Proposition 50K1075

Projet de loi modifiant l'article 470 du Code des impôts sur les revenus 1992 en vue d'améliorer les finances communales.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Daniel Bacquelaine
Open Vld Filip Anthuenis
PS | SP Charles Janssens
Vooruit Jan Peeters

Submission date

Feb. 1, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

direct tax tax on income local tax

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V N-VA FN VB

Abstained from voting

LE

Party dissidents ¶

• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) voted to reject.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.
• Géraldine Pelzer-Salandra (Ecolo) 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 ¶

July 17, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr President Mr. Eric van Weddingen refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the legislative power seems to again give in to the executive power. The Senate unanimously approved the proposal of Senator Lizin, even though the Minister of Finance opposed it. The Minister of Finance apparently did not succumb to that defeat in the Senate. Now he gets his sense because a double majority follows him in the Chamber. However, a key party chairman and many speakers in the debate have presented sufficient arguments for the abolition of the 3% of collection costs. However, the decision is discouraging. The reflective senators currently score higher on the revaluation of Parliament than their colleagues in this hemisphere. Hopefully, the Senate will have the courage to start the battle again and resolve it again in its own favor.

The reasons for the government and the majority in the committee to amend Senator Lizin’s proposal, which became the bill, were the cost for the federal government and the necessary fee that municipalities must pay for that federal service. Such services should not be provided for free. There can therefore be no abolition, but a reduction of the percentage. In addition, it was narrowed about the budgetary irresponsibility of the Senate. However, the colleagues in the Senate had done their homework on this point just as well. They justified that the federal state can morally not claim that extra 3% because the federal state is already generously pre-financed by the municipalities.

How does the system of transfers to the municipalities interfere? The transfers take place only four months after the effective settlement of the ticket. However, the federal state receives most of the additional municipal personal tax much earlier. In fact, approximately 60 billion of the 70 billion francs are collected through the corporate advance tax roughly two years before the subsequent transfer to the municipalities. The Treasury has 60 billion francs for two years. That money belongs to the municipalities. The treasury should get less. Investing 60 billion francs at, for example, 7% would yield 4.2 billion francs annually. Two-year pre-financing is therefore equivalent to 8.5 billion francs of interest saved by the federal state. On the other hand, the municipalities do not have those 8.5 billion francs. That is approximately 12% of the total additional municipal personal tax and as much as four times the 3% collection costs that the municipalities above still have to pay.

The Minister argued that the collection costs should continue to exist as a fair remuneration because there must necessarily be a link with that service to the municipalities. Conversely, municipalities would also be able to invoice a lot at the federal address. Who reimburses the municipal services concerning, among other things, identity cards, passports, driving licenses, agricultural counts, police policy and security policy? Not the federal government, I think. Furthermore, that principle should then be extended to the invoicing of the services provided by the municipalities for the communities and the regions.

But no, the necessary invoicing is only invoked in this file. If the federal government calls for just return, we would like to talk about all the revenue it enjoys when the municipalities hire more staff, make more purchases and invest more, this through VAT and other channels. The Association of Flemish Cities and Municipalities rightly advocates for a wider financial response, both due to the federal state and of the communities and regions, as compensation for the additional tasks or financial burdens imposed on the municipalities. Obviously, this plays a lot more for the Communities and the Regions and, above all, legitimates a strong increase in the municipal fund. However, it is also really relevant federally. In the meantime, it is clear that the police reform, despite all previous promises, will cost a lot of money to the municipalities who want to maintain the quality of their services at the previous level. Not only does the Mammoet Act require additional personnel that the federal subsidies do not take into account, there is also nothing of a free transfer of casernes for the housing of the police. In short, the proposed gradual reduction of the retention for administrative expenses — cost to the state treasury 1.4 billion francs in 2003 — does not offset the burden imposed by the federal government on the municipalities. As a result of the recent increase in the bets of mayors and farmers, the State will be able to collect up to 850 million francs of additional tax revenues. The net cost of what is now put forward for voting is, therefore, for the federal government only 550 million francs. Compare this amount to the 8.5 billion francs resulting from pre-financing by the municipalities. The state of municipal finances is serious. Between 1990 and 2000, the share of tax receipts in the total incomes of the municipalities in Flanders increased by an average of 10%, notably from 36.6% in 1990 to 46.7% in 2000. Revenue from grants and funds, on the other hand, decreased by 10% during the same period, from 46.9% to 37% in 2000. As a result, the incomes of the municipalities cannot keep pace with the expenditure resulting in structural deficits.

