Funding: it's not the best deal, but it must be approved.
There are so many pronouncements on the matter that it's likely the average citizen won't understand either the essential or the secondary aspects. Two essential matters.
1) The distribution criterion. The current criterion, which is based on origin, has been replaced by the adjusted population criterion, which is equally complex. The new model does not count the number of inhabitants per autonomous community, but rather the number of inhabitants adjusted for age, income, etc. Other factors also influence the amount received, such as the environment or thestatus quo —so that no one loses out—, but the cost of living isn't taken into account; if it were, Catalonia should receive more because life is more expensive here. The complexity is the same as in the current model, but the criteria have changed. The budgets of the autonomous communities increase by €21 billion, while the central government's decreases by the same amount. Since the communities' budgets cover social spending—education, healthcare, and social services—the reform necessarily makes the national budget more socially oriented. A second advantage of the new system compared to the old one is that the difference in per capita funding between communities is smaller. The new system levels the playing field. Some communities that were previously underfunded are now seeing improvements: Catalonia receives €4.7 billion more.
Income tax (IRPF) already incorporates adjustment factors. Citizens pay based on their income, family circumstances, and other factors. However, when it comes to redistribution, the calculation should be based on population, not a narrowly adjusted population. What is the reason for this adjustment? Why should one inhabitant receive more funds than another?
There are, generally speaking, two distribution criteria: by origin and by destination. If it's by origin, a criterion is defined and applied. If it's by destination, the order in which payments are made and the order in which funds are received are adjusted: they must be the same. The advantage of the latter is its simplicity. Citizens receive funds by autonomous community in the same order in which they pay. This avoids the always debatable distribution criteria... No more "crowded populations": simply, populations.
It should be noted that, in the new model, ordinality has not been adopted as a distribution criterion. It has simply been established that ordinality will be applied to Catalonia by 2027. It will be the third region to pay and the third to receive. However, this calculation includes a discretionary element: the number of inhabitants is, in reality, a number. tight.
In a recent television program, Professor Sala i Martín made a calculation: in the new model, there is an additional €21 billion for the autonomous communities, coming from the national budget. Since Catalonia represents roughly 20% of Spain's GDP, 20% of the €21 billion (€4.2 billion) has been paid by Catalans. Thus, if we receive an additional €4.7 billion in 2027, we only gain €500 million. But he overlooks one crucial point: Catalonia does indeed have a deficit, which is the difference between what it pays and what it receives. However, this doesn't apply to this contribution from the new model (the additional €21 billion for the autonomous communities), because the percentage Catalonia receives from the €21 billion is 20%, and therefore higher than the percentage it actually receives. It's an advance.
A distribution based on origin is not in our best interest. Criticism from other regions regarding Catalonia's tax system will inevitably cause us to lose out in the distribution when it is approved by the Valencian Parliament. An ordinal distribution is preferable due to its simplicity and automatic nature. Unfortunately, however, neither an ordinal distribution nor a per capita distribution without adjustments has been achieved.
2) The collection criterion. Who collects the funds—whether it's a Catalan agency, a Spanish agency, or a mixed one—is irrelevant. The Agency can only apply the law. It's difficult to understand the importance some people place on "having control of the coffers" when the coffers receive funds based on criteria established by law. The important thing, and this has been achieved, is that from the moment the money enters the coffers, it is transferred to the final recipient, unlike now, when some funds go to the central government and take two years to reach the autonomous community, which is the intended recipient. Ensuring that everything collected reaches the final recipient immediately has two advantages.
The first benefit is obvious: the money arrives sooner, and therefore we save on part of the debt burden. Everyone remembers the importance of the central government's partial debt forgiveness. When the debt reaches €60 billion for Catalonia, as is the case now, it costs around €1.8 billion per year, or 5% of the Generalitat's budget. That's less money we have to manage.
The second point is that there is greater predictability regarding when payments will be made. Knowing how much and when you will be paid makes it easier for the Generalitat to take on debt, because the borrower knows exactly when the debtor will be paid. The current system, with advances, compensations, and further advances, is incomprehensible.
In short, we have improved in terms of the money received: we receive more. The national budget will now be more socially focused, with more funding for education, healthcare, and social services. Access to the collected funds will be immediate, without the delays and intermediate steps that have plagued the system until now. However, we have not improved the methodology of the distribution system, because it was and remains based on predetermined criteria, and we have missed the opportunity to implement an objective and straightforward system such as per capita allocation.
The question is whether this pact is valid for us, considering it will last for years; the current model has been in place for 16 years. I think it's only fair to ask the question. My answer is yes, both because of the content of the pact and because it gives the central government a boost, and that's positive because the alternative, with Vox in government, is worse.
