Proposition 50K0781

Projet de loi portant suppression progressive de la contribution complémentaire de crise sur les revenus des personnes physiques.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

July 3, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

direct tax tax on income

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 6, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I apologize for this exclusively oral report which will be a little longer than usual. Our committee examined this project during its meetings on 4 and 5 July. In his presentation, the Minister of Finance indicates that the submitted project is part of the implementation of the government statement that provides for a gradual reduction of the fiscal and para-fiscal pressure. It recalls that the gradual abolition of the CCC was initiated by the Law of 24 December 1999 for the lowest income and was limited to the 2000 and 2001 fiscal years. The draft submitted concretizes the government’s commitment to continue and complete the complete elimination of the crisis complementary contribution in the field of natural persons tax and non-resident tax, the total elimination taking place for the 2003 income. The Minister of Finance highlights the positive effects on the economy of this abolition and refers to the 2000-2005 economic outlook of the Plan Bureau, which credits the abolition of CCC a 0.2% increase in growth and an increase in employment of 3,700 units. The reduction of the contribution will be reflected in the pre-count from the income of 2001 to reach a full integration in 2003. During the general discussion, Mr. Pieters highlights the lack of consistency in the dismantling procedure. He pledges for the removal in a single time and questions the reasons for ⁇ ⁇ ining the contribution. Furthermore, according to him, the gradual dismantling of the contribution creates additional discrimination against married couples and he submits an amendment aimed at doubling, for married couples, the amounts of taxable income overall provided for in Article 2. Your rapporteur welcomes the implementation of the government’s commitment to completely eliminate CCC at the latest for 2003 revenue. He insists that the integration into the pre-accounts should be as complete and quick as possible, based on the unequivocal opinion of the State Council. Otherwise, reasonable appeals could be brought. He regrets that the acceleration of growth did not have a logical effect of accelerating dismantling, with a complementary positive effect of simplifying texts. He is surprised and regrets the back guard struggle carried out by several coalition parties, which prevented the acceleration of dismantling and ⁇ ined the corporate tax contribution. by Mr. Borginon considers it logical to prioritize the dismantling of the complementary crisis contribution in periods of high economic conditions, but considers that the tax pressure cannot be reduced until it has been assured that the State has sufficient resources to carry out all its tasks at all levels of power. He criticizes discrimination, even temporary, against married couples and fears that the announced tax reform does not respect neutrality in life choices. Moreover, he would have preferred that the removal of the CCC be integrated into the future reform. by Mr. Viseur believes that, if Belgium has come out of the economic crisis, it is not the same on the social and budgetary level. Unemployment and the number of minimexes remain high in some regions and our public debt still stands at 111% of GDP. He thus considers it normal to proceed gradually and not at once to remove the CCC and welcomes that the government has started with the lowest incomes. It draws the government’s attention to the fate of persons whose income does not reach the taxable minimum and for whom other measures should be taken. by Mr. Poncelet considers it logical to remove the CCC given the very favorable evolution of the economic situation. Since this tax has been introduced once, it seems more logical to remove it once too. He asks for clarifications on the impact of the decrease in pre-accounts and notes that the proposed measure is linear. Ms. Moerman welcomes the removal of the contribution even though she would have preferred it to be removed once. She points out how difficult it is to remove a tax when it has been introduced and notes that CCC will continue to be levied from corporate tax. In his response, the minister insists on the fact that our country today comes out of the crisis of its public finances. The commitment made to the European authorities to ⁇ fiscal balance in 2002 will already be achieved next year and ⁇ even by the end of this year. The dismantling measure anticipates the budget balance since the removal will be total for low-income people even before the date on which the government has committed to reaching that balance. He does not exclude any further acceleration of the dismantling of the contribution if a majority came out in this direction. Regarding corporate tax, the Minister recalls that the government has decided to give priority to the reduction of labor tax, and, for companies, to the reduction of social burdens in order to safeguard their competitiveness. In addition, a reform of the ISOC is planned and the Higher Finance Council has been commissioned to study a reduction in nominal rates as well as specific measures in favour of SMEs. Regarding the alleged discrimination against married couples, the Minister emphasizes the very transitory nature of the proposed measures, the issue being fully resolved in 2003 and already partially resolved in 2001 through the integration into the pre-accounts. In fact, from 2001, all taxpayers will benefit from a reduction of at least 1%, the following year, at least 2%, and the third year of the total, or 3%. The Minister undertakes to proceed in the same way in the framework of the future tax reform and to reflect as quickly as possible the impact of tax reductions in the calculation of the professional prepayment. The Minister concludes in response to Mr. Borginon argues that, since the crisis complementary contribution is a specific tax directly linked to the economic crisis, it will not have to be integrated into the taxpayer’s overall tax situation when it comes to assessing the impact of the tax reform compared to today. The proposal was approved by 11 votes and 2 abstentions. My personal speech will also be extremely brief, Mr. Speaker, given that I have already had the opportunity to speak several times on the same subject and that I think my point of view is known. First, I look forward to the fact that the government’s promise to completely eliminate the complementary crisis contribution for all taxpayers/physical persons is already realised by a law. Many in the opposition thought, not so long ago, that this law would never come. Secondly, like everyone else, I witnessed the back guard struggle conducted by several coalition parties: this struggle against logic and legislative simplification disappointed me. I will not say more here. Thirdly, the essential is realized since the CCC will disappear and that the barem of the pre-count will take into account, in spite of otherwise justified appeals if we did not, should I introduce one myself. Finally, come back to September for the comprehensive reform of the IPP and the reduction of the nominal rate of corporate tax, tax that has not benefited from the dismantling of the CCC, and whose rate is the highest compared to our main economic competitors.

