The president, using the frames of death on the cross, has already initiated two laws whose constitutionality must be evaluated by the Court, which is required to be agile.

The first law: tax reform. The deduction for larger personal expenses, based on the number of family responsibilities and for catastrophic illnesses, is being restored, which will reduce the tax payment for many taxpayers. The table becomes fairer and more advanced in Rimpe for sales up to $20,000 per year. Sports forecasts are taxed (15%, special rate), and there will be VAT for public broadcasts.

Second law: special development zones and free zones. They have been around for a long time. Now, obviously, its compliance, legal stability, minimization of procedures and tax benefits (non-payment of taxes, especially related to foreign trade, and exemption from paying income tax for a longer period) are more precise.

My opinion on the two laws? Note my basic idea of ​​taxes “that are reasonable, apply equally to everyone at all times, with very specific exceptions, and minimize the bureaucratic relationship with the state.”

Bad… Every year we continue with the trend of tax reform…

The first law.

Good. a) It is healthy to reduce taxes, obviously this slightly increases the fiscal deficit, but there is so much unproductive state spending that can (and should) be compensated for. b) Family responsibilities and progressiveness are taken into account in Rimpe. c) It is logical that emissions and bets pay their own, although the latter should be paid like any other activity and income (instead of a special exchange rate).

The CPCCS will form a supervisory body to monitor the decree laws issued by President Guillermo Lasso

Bad. a) Every year we continue with the trend of tax reform (in 2024 with the new Government there will be another one), and it is surprising that the Government justifies the growth from a year and a half ago with the same ease as the decline now. b) All in all, we continue to pay more than before the reform in 2021. c) Income tax rates do not change and are too high: 25% for companies and up to 37% for individuals; A maximum of 20% would be healthy, so the base of taxpayers could be expanded more easily (some would say it’s too little, I don’t think so). d) Instead of limiting Rimpe, it should be applied to many more people (for example professionals).

The second law.

Good. a) Any encouragement of private investment is healthy, especially so that the export sector does not compete with a heavy tax burden. b) And what is stated is sound: “The control procedures established by the administration will not represent an obstacle to the course of production processes taking place in the ZEDE or the Free Zone.”

Bad. a) Wouldn’t it be good if the above principle was effectively applied to the entire state bureaucracy? Or are they just words? b) I remain with a basic doubt, why would some (those who are in Free Zones or ZEDE) not pay income tax, and those who are outside pay, are some more important? There is an argument that in this way at least some manage to pay less, but I am not convinced. If taxes were reasonable for everyone, you wouldn’t have to reduce anyone to zero to stimulate them.

…In short, the new laws are fine, but it is a minimal step. (OR)