According to studies by the bank Dexia on the evolution of the municipal finances, in 1999 for all Belgian municipalities combined there was still a balanced balance of 12.6 billion francs. This would evolve in 2006 to a total deficit of 56.8 billion francs. Many municipalities have already increased certain taxes this year. I support my argument with objective figures from the Association of Flemish Cities and Municipalities. The table discussed in the committee clearly shows that the average rate of the municipal supplementary tax on the personal tax increases from 6,59% in 2000 to 6,8% in 2001. This increase is stronger than normal, even compared to other years after the municipal council elections. The table shows that even in the period 1988-2000 there has never been such a strong increase.

Regarding the average rate of real estate advance tax, another table shows the same evolution. Between 2000 and 2001, interest rates rose from 1074 to 1168, which is also higher than ever before. I believe that almost all municipalities are now obliged to raise their taxes. Despite the fact that the recent reform of the personal tax will only be felt within a few years, it will also involve a significant reduction in the additional tax on the personal tax at a cross-speed rate, insofar as the municipalities of course do not follow the cynical advice of the Minister of Finance to increase the rate of the additional tax. I estimate the impact of the reform on municipal finances at 8 to 9 billion francs. The delay in the payments of the National Institute for Disease and Invalidity Insurance has resulted in the municipalities prefinancing certain costs of the OCMW Hospitals and Resthouses.

The reform of public pensions, the increasing number of medical companies and other companies of self-employed and freelance professions, which reduces the taxable base, the reception of candidate-political refugees by the OCMWs, the support to foreigners in the regularization period, the liberation of the energy market, are examples of many other dossiers with a negative financial impact on the municipalities.

Finally, the federal subsidies for subsidized contracts, the SCOs, are also not increased, so municipalities need to contribute increasingly. Moreover, how many municipalities have already received money for their SCOs this year?

Dexia estimates the total negative financial impact of these measures by the municipalities from 2005-2006 to 60 to 70 billion francs annually. What does the minister and the majority say about this? The amended bill of Mr. Bacquelaine, which can largely be regarded as a vest-pocket-pocket operation because the State returns the amount of 850 million francs to the municipalities that it itself has collected from additional tax receipts as a result of the increase in the bets of the mayors and crews. In addition, the municipalities will receive only 550 million francs extra.

For the rest, you refer to the communities and the regions and cynically to the autonomy of the municipalities to raise their own rates. Indeed, Mr. Minister, also the regions should contribute to the health of the municipal finances through an increase in the municipal fund. However, I find it unheard of that the federal government makes its own very modest contribution of 550 million francs net dependent on the will or unwillingness of the communities and regions to also cross the bridge. Has this already been excluded? I refer to the report which prescribed the date of 13 July 2001.

In any case, the CVP group considers that Mr Bacquelaine’s amended proposal is largely insufficient because it does not meet the actual needs of the municipalities, even though something is better than nothing. The CVP group will therefore vote against this proposal in protest, unless common sense triumphs in the House – as at the time in the Senate – and the amendments submitted by us to abolish the 3% collection costs would still be accepted.

Mr Fournaux, I have found that you are making a remarkable progress in your knowledge of Dutch, with which I congratulate you. Would you agree to give the floor to Mrs. Moerman first? (the approval of)

Thank you for your courtesy, dear colleague.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, today, in accordance with the provisions of Article 470 of the Income Tax Code of 1992 on the amount of additional taxes owed to the municipalities, a discount, a burden of 3%, is held for the reimbursement of the administrative costs to the Treasury. Mr. Pieters has already said that in the Senate a bill was adopted by Mrs. Lizin aiming at repealing Article 470 altogether. The author of the bill was of the opinion that this fee is not at all necessary to cover the costs of the Treasury for the execution of these operations. After all, the Treasury enters the municipal revenue in advance and in the corporate advance tax and the advance payments is included a flat-rate share of 6%. Since the municipalities are repaid with a delay of 15 to 18 months, when collecting the taxes collected, the State, according to this reasoning, is de facto thrown into the womb every year, which in fact already constitutes a sufficient compensation for its services to the local authorities.

In the Senate Committee, the Minister of Finance stated that in the 1999 fiscal year a sum of 2,118 billion francs was withheld out of a total of 69,056 billion francs that was passed on to the municipalities. The proposal was unanimously adopted in the Senate Committee by the nine members present.

In the Chamber Committee on Finance, it was decided to use as a starting point the text of the bill of Mr. Bacquelaine and consorts which provides for a reduction of that discount to 1%. Ultimately, the proposal was amended so that the discount will be reduced to 2% from 1 January of next year and to 1% the following year. Mr. Minister, I wonder what the meeting of that consultation committee on 13 July brought about. In the committee, you have announced that you would let your attitude depend on it.

