Proposition 50K1054

Projet de loi modifiant l'article 104, 7°, du Code des impôts sur les revenus 1992.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Jan. 23, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax relief direct tax tax on income child care

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Marcel Hendrickx (Vooruit) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

Feb. 15, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Since my report is very concise, I do not think it is necessary to summarize it here. That is why I allow myself to refer to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the CVP supports the initiative to mitigate the costs of childcare.

For you, Mr. Minister, it is about promoting the active welfare state.We see this measure more broadly and in the first instance as a tool for conducting a more child-friendly policy. A child-friendly policy is independent of whether or not both parents work and the child is taken care of by an approved or non-approved childcare provider. The CVP believes that society should value the child more, which translates to the federal level by raising the financial resources for the benefit of the child. However, taxation is not the only way.

Mr. Minister, we will go deeper into this following the discussion of the tax reform – ⁇ that draft will be submitted in the coming weeks – but I tell you now that the CVP is in favour of a complete defiscalization of the child burden. After all, the personal taxes are an inefficient tool for social appreciation of the “child’s desire”. You also acknowledge this when you resort to the complex instrument of the tax credit in order to reach the children of parents with low incomes.

The CVP calls for the tax expenditure currently incurred for children to be converted into increases in child allowance. This also means a real simplification of the personal tax, which you should normally also support.

The debate on tax reform must go beyond the closed fiscal tower. There must be a social and fiscal reform plan. If the government fails to carry out the reform over the departments, initiatives will have to be taken in Parliament.

Surprisingly, the budget impact is not mentioned in the present draft. At a closer understanding, this is understandable. After all, the bill seems to be a huge step forward in terms of deductibility of the costs of authorized childcare, but in fact it is not really so. I explain myself more closely.

The daily price that Child and Family uses today is up to 632 francs. The deductibility for authorised childcare is and remains, however, limited to a maximum of 450 francs. The increase of the limit from 80% to 100% does not imply any change, since the current 80% of 632 francs is already 506 francs and is thus already above the current maximum amount of 450 francs. As a result, the deduction is limited to 450 francs. 100% of 632 francs is of course 632 francs, but this amount is also limited to 450 francs. In other words, nothing happens as soon as the amount exceeds 450 francs and approaches the usual rate of 632 francs.

The announcement in the bill to amend Article 62 of the Royal Decree, which is necessary because the 80% limit is also mentioned there, could provide a solution. After all, when taking that royal decree, the maximum limit of 450 francs can be modified according to wishes and thus increased, for example, to 632 francs. I would like to ask the Minister if he is effectively planning this.

Mr. Minister, I would like to remind you today of your promise to raise the age limit from 3 years to 12 years, if there is the budgetary space available for it. The increased prices for out-of-school childcare, due to the high quality requirements that are justified, justify this.

Finally, we should also better appreciate unrecognized childcare and home care. The rapporteur, Mr van Weddingen, made the same observation. The amended bill proposed by Mr. Leterme and myself is an ideal basis for this. I would like to draw attention to one of the articles from that bill and submit it as an amendment today.

The example of accountability for this amendment makes our wishes clear. Before the entry into force of the Royal Decree of 27 January 2000, the benefit of authorised childcare in favour of unrecognized childcare amounted to 24,600 francs. Following the royal decree of 27 January 2000, this gap deepened to 31,750 francs. Well, our amendment seeks to bridge this gap, at least in part. The difference between recognized and unrecognized childcare would then be only 19,250 francs.

I hope you agree with us that our children and those who educate them deserve better. After all, the quality of society can still be best measured by the way our society deals with its children. I therefore call on you to approve the draft law including the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, allow me to express the indignation of a member of Parliament here.

For a year, I have been deeply concerned with the problem of childcare and the recipient parents. I have formulated a series of legislative proposals on this subject. A number of adjustments must be made not only on the fiscal level, but also in the social legislation. Their

I must have found that the ideas that we then developed from my group were very quickly hijacked by the Minister of Social Affairs, who gave them their own colour, but essentially took his inspiration from our proposals regarding the status of the recipient parents. Until then. If that causes a certain movement to come into a file, I can live with it.

