Tax on waste, a mechanism that favors the strong and penalizes the weak.
Today I want to tell you the latest story in chronological order that overwhelmed our small structure and which concerns the garbage tax.
Although we have always been committed to promoting the recycling of waste through the greatest possible use of compostable and recyclable material and by providing all guests with bags for separate collection, the administrations not only do not reward us but adopt an imposition mechanism. of the garbage tax (TARI) far from fair.
You need to know two things before continuing.
The first is that the law (n.27 of 12/27/2013), although its purpose is to charge the tax in proportion to the waste produced (in fact it is a tax, which unlike a tax, serves to finance a specific public service) in fact presupposes that it is the simple possession of premises and uncovered areas that gives rise to the application of the tax.
The second is that the municipalities, that is, those who manage the tax within the limits set by law 27, have the obligation to request from their citizens only the amount spent on waste management. Therefore, the taxation of the TARI should in fact make use of a mechanism capable of equitably distributing, based on the waste produced, the cost incurred.
But can the simple possession of premises and uncovered areas guarantee an equitable distribution of the costs of disposal? In my opinion, no, or at least not for sure for certain types of activities where this method of taxation, of potential waste production capacity based on mere square meters, causes distortions with respect to reality that cannot be justified in any way.
It is clear that until it is technically possible to determine the punctual refusals of each taxpayer (in reality, if there was the will, the tools are already on the market to achieve it) one must compromise and accept approximations. Attention, however, must never exceed limits that can harm the rights of citizens.
Speaking of our sector, the hospitality sector which also and above all includes hotels, it happens that minor campsites, in less touristy hill areas, in order to compete with other structures near the sea or in more favored areas, are forced to offer in addition to lower prices even larger spaces for all types of areas and all types of services.
It goes without saying, however, that having larger spaces for the same number of people hosted does not necessarily mean producing more waste. We only offer a different product that does not affect the amount of garbage generated in any way. We therefore find ourselves in the situation that in addition to suffering from a disadvantaged geographical position, we are also penalized by an inconsistent and unfair imposition of this tax.
In part, the total area also affects the ability to produce garbage but it is obvious that people create waste and therefore the real parameter to be considered is the presences that an accommodation facility records to give an estimate, as close as possible to reality, of the waste produced.
Even the seasonality of an accommodation facility would be properly considered taking attendance as a basic parameter. At present the regulations apply a discount for seasonal structures compared to annual ones but this rule is also heavily penalizing. There are structures that, for various reasons, are more popular and register a lot of visitors in all the months of opening and others that are able to work in full only in short periods. At the same surface it is obvious that they will not produce the same garbage.
Hence, structures that register half if not a third of the number of visitors compared to clearly smaller structures on the map find themselves paying a much higher tax. The disparities that are created can take on such proportions that it becomes difficult for campsites penalized by the mechanism to be competitive on the market, with a cost per presence up to three times higher.
And the picture is even more disheartening because the problem has been stagnating for some time with no hope of a solution. The mechanism, in fact, is all to the advantage of the largest structures, of the economically stronger ones, of the only ones that would have a say in the administrations to change things. These structures should not raise the issue as fair redistribution would only increase their costs.
But while the logic of large structures is understandable, the behavior of administrations is not. From a more equitable redistribution of costs, institutions should not lose anything by law. So why doesn't anyone take this problem seriously?