Entrevista de la periodista Sr. Blanca Rodriguez al Sr. Presidente Dr. Luis Lacalle Pou.

I don't know if I'd talk about power. I'd talk about political activity. Political activity requires a state of mind, a state of heart, of dedication. So the renunciation isn't just now that I'm president; the renunciation began a long time ago. It's a conscious renunciation, with will, to sometimes set aside personal interests or even self-interest, and focus on the common good of society. For me, it's an enormous privilege to have become president of the Republic, to have dreamed it, and to have made this dedication that, as you gain more responsibilities, becomes deeper. So I don't want to blame renunciations—I made them voluntarily.

First, Blanca, electoral commitments. We made certain electoral commitments, and then, somehow along the way, we're telling people: if this happens, we'll reduce taxes via deductions. But it's not only that—allow me to add the issue of companies. There are 28,000 small and medium-sized enterprises that will benefit from this tax cut. So there are individuals and also companies, monotributistas, etc. And you say 'what was expected'—I don't know what was expected, because the collective imagination of some technicians or politicians was enormous. I heard it called demagogic, insufficient, or that taxes shouldn't be cut. I heard from the opposition that taxes shouldn't be cut. Now they've shifted to the other extreme, saying it's insufficient. It's easy: we can reduce IRPF for those who pay it. With other Uruguayans, we first set the minimum wage above inflation this year and other years. Second, improving the lives of those Uruguayans means giving them better services—better health services, better accessibility, better education. Today is a very important day in that sense. I insist: we cut taxes for those who pay IRPF and IASS, and some taxes for companies at the lowest brackets, because the beneficiaries—paraphrasing something used the other day—are not the 'Maya gold.' We're talking about a teacher, a police officer, a healthcare worker, a construction worker. Many of them will stop paying. And for us, there's another virtuous element: the one who stops paying or gets a reduction won't go on vacation abroad or buy a treasure; they'll pay their bills and that money will circulate in the neighborhood. That generates greater consumption and more economic dynamics in the neighborhoods where people need that economic chain to accelerate. We're talking about 63,000 workers who will stop being affected—that means 14% of those who pay IRPF will see some benefit. Obviously, those who earn more will see a smaller benefit, but it will be strongly concentrated in that 14% who stop paying. Similarly, in the IASS, everyone will benefit, but 20,000 retirees will stop paying. So there are 83,000 people who stop paying. If we translate that to companies—for example, the condonation of monotributo debt—some companies unfortunately fell out of the system after the health emergency. We need to re-enroll them, because in Uruguay, Blanca, something happened that accompanied other parts of the world: informality. Informality in Uruguay dropped from 25% in 2019 to 21%. That meant that during the pandemic, people felt that leaning on the state brought some ease and certainty. But when the pandemic passed, they didn't leave the system. Today, Uruguay has the lowest informality rate since records began. So that people understand: for workers without children, the benefit reaches those with nominal salaries of 50,000 to 85,000 pesos, and the benefit ranges from 350 to 630 pesos. The maximum benefit can be equivalent to a 1% increase for nominal salaries of 80,000 pesos. The impact per child is 250 pesos. I insist: it depends on how many children, the rental situation, and whether they have a child with a disability. So when you study case by case—for example, workers with 60,000 nominal pesos stop paying, while someone with 80,000 sees a significant reduction, and another with 50,000—the casuistry is enormous. That's why in the universe, 14% of those who pay stop paying, and others will see significant reductions. Now, I insist that this covers a very small percentage of families. Yes, and it would be good to know what the government has planned for that group of people in the middle.

Well, we take it as good. The thing is, we take it as good as if it weren't. Let's analyze it—maybe you're right, but let me make my reasoning. What you've already heard is what you say, and it has some truth; we won't discuss it. There was a 2% discount for financial inclusion on debit cards, which was raised to 4%. When you see who uses the debit card and who is the biggest beneficiary—it's the upper and upper-middle classes. When you look at food and cleaning products, do you know how much the lowest quintile uses? About 3.81% or 4%. If we're talking about justice, if we're talking about those who have the least, I can assure you that that 2% was used by those who had the most. By the way, the use of the debit card by the two lowest quintiles doesn't reach 39%. So what was taken away was the discount that was given. We did it at the beginning of the government. It represents more than half of the DGI's revenue. That 2% with the debit card—you tell me that removing that 2% benefit means half of the revenue. I say that VAT means half of the revenue. And the other thing is the two points of discount on the debit card. First, I already told you who used it—it wasn't those who need it most, supposedly the ones you're talking about. They used it at 3-point-something percent, 4% for working families. I have the numbers; I was reading them today before coming. Upper classes: 27%, upper-middle: around 17%, middle: around 10%, and then I lose track—the two most popular classes: 3.81%. So that discount on financial inclusion didn't strongly benefit the sectors you want to benefit.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, I don't share that. But it is a tax cut. It moves the tail and barks—it's a dog. This is a tax cut. So what is the discussion we're having? That it's unfair? I think it's fair. I'm convinced it's fair because we're talking about salaried workers who fight, or who are in the 'Clarín,' or who come, or who with the effort of their work can live a little better, and those people pay this tax. By the way, if we're talking about collecting more or less, remember that when this tax was created, it was expected to collect 400 million dollars—that's what was told to the population. This tax, IRPF, collects almost two billion dollars. So there was a fiscal voracity, a tax increase. What we want to do is, as the numbers have adjusted, as we act responsibly with public funds, with the people's money, we're going to fulfill an electoral commitment: to lower that bracket, basically IRPF, that bracket. I insist, it has a virtuous consequence: economic dynamism in the neighborhood.

One month before the election. That's a good question. They asked the economic team the other day, and the answer was given by the head of the economic team. That's why the urgency we have to vote on it as soon as possible, because the sooner it's voted, it enters or not in this coming fiscal year. I'm missing the closures, I'm missing when it will be deducted. But if we approve it before May, it will be seen according to the economic team—in this case, the head of the economic team—in the coming months. So you say it will be an IRPF liquidation that will be done for this year? Well.