The fiscal aspect of the problem, on which the People’s Union had submitted a bill, was discussed in the Finance Committee before the summer holiday. Although the minister found it an intriguing proposal, he requested a postponement and promised to re-examine the problem after the recess. As a basic text, our bill would be used. A few weeks ago, the proposal was again discussed in the competent committee. The Minister replied again that some aspects still need to be examined but that the problem would be settled on the basis of the bill submitted by my group.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, you will not be sorry for me that I have been following parliamentary work a little less closely in the last few weeks. But what am I fixing?! On 23 January, the Minister submits a draft law that is substantially exactly consistent with our bill. The draft will be approved by the Commission on 30 January. Today it is scheduled.

With the content of the design, I have no problem. I agree with Mr Dirk Pieters’s observations on the abolition of the limit of 450 francs. If this does not happen, it is pure Kafka. Unfortunately, this has not yet entered the sector. It is believed that after the approval of the design the full deductibility has been acquired. Quod not. There is still a missing important point. The extension to 3- to 12-year-olds is also not realised. Following our text, it was encouraged that this extension could not be carried out at once but in phases. You will only be the parent who always comes alongside the prices because your child does not fall within the scope of the law! I agree that there is no expansion. I suspect that this extension will reappear in some draft law and that parliamentary work will be put aside. The ideas that circulate in the Parliament are taken over to be able to put the plugs on the hat themselves.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, let it be clear that I do not have a problem with the fact that a majority is a majority and that the majority draws the leaves and submits proposals as bills. However, the government should play fair play and not do or know nothing when the bills are discussed. It is better for the government to openly state that the discussion should not be initiated because it wishes to resolve the problem through its majority. This is fair play with Parliament. With the current approach, every form of parliamentary initiative is fooled. When I express my anger today, it is not because my name has to be printed in cows of letters on the proposal, but because I want to show that the government is taking a walk with the Parliament.

Mr. Minister, let me tell you that Article 3 of the project surprised me somewhat. This Act shall enter into force from the tax year 2001. I have rarely seen a law come into force during the tax exercise in question. I suppose you will give us some clarification regarding the legislation.

First, I will answer your last question. In fiscal matters, this is often the case. Income from the 2000 fiscal year, i.e. the 2001 fiscal year, is concerned.

We have sometimes specified, for other texts, that they entered into force from the following financial year, the financial year 2002, i.e. the income of this year. That is why, Mr. Speaker, the urgency in how to proceed is justified.

I would like to answer the question of Mr Borginon. This is not a new proposal. The decision was already taken during the social consultation of March and April 2000. It is not just about the increase by an amount of 345 Belgian Francs to 450 Belgian Francs. There is also the abolition of the percentage of 80%.

The case is urgent for the 2001 attack year. I asked for a decision in the committee. On 30 January 2001, the committee convened a meeting on this subject. A draft was proposed, but there was no one to ask for a discussion of the proposal. There is now a correct application of the relationship between the government and the Parliament. It is only one of three or four technical adjustments related to this problem. First there was an increase in the amount, now there is the abolition of the percentage. However, I am willing to conduct a more general discussion on the duration of 3 or 12 years or on other matters, based on legislative proposals. I have no problem with this evolution. It also supported the elimination of discrimination between cohabitants and married couples. It is normal that decisions are also taken on the basis of bills and not only on the basis of bills.

In this case, however, it is urgent. The decision was already made in March or April 2000. Furthermore, no comments were made in the committee of 30 January 2001. We must continue this decision. Per ⁇ somebody from your group should come to the committee.

Mr van Weddingen, it is stated in your report that Articles 2 to 4 are adopted. The project consists of only three articles. Accordingly, Articles 2 and 3 have been adopted.

I would like to answer the Minister briefly.

First, my proposals were already in the spring of 2000. They were printed a little later because they were so comprehensive that they continued to hang in the translation. Until then, however, these proposals have circulated extensively in the sector.

Second, if you argue that the case is urgent, I can understand this. On 23 or 16 January, the second proposal was discussed in the committee. If a proposal is discussed in a committee on 23 January and a bill is submitted on 23 January that deals with the same subject, the argument does not support that the proposal of 23 January was not scheduled on 30 January.

Mr. Speaker, for such a bill, I must follow a budgetary budgetary procedure with the inspection of Finance. There should be an opinion from the State Council, whatever happened. On January 30, I was in the committee again. It was perfectly possible to follow a different procedure, but it is urgent now that the State Council has given advice and after approval by the budgetary authorities. For further steps in the same direction - so with 3 or 12 years - it is perfectly possible to deliver good work based on legislative proposals.

General discussion is closed. The general discussion is closed.