Budget: No measures ease the tax burden on public healthcare.

It is clear that the path being taken is moving further and further away from these fundamental principles and that only those receiving a fixed income from employment or pensions are taxed according to the progressive criterion, even with a maximum rate (43%) far from that in force with the 1974 reform (72%), which benefits taxpayers with the greatest contributory capacity.

If we wanted to significantly increase tax revenues, thus allowing public healthcare to be financed again in line with actual needs, starting with increasing the number of doctors and nurses, we would need to eliminate or mitigate the most obvious discrimination, particularly that favoring those with financial and real estate income, but also many categories of self-employed workers, who can opt for a flat tax system, i.e., a single rate independent of income. This so-called "flat tax" may be acceptable for limited periods and in exceptional cases, but it is becoming an increasingly widespread tool. Rates range from 10% to 26%.

There has also been much discussion in recent days about the possible increase in the flat-rate tax on short-term rentals from 21% to 26%. This increase will likely not be approved because it is deemed too high. This measure has encouraged the proliferation of a type of contract that has driven rental housing off the market for those who work in historic city centers, forcing them to seek housing in increasingly remote suburbs.

In the employment sector, this measure increases the number of flat tax rates, starting from as low as 1% and reaching a maximum of 15%, even in public healthcare, for a limited number of workers.

One can only agree with wage and salary increases, which have lost so much purchasing power in recent years due to inflation and the lack of indexation of tax brackets (fiscal drag), as well as fringe benefits for overtime and night work, in both the public and private sectors. However, the flat tax, in reality, benefits not the recipients, but above all the state or private employers, who incur lower costs in providing their employees with net sums commensurate with their commitment and merit, as certain salary increases or fringe benefits are taxed at a flat rate, albeit within certain limits. In essence, wage increases are welcome, but the Constitution requires them to be taxed according to the principle of progression. It is unfair, in the author's opinion, to deviate from the principle of progression, even if it is claimed to benefit more vulnerable groups.