Tax reform
The recent tax reform proposals, the announcement of which prompted accusations against Economy and Finance Minister Nikos Christodoulakis in the Cabinet yesterday, are not above reproach. Depending on one’s perspective, they can be criticized either for placing too heavy a burden on middle-income households or for not providing enough economic incentives. This sort of substantial critical analysis, however, would require in-depth and thorough study of the recommendations. But what took place yesterday has nothing to do with this sort of criticism. The economy and finance minister came under fire from his colleagues not because the proposals of the expert committee were erroneous or socially unjust, but for reasons related to the government’s profile. In other words, no substantial issue was raised; for example, that some of the proposals could intensify existing inequalities in income distribution. Rather, Christodoulakis was attacked because the publication of the proposals was seen as a threat to the Socialists’ political prospects, in the sense that unpopular reform proposals will affect the mindset of the electorate even if the government finally decides not to adopt them. The opposition’s reaction was not much different; rather than risking being identified with proposals it could hardly reject, it chose not to comment on the report at all, saying that it is not concerned with the conclusions of the committee but only with official government policy. Regardless of whether there was a need to release the committee conclusions (which anyway have been known for months now), and regardless of whether the recommendations are sound from a social and technical perspective, the quality of the rejoinders were disappointing, to say the least. Christodoulakis’s detractors, both in the Cabinet and New Democracy, have long demanded tax reform. Unless they are utterly frivolous or populist, their demand implies that they have substantial views of the reform and its overall direction. Now that the issue has been raised, even in the form of simple experts’ proposals, it is high time they expressed these views in public, and criticized what they see as flawed or unfair in them. When referring to public political discourse, politicians and journalists tend to point out the need for courage and outspokenness, as well as the politicians’ duty to look out for national needs, putting aside partisan and electioneering objectives. Will these calls remain empty words?
