Between what is urgent and what is necessary, what is negotiable and what cannot be postponed, populism and rationality… the government opted for reason of state.
The war in Iran and the closure of Hormuz are there, and everyone knows its external origin, but also its impact on the world economy, the complete uncertainty about its end date, and the reestablishment of a “normality” that will take months to arrive, after the end(?) of the conflict.
The Ministry of Finance called for today morning the “presentation of the measures for economic growth and mitigation of the international crisis.” Perhaps betting on a quick military solution to the conflict (something they believed even in Washington!), the government relied on military promises that turned out to be empty and did not implement structural measures, focusing on maintaining the prices of the basic basket, monitoring the situation and containing – through subsidies – the price of fuel.
The time for contingent measures has passed, and it is time to look at the future far beyond the horizon line. Just when the year was starting off on a good foot for the country, the government was hit by a crisis of external origin whose impact is planetary (the fourth in six years!), and which negatively affected economic growth that was already beginning to show signs of recovery.
Talking about a tax reform would be political folly, since the circumstances do not lend themselves to a large national discussion (form) where the tax frameworks are redesigned based on a large fiscal agreement (fund); one that seeks not only to settle accounts and balance budgets, but to financially sustain the type of country we want to be; eliminate burdens and measures that respond to surpassed realities; and enhance the positive aspects of the economic model that we want to promote, without sacrificing social policy and the protection of vulnerable sectors.
In theory, it sounds beautiful. Implementing that in the midst of a crisis like this is reckless and politically unfeasible. More than a tax reform (total or partial), it seems that the government will opt for a package of measures that boost economic growth and dynamism. The greater the activity, the greater the movement. Money only “walks” when businesses move, when more goods and services are bought and sold, and, for this to happen, it is necessary to stimulate the growth of all sectors, protecting the most vulnerable.
If “there is no free lunch” in economics, the government’s dilemma will be the opportunity cost of its anti-crisis plan, because if it renounces income from a tax (repealing it), it will be because – inevitably – it will be capturing income with other (new) taxes. There is no other.
The question is: Who will pay the bill? The rich or the poor? Or, rather, those who can pay it or those who cannot? Progressivity, equity, transparency, openness and dialogue. If we start walking there today, we will all arrive at a good destination together.
