While the government had concentrated all its forces on one front, trying for weeks to quell the wave of student protests with every means at its disposal, up to fines of thousands of euros that even attracted the attention of international media, another front suddenly opened.
Some businesses, left without protection by law enforcement, had suffered physical damage in the turbulent days and nights. They were also beginning to experience a slowdown in activity. Thinking that they were under the government's trust, which was promising compensation and even advertised the "My Damage" platform, they found themselves under the striking "fire" of the suddenly proposed fiscal package for 2027.
But, as rarely before, almost the entire business community, from manufacturers and exporters to tourism and foreign investors, from the small, the freelancer to the large, united against a fiscal package, equipped with an arsenal of much higher taxes. Even stronger was the reaction of organizations representing international investors.
The warnings are serious: investment postponements or cancellations, closures of activities, job losses and capital shifts to other countries in the region. These are messages that can hardly be ignored by an economy that needs investment, technology, exports and better-paying jobs.
The irony becomes even more apparent, as this happened at a time when the Prime Minister has introduced "TRUST" as the concept upon which the state's new relationship with citizens and businesses should be built, explaining it through trust, empathy, service, and commitment.
Irony turns to sarcasm when this happened precisely in the invitation to "DIALOGUE" that the Prime Minister displayed with scenography in front of the Prime Minister's Office building as a means to listen and resolve the causes of anger.
Between "Besa" and "Dialog", business, almost without distinction from all sectors of the economy, found itself under sudden tax fire.
In fact, the government's behavior is not new. Tax changes have often been introduced at the end of the year, with limited time for consultation, only to be approved later through the cardboard force of a parliamentary majority, with little retouching and without reflecting on the substance of the proposals from business.
This time, however, this practice is facing broader resistance, as, apparently, businesses have reached a point where they can no longer hold back.
The other problem is the lack of an honest and complete analysis of the effects of the package. The proposals have been changed in an extremely short time, sometimes even within 24 hours. One measure is announced, another is withdrawn, one tax is reduced, another is increased, creating a cacophony of scenarios.
Surprise effects may create suspense in a film, but they are not the way serious government should function. Rather, it seems to be a deliberate choice to both appear to consult stakeholders and to mislead them into proposals that may no longer be up for discussion.
Fiscal policy cannot be designed as a series of one-off announcements. It determines decisions that businesses plan for years: how much to invest, how many to hire, where to open a factory, whether to expand production or enter new markets.
An economy cannot change its behavior at the same speed with which the government drafts a bill, and neither can businesses.
Moreover, the continuous increases in budget revenues have not been accompanied by the same improvement in public services and taxpayers do not feel that this money is being returned to them; on the contrary, they see their taxes being swallowed up by the wave of scandals verified by SPAK for major abuses of public funds.
Citizens and businesses pay taxes and contributions, but are forced to walk on roads that have been unfinished for years, pay almost half of their health expenses out of pocket, or see their children and relatives continue to emigrate at a rate similar to the early 1990s.
Another question is related to the way public money is distributed. While business is asked to contribute more, a significant portion of budgetary resources continues to be committed to long-term concession contracts and Public-Private Partnerships.
The resulting obligations limit the space to finance other development policies. While the concessions of the last decade have already run out of steam, a hidden form of them is the nationalization of the economy through some services being taken over by the state.
The more the economy relies on the budget and state contracts, the greater the risk that competition will fade and opportunities will be concentrated in a limited number of operators. This is not the path to a free and competitive economy.
Public money
While the concessions of the last decade have now run out of steam, a hidden form of them is the nationalization of the economy through some services being taken over by the state. The more the economy relies on the budget and contracts with the state, the greater the risk that competition will fade and opportunities will be concentrated in a limited number of operators. This is not the path to a free and competitive economy.
Në të njëjtën kohë, Shqipëria po humbet terren përballë vendeve fqinje edhe në konkurrencën fiskale. Shqipëria sot është ndër vendet me barrën më të lartë të taksave.
