«The Superbonus cost 4.2 billion» – Pescara

PESCARA. What impact did the Superbonus in Abruzzo have on public coffers? The answer came yesterday from a study by CGIA Mestre on Enea and Istat data. The investigation reveals that our region has cost the State 4 billion and 210 million euros for 14,720 renovation interventions. In the classic drawn up by Cgia, which we publish on the page, Abruzzo is in seventh place in Italy for the average amount per intervention, always paid by the State, which stands at the figure of 285,736 euros. While 4.2 percent of the total buildings in the region are affected by interventions with the Superbonus: a figure that places us in tenth place in the national ranking.
As of 30 April, the building renovation/efficiency interventions carried out through the Superbonus in Italy were just under 500 thousand (precisely 495,469). Although the overall costs borne by the State amount to 122.6 billion euros, only 4.1 percent of the total residential buildings in the country were affected by the tax break. At a regional level, however, Veneto recorded the highest appeal at 110 percent. With 59,588 certifications filed, the percentage impact of the latter on the number of existing residential buildings was equal to 5.6 percent. Followed by Emilia Romagna with 44,364 certifications and an incidence of 5.4 percent, Trentino Alto Adige with 11,314 interventions and again with a rate of 5.4 percent, Lombardy with 77,992 certifications and an incidence of 5. 2 and Tuscany with 38,166 operations and also with an incidence of 5.2 percent. On the other hand, the regions of Southern Italy “snubbed” the incentive: Molise and Puglia, for example, affected only 2.9 percent of their residential buildings, Calabria 2.6 percent and Sicily only 2.2 percent.
Again at a national level, the average burden borne by the State was 247,531 euros per residential building affected by an intervention with the Superbonus. The maximum peak is recorded in Valle d’Aosta with 401,671 euros per building, followed by Basilicata with 298,909 euros, Liguria with 298,063 euros, Lombardy with 295,222 euros and Campania with 294,632 euros. Abruzzo, as we said, is seventh. Veneto closes the ranking with an average cost per intervention of 194,896 euros per building, Sardinia with 187,413 and, finally, Tuscany with 182,930 euros.
The analysis of the data leads the CGIA Mestre to reject the eco-measure, agreeing with the Meloni government which weakened it.
«The Superbonus cost the public coffers 122.6 billion euros in tax deductions», reiterates the Artisans and Small Businesses association of Mestre, «if the State had invested these resources to create public housing at a hypothetical cost of 100 thousand euros each », states the CGIA, «we could now count on 1.2 million new housing units. And demolish all 800 thousand public houses in Italy, many of which are in dilapidated conditions, to rebuild them with innovative techniques and with high energy efficiency classes. In other words, we would have resolved the housing emergency which affects, in particular, the weakest social groups in our country corresponding, according to Censis, to 3.5 million people. The Superbonus, on the other hand, behaved like a reverse Robin Hood: it took from the poor to give to the rich.”
It is clear that what was denounced by the CGIA research office is nothing more than a provocation, «however it gives the idea of ​​how the State spent a very large sum with a certain “lightness”», say the association, «destining it above all to wealthier people. This amount, in the vast majority of cases, has benefited owners of private housing units with sufficient economic resources to be able to cover a large part of the building/energy efficiency costs incurred in recent years. The measure”, continues the CGIA, “also risks not even achieving the long-term energy efficiency objectives, which will require continuous interventions in the coming years to be achieved”.
“It started badly and continued worse.” Thus the association gives the final blow to the Superbonus.
«It came to light in May 2020 and from the beginning its application has been strongly linked to other building bonuses (building renovation, energy regeneration, earthquake, furniture, etc.). This intertwining”, underlines CGIA, “has contributed to exploding the bureaucratic-legislative jungle which in four years has led to over 280 regulatory changes and related clarifications. A situation that has created confusion and application uncertainty among professionals and homeowners, also favoring, in part, the proliferation of scams against the State. According to the Revenue Agency”, concludes the association, “the frauds attributable to the illegal use of building bonuses amounted to 15 billion euros, of which 8.6 were subject to preventive seizures by the judicial authorities and 6.3 were suspended.” (uc)

For Latest Updates Follow us on Google News

PREV today scattered clouds, Friday 21st and Saturday 22nd sunny and hot
NEXT Pesaro company in the crosshairs, 15 million scam on Pnrr funds foiled: arrests and seizures