The thought of president Nawrocki to introduce a zero PIT for income of up to PLN 140 1000 in the case of families with at least 2 children was taken by the editorial board "Rzeczpospolita". The opinion of Poles on her behalf was examined by IBRiS.
Poles divided
In the first days of Nawrocka's presidency promises and submits projects alternatively "prosocial". And that's what it says about reducing the price of electricity, and that promises lower taxes. His last thought does not necessarily appeal to Poles.
The respondents were asked whether they agreed with president Nawrocki's proposal that a parent with 2 children, whose yearly income will not exceed PLN 140 thousand, would not pay income taxation at all.
Most of the respondents, due to the fact that 29.8% replied "decisively not", and 18.1 percent "preferably not". 25.5 and 22 percent of the people selected the answers "yes" and "yes" respectively. Another 4.6% did not have a circumstantial opinion.
So it turns out that the microscopic advantage (47.9% of respondents against, 47.5% for) has taxation opponents of Nawrocki's idea.
Even in the Law and Justice there is no unanimity
According to the editor of "Rzeczpospolita", the solution proposed by Nawrocki mainly supports the opposition electorate (PiS, Confederates, organization Together) – 67% of respondents. But 16 percent of this group of voters say taxation cuts are definitely not, and another 11 percent "preferably not". Among the PiS voters themselves, over 20% of respondents do not support taxation reductions.
It is not amazing that in a group of government coalition voters the clue is directed the another way around. "For" is 14 percent and against – 83 percent respondents.
It is interesting to see the opinion of people downloading 800+ for 2 or more children. In this group, 63 percent of respondents are behind Nawrocki's idea, but as much as 36 percent consider this task to be missed.
As "Rz" writes for people charging 800+ per child, it is 47 and 49 percent respectively. Similarly, they think (45 percent versus 50%) people who do not receive this benefit.