Edhe pasi qeveria u tërhoq nga rritja e tatimfitimit në 17%, Shqipëria vijon të ketë normën 15%, më të lartë se shumica e ekonomive të Ballkanit Perëndimor.
Propozimi për rritjen e tatimit mbi dividendin nga 8% në 15% do ta shtonte më tej barrën mbi fitimet që u shpërndahen aksionerëve.
Konkurrueshmëria nuk varet vetëm nga taksat. Por, kur një vend ofron shërbime publike më të dobëta, infrastrukturë me probleme, mungesë të fuqisë punëtore dhe pasiguri rregullatore, normat më të larta tatimore bëhen një tjetër arsye që investitorët të shohin alternativa të tjera.
Kjo ndodh pikërisht në prag të një faze vendimtare të integrimit europian. Afrimi me tregun e Bashkimit Europian do t’i ekspozojë kompanitë shqiptare ndaj një konkurrence shumë më të fortë, standardeve më të larta dhe nevojës për investime të mëdha në teknologji, produktivitet dhe cilësi.
Në një tërheqje taktike, nën presionin e protestave që vijojnë prej muajsh, qeveria nxitoi të hartojë një paketë në dukje populiste, që kujdeset për të varfrit dhe për shtresën e mesme, duke propozuar uljen e TVSH-së për produktet ushqimore dhe të taksës së qarkullimit për naftën, ndërsa barrën e kompensimit të efekteve buxhetore ua kaloi bizneseve, përmes rritjes së taksave të tjera.
Por qeveria duket se harron se biznesi gjeneron pjesën dërrmuese të aktivitetit ekonomik, krijon vende pune dhe realizon investime. Goditja ndaj biznesit është, në fund të fundit, edhe goditje ndaj individëve dhe konsumit.
Nëse sipërmarrjet detyrohen të punojnë në një mjedis të pasigurt, me taksa më të larta, ndryshime të paparashikueshme ligjore, ato do të kenë më pak mundësi të investojnë, të hapin vende të reja pune apo të rrisin pagat.
Efekti bumerang
Por qeveria duket se harron se biznesi gjeneron pjesën dërrmuese të aktivitetit ekonomik, krijon vende pune dhe realizon investime. Goditja ndaj biznesit është, në fund të fundit, edhe goditje ndaj individëve dhe konsumit. Nëse sipërmarrjet detyrohen të punojnë në një mjedis të pasigurt, me taksa më të larta, ndryshime të paparashikueshme ligjore, ato do të kenë më pak mundësi të investojnë, të hapin vende të reja pune apo të rrisin pagat.
Për më tepër, nuk ka asnjë garanci se ulja e TVSH-së për ushqimet do të reflektohet plotësisht në çmimet për konsumatorët, sa kohë që ekonomia shqiptare nuk ka konkurrencë.
Në kahun tjetër, kjo masë rrezikon të rëndojë më tej pozitën e prodhimit vendas, pasi mund t’i bëjë më konkurruese produktet e importuara.
As paketa fiskale dhe as projektbuxheti nuk parashikojnë masa domethënëse për nxitjen e industrisë, të prodhimit vendas dhe të bujqësisë, sektorë që prej vitesh po përballen me vështirësi dhe kanë domosdoshmërisht nevojë të bëhen më konkurrues, që do të ishte një zgjidhje më afatgjatë edhe për uljen e çmimeve të ushqimeve.
Albania needs sustainable economic policies, not populist or vindictive interventions.
Fiscal changes must be based on reliable analysis, real consultations with interest groups, and a long-term strategy that takes into account the country's competitiveness.
The government has the right to decide on the distribution of the tax burden, but it also has the responsibility to explain why more taxes are needed, how the money will be used, and what improvements it will bring for citizens and businesses.
In an economy that is losing people, industry, and production capacity, embracing entrepreneurship is a luxury the country cannot afford.