What is our position on this? The VLD would have preferred the complete abolition of the 3% reduction but yet we have decided to support the reduction to 2% in 2002 and to 1% in 2003. We have several reasons for this. First, this government is also still subject to budgetary constraints. I don’t think one can urge the government to be budgetary cautious in the morning and then say in the afternoon, don’t look at it all and vote for those 3%. Second, it may be useful not to break the bond between municipalities and the federal tax administration. This can be important in case of any complaints about the late transfer to the municipalities of the taxes collected. Third, we support the intention of the Minister of Finance to establish within the High Council of Finance a new department that will be charged with the control of the transfer of the tax receipts collected by the federal government.

It would be very useful to have this new department conduct a study on the financial impact that decisions taken at the federal or regional level will have on the incomes and expenditure of municipalities and provinces. Indeed, it cannot be denied that local governments often face certain legal uncertainty and lack of clarity regarding the implications — including financial implications — of decisions taken by other levels of government. Earlier this year, the Association of Flemish Cities and Municipalities published a document in which, in a rather pessimistic way, forecasts were made for the coming years regarding the evolution of municipal finances. The VVSG emphasizes that, due to a convergence of circumstances and government measures, local governments will face immense financial challenges in the short and medium term and warns of the threat of a fairly general rise in local fiscal pressure.

However, the statement of the VVSG that local governments will face huge financial challenges in the short and medium term and that only additional measures by the federal and Flemish governments can prevent municipalities from having to raise their taxes drastically needs to be somewhat nuanced. In fact, it is also true that in recent years the municipal revenue has grown because high taxes at the federal level also result in higher incomes at the municipal level. In many cases, these municipalities have taken on more and more tasks, including voluntarily. If it turns out subsequently that the municipalities have not estimated the cost associated with the performance of those tasks sufficiently high, they should bear part of the responsibility for this. It is all too easy to shift all responsibility to the federal or regional government.

The VLD therefore urges – also to those cities and municipalities where the VLD is in the administrative majority – that the local governments adhere to the principle of tax stop. Where possible, municipal taxes should be replaced by remuneration, and all taxes whose collection costs exceed the income should be abolished anyway.

If certain decisions of higher governments to impose additional tasks on local governments result in an increase in expenditure for these governments, the VLD is of the opinion that the governments that impose these obligations should also provide for the necessary compensation for the local level. More governance is impossible without additional resources. In addition, where possible, the principle of intercommunal cooperation should also be applied as far as possible.

Finally, the VLD also believes that savings can be achieved by modernising debt management and by the mandatory application of a multiannual planning. The VLD is very hopeful that the proposed measure to move for the federal retention from three to one percent will be able to curb the wave of increases in municipal options since the last municipal council elections. Moreover, in the Flemish Region it was decided to use in part the additional resources made available to communities and regions in the context of the recent state reform to ensure a steady and constant increase in the financial resources of the Municipal Fund. According to the VLD, it would be even more effective to bring together the different funds to respond to the needs of the municipalities and to give the municipalities a greater grip on the allocation of the resources available within the framework of the administrations.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, what is proposed to us today is not a surprise for us since since the deposit of the program law and the debate that followed, in particular regarding our amendments concerning precisely the impact of this program on the financing of the municipalities, we have learned that the majority was preparing the deposit of a bill in order to relieve the budget of the municipalities by a reduction of the famous 3% tax on how the municipalities manage the taxation that belongs to the federal state. by

Mr. Minister, as it is sometimes necessary to tap the nail several times in order to be heard, I will repeat myself in order to be heard: we do not understand why what was good in the Senate has suddenly become bad in the House. Is it a question of the quality of the parliamentarians who are there or of political weight within the parties? In any case, as far as we are concerned, we try to put the senators and deputies on the same foot. Usually, what is decided in one of the rooms is also decided in the other. However, this is not the case here. This is the first element of surprise.

Another point you will be sure to pay attention to: we see a disinterest...

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fournaux, there is a difference in competence, including in budgetary matters. With a boutade I would say that it is not because the Senate invites the ladies Henin and Clijsters that Parliament should do the same.

I understand what you mean on the level of skills, but it is only in the Senate, I believe that the majority as well as the opposition had supported the project going in the direction of our amendments. But what was good in the Senate a few weeks ago is barely good here today. My second surprise is to see the little interest of the members of the majority, especially of the municipal socialist municipalists, in the problems we discuss this afternoon, namely the financing of communes. We find it shocking to hear the public statements of some parliamentarians of your majority, including group leaders such as Mr. Trump. Eerdekens, who systematically denounce the lack of resources of the communes and take action unilaterally by the governments, federal or regional, resulting in a negative impact on the financing of the communes, but which shine in their absence when it comes to defending the interests of the municipalities. This must be emphasized and recalled since we have already denounced this attitude.

