even then the proposal was from the 5 Stelle-Corriere.it

Giuseppe Pisauro, economist, president, until January 2022, of the Parliamentary Budget Office (UPB), an independent authority on public finances, was among the first to denounce the danger posed by building bonuses, including superbonus. But he remained unheard.

When did you realize something was wrong?
«Well before the Superbonus. Already in 2015, in a hearing in Parliament on a bill of the 5 Stars which wanted to introduce the transfer of credit, we signaled that, according to Eurostat rules, the transfer would turn into an immediate deficit, or an increase in the deficit. The proposal was abandoned, but then, in 2020, with the Superbonus of 110%, the Conte bis government introduced the discount on the invoice and the transfer of credit. The bubble has gradually inflated and we have reached the rate of over 3 billion a month of credits sold: 35-40 billion a year, which means two points of GDP more than a deficit».

And didn’t the PBO warn the government of this risk?
«Already the year before, when the 90% facade bonus was introduced, we had stressed that, at that time, i.e. in 2019, the building bonuses had a cost of around 10 billion a year. It is easy to imagine that, by introducing a bonus with a much more generous percentage, equal to 90%, the cost would have greatly increased. Then, even, with the Superbonus it reached 110%. Punctually, in the 2021 hearing, we said that the cost forecasts were underestimated, because if there is a third party payer, i.e. the State, the conflict of interests between those who order the works and those who carry them out disappears. And now the bill has reached 120 billion: six times the revenue from the IMU».

Is it possible that no one has listened to you?
«Yes, because 80% of Italians own a house. These are very popular sizes. We remained isolated, not only politically. Even in the press, criticism of the bonuses was almost absent».

But you didn’t talk to the finance ministers?
«Both Gualtieri and even more Franco tried to put a dam, but practically all the political forces were in favor of going ahead. At the end of 2021, which is unusual for the Upb, I confronted the former undersecretary Fraccaro, father of the Superbonus, in a newspaper. The question is that in the Italian political landscape attention to the balance of accounts is a rare commodity, in practice it is found only with the Minister of the Economy».

Yes, then, to the Giorgetti decree which blocks the discount on invoices and the assignment of credits?
“Deflating the bubble is a necessity. At the hearing, the Bank of Italy anticipated its estimate: 50% of the interventions would have been made regardless of the Superbonus. But this is also the case for the other bonuses. We know, for example, that the facades were periodically redone, even before the bonus. Now every incentive must pay for a loss due to the fact that those who would have carried out the work anyway will also benefit from it. The problem is if the incentive is that high. In my opinion it should never exceed 50%, because if it is right for the state to pay part of the work for the benefits that it entails for the community, such as the reduction of emissions, it is also right for the other part to be paid by the owners, who will benefit from the increase in the property’s value and will pay less expensive bills. And then we need to concentrate funds on strategic objectives, such as energy and anti-seismic efficiency, and drop interventions such as the furniture bonus”.

Don’t you think that now there will be many companies that will go bankrupt and workers that will lose their jobs?
«The construction sector has been addicted to bonuses for at least 25 years. And this has caused distortions, which have emerged with the Pnrr, with the difficulty of finding companies and workers who carry out the public works and other major works envisaged, since the system is now aimed at restructuring linked to bonuses, which are very convenient. There is room for a reconversion ».