8 minutes agoMurati: Progressive lineup for the rich no, low-end current for the middle layer
Periskopi(4 years ago)
(4 years ago)Movement for the Union Chairman Valon Murati has reacted to today's warning of the Government in terms of the Energy Regulatory Office proposal for increased electricity tariffs. Murati has rejected such a proposal from the GRE for raising tariffs because according to him it hurts it mostly [...]
Murati has rejected such a proposal by ZRE for the increase in tariffs, because according to him it hurts most of the middle class, Periscopi notes.
Progressive action for the rich, no, costing electricity for the middle layer! This expensive electricity for a portion of the population (which spends more than 600 KWh is similar to the progressive tax instrument for those who earn the most have higher taxes”, it wrote.
He has said, among other things, that this is not only a right policy (not even left) but an outright discrimination of a figure that the government estimates even the response may be weaker.
The following is the full post of Mr. Murati:
Progressive lineup for the rich, no, low-powered middle class!
This expensive electricity for a portion of the population (which spends more than 600 KWh is similar to the progressive tax instrument for earners of higher taxes. In the latter case, outside ideological debate and influence on economic development and the more equal distribution of profits, for one thing all agree, those who are taxed with progressive taxes are really richer. In our case, this is not true because those who spend more than 600 KWh, they don't do this because they're richer, and therefore they spend electricity on a life of luxury, but because most of them, which are primarily middle class (brittle in the Kosovo context), have no other option (then they haven't had the destiny in Pristina to lock in the central heating system yet). And if it really was necessary to raise the price of electricity in the short term plan because of its lack of global markets, to distribute this burden to more citizens, but business has been more fair. But the government seems to have chosen the easiest route (always looking at this problem with one electoral eye) and to load more of the population (up to 30%), not all by counting on a smaller response in this case. But not only is it not a right policy (not even a left) but an outright discrimination of a layer that the government estimates even the response may be weaker. /Periscope. com/
