There are no political breakthroughs in the following lines. Therefore, any associations with people and situations are unfortunate. It is reasonable for politicians to ignore market economics.
1. As is known, in the real estate market there are objective prices – those determined by the state – and commercial prices, i.e. those determined by the market. The vast majority of real estate sales contracts depend on their objective value, because this is primarily in the interest of the buyer. It pays less tax. The transaction relates, in the presence of a notary, to the contract price, i.e. the objective value, and this has been done for many years via a bank check. In fact, in order to collect this check, banks require a notarial document to be presented. The additional amount of the objective rate is paid in cash. It is invisible, it is what is called black money, and it does not address this phenomenon.
So the order in which all Buying and selling real estate It will be made by checks through the banking system, demonstrating the gullibility or indifference of those who proposed the relevant arrangements. The difference between objective value and trade value will always move in the dark economy and can only be discovered if the seller is an idiot. It’s an office.
2. Is it possible for a small business owner to declare a lower income than an employee? Of course it was possible. When the year is a losing year, the entrepreneur does not declare his profits. It is simple. How does he live? If he has no other resources, he spends his capital and hopes that he can make it up next year. The private sector tends to show losses as well, there are people whose businesses are ruined, but it makes sense for someone who has never even worked as an employee in a private company to ignore this. He believes that the businessman is making profit month after month. There in the ministries they live in their nightmares.
3. A card payment procedure has been implemented for amounts exceeding €500, under threat of a heavy fine. Is there a lot of naivety among those who proposed this ruling? First of all, more than a million citizens are unable, due to Theresia, to obtain credit cards. Will they be excluded from purchases over €500? What do Finance Ministry figures think that the store owner will lose such a sale? Simply put, either no receipt will be cut – which is more likely – or two will be cut to cover the amount. It doesn’t take many brains to realize that the economy of the arena is always superior to that of the armchair centaurs. It finds solutions and deals in a practical way with the distortions that such naive government interventions bring to the market.
I would understand it if the Treasury said “I lack 750 million for benefits to provide to vulnerable groups and that is why we are going ahead with extraordinary taxes on the self-employed”. It would be an elegant explanation. However, resorting to an ideological massacre – repeating arguments from previous decades – against the groups that formed the political core of the ruling party is incomprehensible.
If necessary – which I think will be necessary – I will also teach a second course in market economics.
“Avid problem solver. Extreme social media junkie. Beer buff. Coffee guru. Internet geek. Travel ninja.”