I have to correct you in my introduction. The design in question arrived in our banks on 4 July at 9.50 a.m. You referred to July 3. The Minister can confirm that the draft law has been rounded up ten minutes before the start of the discussion. This says more about the work of the government than about the work of the Chamber. First, the CVP Chamber Faction will support and approve this draft. Mainly thanks to the policies of the previous coalition, there has been an improvement in the economic situation that allows the reduction of the additional crisis contribution. The current Minister of Finance claims, contrary to what he previously said from the opposition, that the crisis is over only for the natural persons. For companies, the crisis is not over. Mr. Van Weddingen, in this regard, I would not make myself too many illusions. Secondly, I would like to explain the amendment we are submitting to this plenary session. After a comprehensive and substantiated explanation from Mr. Pieters, we have seen this amendment rejected by a bitter majority. This amendment aims to inform the House and the public opinion in our country of the position of this majority with regard to the dossier of the discrimination against married persons, including on taxation. This is the second time in a year that this majority does nothing about the tax discrimination of married people. On the contrary, the case is worsening. The first element was the fact that the limited increase of the tax-free minimum of 1000 Belgian francs as decided and implemented in the 1999 budget was not renewed in 2000. That was the first time that the government denied its own government agreement in the case of the legitimate questions of married couples on the elimination of tax discrimination. The second element is the way in which the gradual reduction of this additional crisis contribution to the income of natural persons is organised. The government is introducing a new tax discrimination against married couples. The crisis tax is levied on the jointly taxable income. The fact that the phased abolition of this crisis tax is linked to the level of the jointly taxable income is, of course, severely detrimental to married couples. Instead of promoting the abolition of tax discrimination, as envisaged in the Government Agreement and to which we strive, this phase-by-phase reduction increases this tax discrimination. I give an example. When two people hic et nunc, each with an employment income of 750,000 francs, decide to marry next year, they see their crisis contribution increasing at the time they marry. For the 2001 income year, the 2002 income year, they no longer pay any additional crisis contribution. For the 2002 income year, the 2003 income year, as married, they pay again from 0 to 1% crisis contribution. This construction is unacceptable to us, not for reasons of complexity as Mr. van Weddingen has noted, but because it reinforces tax discrimination to the detriment of the married. With this amendment, we would like to advocate a doubling of the eligible taxable income for married persons. By our proposal, married and cohabiting persons would also be treated equally in the reduction of the crisis tax. Here is the explanation of our position and the amendment. Finally, I would like to emphasize the judgment that Mr. Van Weddingen just made. In unmistakable terms, he pointed out a problem in the coalition and the lack of cohesion with regard to this bill. I quote Mr Van Weddingen in Dutch. He talked about the backbone fight. Mr. Tavernier, it is clear that this was aimed at his coalition partners. This is a sign of the lack of cohesion that this majority exhibits. That leaves the worst presumption for the global tax reform that has been announced with much poeha for so many months now. I would like to say to Mr Van Weddingen and the socialist colleagues, but especially to the green colleagues: fasten seat belts. We will be very interested to see how you will try to propose a presentable tax reform from your various points of view and with back-to-back struggles.

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Van Weddingen for his short and quick report, this is true, but nevertheless complete. I thought I would recall most of what was said in the committee. The CCC will be dismantled: this is so much better, because nobody likes to pay taxes when it’s not necessary. It is normal to dismantle this CCC since the next budgets will be balanced. This is what should be done but not what should be done at once: the logic, I think, is to dismantle the complementary crisis contribution as the debt is dismantled, at least the excess debt, since it will never reach zero. However, gradually, we can remove this CCC. One cannot do it at once because today, there are still 10 trillion public debt in Belgium, which represents about 1 million per capita. A newborn in our country symbolically carries a debt of one million on its shoulders, and 10,000 billion represents more than 100% of the GDP. If the economic crisis is effectively resolved and if the financial crisis is on its way to be, we must not forget – as the rapporteur has also recalled – that the other crises, social and environmental, are not. The social crisis still exists at different levels depending on the regions, but it must be resolved everywhere and, for this, it will need to create resources. The environmental crisis is also unresolved. Based on the forecasts of the Plan Bureau, our commitments to Kyoto are not fulfilled. So we also need means to solve such social problems because they are as important as debt. It was necessary to start dismantling this contribution from the lowest incomes. That is what was done. This is the right path that is taken and so we will vote for this project, like the Liberals and Socialists. I would like to point out Mr. Later than cohesion, it is at the moment of the vote that one can judge it and not at other times, through newspaper articles.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. However, I would like to emphasize that we can only be pleased with this bill. This measure continues the reduction of the crisis tax, which was initiated by the Act of 24 December 1999. Now we are presented with a complete, legal timetable for the complete disappearance of the additional crisis contribution to the income of natural persons in the financial year 2004. Skeptics who were not satisfied with the government’s promise in the autumn of 1999 are thus forever cut off. Furthermore, this gradual reduction from the 2001 income will also be reflected in the advance duties. I want to hear a critical note. Mr. Leterme will probably see this as a lack of cohesion. However, it is not. This documentation once again proves abundantly that the abolition of a punctual tax, which was introduced to cope with a particular situation, is rarely accompanied by the same speed and completeness as its implementation. I am speaking in particular about ⁇ ining the additional crisis contribution for companies, although we must situate this in a set of measures already taken to improve the business environment. As a liberal, I can only say that this is the proof that one must not think twice but many times before introducing a tax because one is very difficult to get rid of it. Mr. Minister, we will approve this draft pending your proposals on a comprehensive fiscal reform in autumn.