João says the population isn't outraged by the new tax; is that true?
As justification for creating the public lighting tax, the mayor cited financial problems in his administration; "I was appointed to be mayor of Aracaju. The way things are today, we cannot serve the population," he said; the project creating a tax of up to R$ 83 for Aracaju residents was approved in the City Council without difficulty; the Forum in Defense of Greater Aracaju will file a lawsuit, arguing that the tax is unconstitutional; on social media, disapproval of the project is widespread.
247 - Mayor João Alves Filho (DEM) downplayed the negative effects of the new tax he created for the capital, the Public Lighting Contribution (CIP), which will come into effect in February 2014. According to him, "the population is not outraged by the contribution for public lighting." He also stated that the poorest will not be penalized. As justification for the new law, João cited financial problems in his administration. "I was appointed to be mayor of Aracaju. As things stand today, we cannot serve the population," he said.
The bill creating the new tax was approved by the city councilors supporting the mayor without difficulty. In less than 24 hours after the proposal arrived at the City Council, all the votes were held, even with the complaints from the opposition, which pointed out problems with the new tax. The Forum in Defense of Greater Aracaju has already announced that it will file a lawsuit against the CIP (Contribution for Public Lighting), based on arguments from councilor Iran Barbosa (PT), leader of the opposition.
Iran cited decisions by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) on the matter. “This isn't the first city to try to create this contribution. They tried to create the Public Lighting Tax. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. Then they invented the Contribution, which follows the same path. I want to point out that this project is unconstitutional, with similar understandings based on projects of the same nature in other municipalities,” he recalled.
According to the congressman, the legal nature of the bill is not that of a contribution. “It’s a facade. From a legal standpoint, the bill is a tax, not a contribution. This decision is not mine, but that of the Supreme Federal Court,” he explained. The Workers' Party member also said that the Chamber does not have the autonomy to vote on a tax, which is a prerogative of the Federal Government.
“This is the fundamental basis for discussion of this project. I constantly see talk of unconstitutionality to avoid the approval of councilors' projects, as well as vetoes by the mayor formulated under the guise of unconstitutionality, when it does not exist. But the Supreme Court's decision, which states that this type of initiative has no support in the Federal Constitution, is ignored here,” he criticized.
Residential, commercial, and rural consumers registered with Energisa who consume up to 150 kWh of energy per month will be exempt from the fee. Those consuming between 151 kWh and 200 kWh will pay R$ 3,33, and those in the range of 201 kWh to 250 kWh will pay R$ 4,16. Finally, the maximum fee will be R$ 83,24 for consumers with monthly energy consumption exceeding 250 kWh.
REPERCUSSION
Although the mayor says that the population is not outraged by the new tax, what is perceived, through social media and the press, is quite the opposite. Through the Facebook page of Sergipe 247, the disapproval of the proposal is complete. By 10 am this Friday (1st), the post about the new law had been shared by more than 160 people. Most criticized the tax, citing two expressions that became famous during last year's election campaign ("it was João who did it" and "João is the solution"). Others demanded that the mayor reduce the number of appointed positions in the city hall as a way to overcome the financial crisis.