definitiva.
• Chi non vuole cacciare dal parlamento chi ha subito condanne.
• Chi, sbeffeggiando le norme parlamentari, mantiene due cariche elettive dello Stato.
• Who creates and emphasizes divisions between public and private employees, with a policy of blatant inequality.

Dear President,
but you do not see when the political class has contempt towards ordinary citizens?
Who has made ad hoc law, who makes economic privileges for some public officials three times greater than its salary.

Please Mr. President, instead of asking the people more love for politics, politicians ask for a bit 'more attention to citizens, but not as much attention as possible, it would be enough for only 10% of what the citizen Calls for attention have already enough, now there is.

Mr President, I express a dream ... ... .... I wish that what I write, was taken up by some newspapers (those media so well and so well kept by the policy "subservient" to the policy) and published, asking and wondering ... ... ...
calls on politicians, "but you is everything"? ??
Wondering "but we really are so newspapers serve???

Thank you for the attention they will devote to my outburst, and the kindly greeting. Maria Di Bartolomeo

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 ... ... ... ...