Chega, as in the Municipal Regulations and the regulations for Local Accommodation, approved the fiscal proposals of the PSD-CDS-PP-IL coalition for the Lisbon City Council.
Therefore, the 5% return of the IRS to city residents will continue, with the Chamber setting the total value of its participation in the tax at 0%. A municipal property tax is also imposed, 0.3% for urban buildings, but a 30% reduction in the IMI rate applicable to urban buildings classified as being of public interest, municipal value or cultural heritage applies, as well as an IMI reduction on own and permanent housing, with the prospect of a refund of 140 euros for those who have more than three dependents.
The surcharge for the 2024 financial year was approved, to be charged in 2025, of 1.5% on taxable profit not exempt from IRS generated in Lisbon with companies with a turnover of more than 150 thousand euros.
Even though with the favorable vote of the two Chega councilors approval was guaranteed, the abstention of the Socialist Party contrasted with the vote against by Bloco de Esquerda, PCP and Livre.
The PCP, in a press release, considers that the municipality’s “fiscal policy benefits the city’s richest taxpayers”, having put forward two proposals. The return of the IRS was voted against by Chega and the Por Ti, Lisboa coalition and the PS abstained. The proposal to increase the IMI by 25% for buildings in areas of urban pressure without being inhabited and by 50% in the case of collective entities was voted in favor by Livre, Bloco and PS, but was rejected by PSD-CDS-PP-IL and Chega.
The Left Bloc signaled “the approval of a fiscal expenditure of 90 million euros”, which it considered “unbalanced and unfair, worsening inequalities in the city”, mentioning that the majority of tax expenditure is “attributed to the richest 10% of taxpayers in Lisbon.”
The proposals will now be submitted to the Lisbon Municipal Assembly for consideration. Next week, the municipality’s budget will be voted on.
PS and Bloco attack in Carris
A vote was also taken for the Carris Board of Directors, which was approved. Pedro Bogas gives way to Rui Pedro Lopo. The PS did not participate in the vote, as this made approval possible, and in a press release it criticized Carlos Moedas, recalling the lack of explanations in the tragic accident at the Elevador da Glória, which killed 16 people in September: “The PS councilors chose not to participate in the vote on the new Carris Board of Directors because they considered that Carlos Moedas conducted the entire process with a lack of transparency and without providing the political clarifications due to the City Council. This position has no relationship with the people or profiles indicated, but exclusively with the way the President managed the process.”
“From the beginning, the PS rejected any political use of the accident, namely calls for resignation. This option seeks to make people forget the lack of scrutiny and accountability”, he continued critically.
The Left Bloc was critical of the opacity at Carris: “The Left Bloc criticized the presentation of a new administration at Carris, without Carlos Moedas having presented justification for the various errors identified in Carris’ procedures and which may have contributed to the Elevador da Glória tragedy. A few weeks ago, Moedas defended the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Carris, Dr. Pedro Bogas, who had been appointed precisely by Carlos Moedas and who, According to the report from the Office for the Prevention and Investigation of Aircraft Accidents and Railway Accidents, he provided incorrect information about the wiring of the Elevador da Glória to the inspectors.”
Rui Pedro Lopo was, for 11 years, a councilor in Barreiro, elected by the CDU. From what DN found, there was no removal of Lopo from the parties that make up the Unitary Democratic Coalition. He was a member of the Board of Directors for eight years at Barreiro Public Transport and in his 11 years on the council he spent eight years at Mobility and Transport. But, as João Ferreira told DN on Friday, “there was no consultation with the PCP” in the case.