Post by firoj9043 on Jan 10, 2024 17:10:43 GMT 7
In monarchies it is said that the throne is never vacant, because when a king dies, another immediately takes his place — hence the maxim: The king is dead! Long live the king. Power does not admit a vacuum. SpaccaThe spending ceiling was created through Constitutional Amendment 95, of December 15, 2016, and, from then on, the debate on Brazilian public finances began to be dominated by it. In theory, everything is done to respect the ceiling , and, invariably, a way is found to create leaks in the ceiling – to the point that it currently fulfills much more of a mythical or symbolic function than the effective function of containing expenses. As designed, I understand that the spending cap was a mistake. I use a metaphor to express the idea.
Let's imagine the spending ceiling applied to a family consisting of a couple and two children, with a total income of R$3,000 and expenses oer a few years, the children get jobs and the family income grows to R$6,000, however, given the spending cap , even with the increase in income, this family will only be able to spend R$1,500. As an addendum, let's suppose that one of the members becomes ill and needs more medication and even the assistance of caregivers — the spending ceiling will be the same, at R$1,500, despite the increase in health expenses. This example demonstrates Betting Number Data that the spending cap is an inadequate brake, as it prevents expenses from being incurred, even when there is (1) an increase in income, or (2), when there is a need to increase basic expenses, such as health. The feeling of error in the Ceiling's architecture increases when Mansueto de Almeida states that " the spending ceiling was drawn up in less than 30 days .
Surely haste is the enemy even of reasonableness. Using the survey carried out by Élida Graziane Pinto, it can be seen that there were several changes to the ceiling . The first change removed interfederative transfers and related expenses within the Union from the ceiling , resulting from the collection of onerous oil transfer contracts (EC 102/19, which added item V to §6, of article 107, ADCT). The second resulted from the State of Emergency established by EC 106/20, with measures aimed at confronting a national public calamity resulting from a pandemic, the effects of which lasted until the end of 2020. The third , as a result of EC 108/20, removed expenses related to Fundeb. The fourth resulted from EC 109/21, which in addition to incorporating several financial measures temporarily provided for by EC 106/20 into the permanent text, also broke the ceiling , removing the amount of R$44 billion for the payment of emergency aid, provided for in its article.
Let's imagine the spending ceiling applied to a family consisting of a couple and two children, with a total income of R$3,000 and expenses oer a few years, the children get jobs and the family income grows to R$6,000, however, given the spending cap , even with the increase in income, this family will only be able to spend R$1,500. As an addendum, let's suppose that one of the members becomes ill and needs more medication and even the assistance of caregivers — the spending ceiling will be the same, at R$1,500, despite the increase in health expenses. This example demonstrates Betting Number Data that the spending cap is an inadequate brake, as it prevents expenses from being incurred, even when there is (1) an increase in income, or (2), when there is a need to increase basic expenses, such as health. The feeling of error in the Ceiling's architecture increases when Mansueto de Almeida states that " the spending ceiling was drawn up in less than 30 days .
Surely haste is the enemy even of reasonableness. Using the survey carried out by Élida Graziane Pinto, it can be seen that there were several changes to the ceiling . The first change removed interfederative transfers and related expenses within the Union from the ceiling , resulting from the collection of onerous oil transfer contracts (EC 102/19, which added item V to §6, of article 107, ADCT). The second resulted from the State of Emergency established by EC 106/20, with measures aimed at confronting a national public calamity resulting from a pandemic, the effects of which lasted until the end of 2020. The third , as a result of EC 108/20, removed expenses related to Fundeb. The fourth resulted from EC 109/21, which in addition to incorporating several financial measures temporarily provided for by EC 106/20 into the permanent text, also broke the ceiling , removing the amount of R$44 billion for the payment of emergency aid, provided for in its article.