Criticism in opposition for "tax populism and uncoordinated proposals" is practiced by Minister of State, Akesh Skertsos on Facebook.

As it says, ‘any person proposing additional permanent benefits must clearly answer a simple question: What taxes will it increase or what costs will it reduce on a permanent rather than an emergency basis to consistently secure additional revenue of EUR 4 billion each year? But what effect will such an increase in the country's overall economic activity, investment, employment and ultimately public revenue.".

Noting that "democracy needs the confrontation of ideas and the opposition's alternative political proposals", he stresses that "it cannot, however, operate with unmarked promises. No politician and any party have the right to mock a society that has hurt so much in the past decade by populist and unspeakable programs that have thrown our economy and income into the rocks.".

"Anyone who asks for the trust of society must present not only "what", but also "how". And this is the essential difference between fiscal seriousness and tax populism," Akis Skertsos concludes his posting.

All of Akis Skertsu's post

Tax populism and unwarranted proposals

We all agree that we want better wages and higher pensions and that precision has been gnawing a part of the increases given in recent years.

The question, therefore, is not whether there are needs in society. There are and there are real and many. The question is whether the proposals tabled by the opposition are accompanied by a credible financing plan.

So let us first look at the data based on the figures in the state budget of 2026 so that each citizen can evaluate with rigour and accuracy what he hears expressed in the public sphere.

First, the annual expenditure on pensions is EUR 35.6 billion. This means that the Greek state pays (if any additional costs are excluded) around 2.5 billion euros each month to pensioners.

21.6 billion euros. That is to say (if overtime and travel are excluded) around 1.5 billion euros each month.

Third, anyone who promises 13th pension and 13th salary to the State must explain where to find an additional €4 billion (2.5+1.5) each year to finance these permanent expenses.

The debate, therefore, is primarily about telling people the whole truth about the cost of our proposals.

Where will this 4 billion euros be found;

Some parties argue that they can finance permanent increases through higher taxation of dividends attributed to shareholders of enterprises.

The evidence, however, deserves attention.

In 2019, with a dividend tax rate of 10%, public revenues from the dividends paid amounted to 173m euros.

In 2024, at a rate of 5%, the corresponding revenue was set at 386 million euros.

With the 10% rate of 2019 or the 5% rate in 2024;

The answer is obvious: the 5 % pro-investment rate is more effective both for the development of the economy and for the collection of revenue and social policy, as it increased public revenue by 123% from 2019 to 2024, which in turn increased expenditure on health, education, wages and pensions.

Higher dividend taxation does not punish shareholders but the economy because it leads to either saving profits or transferring investments to other countries with more favourable tax rates.

Accordingly, it is often heard that permanent increases can be financed by higher exceptional taxation of businesses.

But not all the truth is told here.

Because the new European financial framework does not allow the financing of new permanent expenditure through exceptional and temporary measures. Permanent expenditure requires permanent sources of funding.

🔺Το 2019, με φορολογικό συντελεστή επιχειρήσεων 28%, τα έσοδα από τη φορολογία των επιχειρήσεων ανήλθαν σε περίπου 4,4 δισ. ευρώ.

In 2025, with a tax rate of 22%, the corresponding revenues amounted to around 8.2 billion euros.

In other words, even assuming that one could cover the additional cost of EUR 4 billion exclusively from corporate taxation, one should ensure an increase in revenue corresponding to almost 50% more than today's levels.

Revenue that will of course never come as evidenced by the figures of the meagre 2019 revenue with the highest corporate tax rate at 28%.

All this leads to a conclusion: whoever proposes additional permanent benefits must clearly answer a simple question: What taxes will it increase or what costs will it reduce on a permanent rather than an emergency basis to consistently secure additional revenue of EUR 4 billion each year? But what effect will such an increase in the country's overall economic activity, investment, employment and ultimately public revenue.

The real economy works with the rules of supply and demand rather than with stereotypes and ideologies about alleged justice that have been refuted by reality itself. If a country chooses to tax more businesses, then venture capital will be transferred elsewhere where it will find lower tax rates.

Democracy needs confrontation of ideas and alternative political proposals from the opposition. It cannot, however, operate with unspeakable promises.

No politician and no party have the right to mock a society that has suffered so much in the past decade from populist and unmarked programs that have thrown our economy and income into the rocks.

Politics is the responsibility to tell the truth to citizens: what can be done, how much it costs and who will pay for it.

Anyone who asks for the trust of society must present not only "what", but also "how". And that is the essential difference between fiscal seriousness and tax populism.