Pietro Balbis
Architetto, Gruppo HeidelbergCement
Structural 210 | Marzo - Aprile  2017

La pubblicazione delle Linee Guida per la Classificazione del Rischio Sismico delle Costruzioni (Allegato A) del decreto del MIT n.58 del 28 febbraio 2017 - modificato con Decreto del 7 marzo - che istituisce e regolamenta la classificazione sismica degli edifici di fatto rende applicabile quanto previsto dalla legge finanziaria in materia di sisma bonus (articolo 1, comma 2, lettera c). Dove si prevedono detrazioni di imposta molto importanti – dal 70% all’85% - in relazione alla riduzione del rischio derivante dalla realizzazione degli interventi. Tale strumento prevede infatti che i richiedenti recuperino il credito sulla base della loro redditività in cinque anni, sotto forma di sgravio fiscale.
Ma la legge finanziaria, se consente il trasferimento di credito dalle famiglie alle imprese, lo vieta nei confronti delle banche. Una condizione che di fatto non consentirà agli attori della riqualificazione, committenti e imprese di recuperare il credito per mancanza di capienza fiscale. Con la conseguenza di rendere inefficace il sismabonus.
Occorrerebbe, invece, pensare ad un piano economico che consenta di riqualificare il nostro patrimonio anche dal punto di vista energetico e ridurre drasticamente i rischi sismici, piano la cui portata sarebbe tale da costituire occasione di rilancio per un'economia in stagnazione da decenni.
L’obiettivo di quest’articolo è, quello di illustrare una valutazione di costi e benefici per verificare se, e a quali condizioni, i flussi finanziari in entrata e in uscita – così come modellizzati nelle allegate simulazioni - possano trovare un punto di equilibrio e consentano di realizzare il Piano proposto senza gravare con ulteriori passività sul bilancio dello Stato.

PAROLE CHIAVE: sicurezza sismica, rinforzo strutturale, sgravio fiscale, interessi e capitale, efficienza energetica, flussi di cassa, garanzie, tassi di interesse, P.I.L.

The issue of the"Guidelines for the Classification of the Seismic Risk of Construction" in Annex A) allows to activate the so-called "sismabonus" (i.e. Seisimic - Bonus) i.e. the tax incentives foreseen in Article 1, paragraph 2, letter c) of the Budget Law 2017 (Amendments to Article 3 of the Ministerial Decree of 28.02.2017 number 58). This system provides very important tax deductions - from 70% to 85% - in dependence of the reduction of risk deriving from the realization of the interventions. The instrument provides that applicants will recover credit on the basis of their income in five years, in the form of tax relief.
But if the law on the one hand, allows the transfer of credit from households to businesses, on the other hand, does not allow it to banks. In fact, this condition prevents developers and companies to issue such requests, due to lack of fiscal capacity. With the effect of making “sismabonus” ineffective.
Instead, it would be necessary an economic plan to retrain the our built heritage from the point of view of energy and drastically reduce seismic risks, the scope of which would be the opportunity to revive an economy in stagnation for decades.
As a return of the investment required, the safety measures on the housing stock generates, on the one hand, a savings for the State, made up of the cost savings for emergency management and for rebuilding the devastated areas, on the other hand it creates a savings for citizens involved, thanks to the cutting of the energy bill.
The challenge is to sum these two distinct types of savings and to turn them into a homogeneous and financeable cash flow, so that the above would not constitute a social spending, but a productive investment.
The program set out below, does not foresees any advance of capital for the beneficiaries and provides for a non-repayable contribution (of interest and principal) from the State, because it aims to extend the safety to the audience the as broad as possible, and therefore also to those who would not have the chance to make any anticipation, because of their income conditions.
Unfortunately, the state has no additional resources for investment in a project of this type, and our country is not authorized to issue additional debt to finance these costs.
You therefore need an innovative approach to the problem.
In this difficult context, however, there is a new element that can make a substantial contribution to solving the problem. Thanks to the current economic situation and the policy of the ECB, at this time, there is an amount of capital to an unprecedented extent and at a cost to historic lows.
The abundant, cheap liquidity made available to our banking system, at present, has trouble finding lucrative investments with adequate risk profile and, in this scenario, that of mortgage loans begins to come within the scope of gainful activity when supported by appropriate safeguards, despite the very low interest rates. It is assumed, therefore, that will be the banking system to convey the necessary financial resources, also in order not to burden substantially on the State deficit.
The latter must, however, take on the task of enabling the widest possible access to credit in order to allow banks to operate in the appropriate warranty conditions for the entire audience of the people involved in the program.This task will be fulfilled by the State to the beneficiaries by providing the necessary income support by paying a share of the amounts for repayment of interest and principal, in order to make substantially within reach of anyone the outlay required to repay the loan provided by the credit system. The funding will have, in fact, the characteristics of a mortgage loan aimed to renovate the building and whose repayment installments will be paid by the owner for a reduced amount compared to the actual cost, while the State will take over the remaining difference. The savings resulting from improved energy efficiency of the property moreover, will be added, to the financial resources of the borrower.
Naturally, the above can only be feasible on condition that the economic burdens linked to the implementation of such a program are sustainable both for the public finances and for interested citizens.
The aim of this article is, therefore, to perform an evaluation of costs and benefits to determine whether, and under what conditions, the cash inflows and outflows - as well as modeled in the accompanying simulations - can find a point of balance and make it possible to carry out the proposed plan without burdening with additional liabilities on the state budget.

KEYWORDS: seismic safety, structural reinforcement, tax relief, interest and capital, energy efficiency, cash flow, collateral, interest rates, GDP
Sei già abbonato al Magazine o registrato?
Do you have an account or a subscription?
Sign in
Vuoi acquistare degli articoli?
ARCHIVIO STRUCTURAL: seleziona e scarica fino a 5 o 10 articoli pubblicati, in formato PDF (escluso l'anno in corso).
Buy your articles
Structural ARCHIVES: select and download up to 5 or 10 articles, in PDF format (excluding the current year).
5 ARTICLES - 15,00 €
10 ARTICLES - 25,00 €
Se sei interessato alla consultazione degli articoli più recenti, visita la sezione MAGAZINE.
Visit the MAGAZINE section for the most recent articles.