“San Marino has thrown away almost 5 million euros!”
The report by the rating agency Fitch, which sanctioned the downgrading of San Marino, was one of the topics of the 33rd episode of “CSdL Informa”, the first part of which was dedicated to the reform of the labor market. “In the Ficth report – declared the CSdL Secretary Enzo Merlini – we read that San Marino has not anchored the plan for the safety of banks’ NPLs, despite the standard approved in 2021, and this is of great importance. the rating agency does not exclude that the coverage of the same “non-performing loans” will require further public funding. In this case, the San Marino public debt, reached the enormous figure of 1 billion and 200 million, would further increase. Fitch then puts in highlights another problem, that of the foreign debtor, maturing in 2024. In fact, it is refinancing to ask oneself: if a year and a half ago San Marino issued 40 million bonds on the international market paying interest equal to 3.25% per annum, when rates were close to zero, now that they are rising, how much will we have to pay them? u about the debt. CSdL had said it was forced: before taking that step, you had to think about it very well and secure the state budget first. It is not true then, as has been heralded by the Secretary for Finance, that this security has been achieved. Perhaps it can be valid for this year, given that a considerable recovery has taken place since mid-2021, but unfortunately it is by no means said that it will last, given the news coming from the international scenarios. If this analysis is correct, and it seems so, how can we rest assured? The foreign debt expires in a year and a half. “” I remember that the CSdL – the Secretary General specified – demonstrated against the Cargill debt, obtained by the Government of San Marino before placing the 340 million international securities. We argued that it was possible to find tens of millions in our territory to meet the liquidity needs of the moment, avoiding that loan. Today it emerges that that money was actually not needed; so literally, but we lost 4-5 million between interest and brokerage costs. “The CSdL Secretary then gave an overview of the reforms.” We had said that the reforms should be carried out all together, but we were not given this opportunity , and the has focused almost exclusively on that pension comparison; we believe this was also necessary to avoid exploitation, or the accusation of not wanting to block any reform, effectively giving the government the excuse to proceed alone. Listening to the recent Council, it emerged, in particular from the opposition, that the pension reform bill would be rose water and that it does not solve the problem of the pension fund deficit. The deficit is indeed very worrying, but one wonders what those who make these statements have in mind: to impose retirement at 63-64 years for everyone, in spite of the years of contributions (as in fact they had proposed), or that Can the pensions that are paid today under existing laws be cut by 30%? In other countries where existing pension measures have been enacted, these have been declared unconstitutional. The article that was eliminated in the text deposited at first reading, relating to the increase in the State contribution, is decisive: if it is not reintroduced appropriately modified, we will not give up. On these issues, the Active of CSU cadres has been convened for Friday 23 September, which will have to take initiatives in this regard. The intention of someone, specifically the Secretary of Finance, is to use the reserves of the pension fund until they are exhausted, or in 10/15 years, depending on how the economy will go. In other words, who will have the burden of governing will take care of it: we believe that this would be irresponsible, so it is absolutely necessary to repeat the resources to make up for the annual imbalances, ensuring that pension funds accompany the reforms until they are fully implemented, among about 30 years; it is foreseeable that we will argue a lot about where to go to get the money! “” In the report of the Secretary of Finance on the tax reform filed at the time – continued Enzo Merlini – there is a desire to increase taxes also for employees and to retirees. It seems to be understood that the main part will weigh on companies, and that checks will be carried out. Several councilors have also proclaimed the need for them to be done, but they can no longer be trusted. Since the reform of 2013, 3/4 governments of almost all colors have come and gone, but no one has concretely demonstrated this will. The wealth proposal that the CSdL has advanced can also be considered simplistic, but are we sure that the announced tax reform will be fair and able to recover what has not been taxed so far? We do not believe there is this intention. ”
cs CSdL