Mr. Minister, Mr. Members of the Majority, faithful to our logic, we submitted the same amendment that was already submitted by the PSC at the vote on the loiprogram. It aims to eliminate the 3% federal state levy on the additional tax on natural persons. I will not recall what a CVP colleague said here regarding the impact on the municipal finances of some policies carried out by the federal government: the policy reform but also the tax reform will have negative consequences on the tax revenues of the municipalities. You are telling me that no, Mr. Minister, but I would be curious to hear your explanations in your reply sooner.

Mr. Minister, thank you for your accuracy. I may be wrong, but I want to believe that at an unchanged additional rate in each of our municipalities, the level of perception will decrease. So, to compensate for the loss of tax revenues at the level of the municipalities, they will have to, in respect of the autonomy of the tax pact or the tax stop, touch the rates of their additional cents. What is your tax reform going to do?

Mr Fournaux, when the State decided, pursuant to a proposal from a minister of your political formation, to no longer index the tax rates, the municipalities had the choice, in order not to increase the tax pressure, to decrease the additional ones. Many of them did not. They wanted to benefit from an increase in the tax pressure decided in the first place to another level. Similarly, when it came to index the real estate pre-count, the municipalities had the choice to reduce the additional to not change the tax pressure. In this regard, the communes are therefore totally autonomous but it should not be that the autonomous communes result in the impossibility for the State to decide on its own the level of the fees it wishes to organize. by

When the state increased taxes, as was the case for ten years under a majority you know well, the municipalities obviously had the choice of not accepting the repercussions in their own budget and to change their rates. Now that the State decides to operate in the opposite direction and to decrease the taxes on labour, I do not see how this leads to any harmful or positive consequences on the communes. The municipalities have total freedom to determine the level of their additional cents. Nevertheless, it is surprising to see that, according to the times, communal autonomy is promoted to demand that no decision be intervened at other levels of power. Here, because this is a tax measure, this autonomy seems to be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, abstract and theoretically, the Minister’s reasoning could be correct from the point of view of the autonomy of the different levels of government. The minister now points out that municipalities can autonomously reduce or increase their tax rates, depending on the narrowing or expanding of the base of their income. However, we are confronted with a government policy that at the same time, while the minister holds this discourse here, continually shifts tasks to the municipal governments. I remember recently seeing and hearing a House Chairman on the TV station AVS. He complained that the police reform per municipality in a four-community police zone in the Flemish Ardennes meant millions of additional costs for each of the municipalities. The discourse you hold here sounds sympathetic, theoretical and abstract, had you not been part of a majority and a government that at the same time shifts burdens to the municipalities. The police reform is an example of this. Mr. Pieters has excellently given other examples of this.

Mr. Fournaux asked a specific question concerning the tax reform. I gave a specific answer. This is not a theoretical, but a very concrete answer, with consequences in terms of amounts. I will also give a concrete answer in connection with other charges. Take the police reform so far. What are the costs for municipalities this year? On the contrary, we have already made an effort by some new transfers of amounts from the federal state to the municipalities. After Mr Fournaux’ intervention, I will answer further, but now it was a specific question related to the fiscal reform. There was a specific answer, not a theoretical and abstract answer.

Tomorrow we will be discussing the police.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, as regards the chapter on police, I also refer to the debate of tomorrow. Their

Mr. Fournaux, however, will allow me to ask the minister if he is really politically naive. After all, while he would like to elaborate himself with his plan for tax reform, which leads to lower taxes for the citizen, he knows very well that the municipalities that must raise their rates — even though he weaves a beautiful story around it — of course not the Sinterklaas in the eyes of their citizens, but clearly the Zwarte Piet. Their

Mr. Minister, you can only play Sinterklaas because you do not want to take into account that the impact on the municipalities actually requires compensation on another level.

It is perfectly possible for a municipality to reduce the tax pressure on labor. It is also a political choice.

Mr. Speaker, we should not confuse the policy reform, if it is only one day, we will be accountable for the actual impact of this reform. We will talk about it tomorrow. On the specific problem of the political choice of taxation to be applied in each municipality, Mr. Minister, can I first ask you not to generalize? Some municipalities, in recent years, including mine – I’m proud of it – have reduced their tax rates. I think that as much as the federal state must, through its policy, be respectful of the municipal autonomy, so much must we be the self-government of the federal state to work on its taxation.

But of two things one, if your reasoning is correct, that is, that the municipalities will be able to decide to follow the movement launched by the federal state or to compensate for it; in this case, it will be appropriate to renegotiate, at the level of the regions, the famous problem of the fiscal pact, since some municipalities will find themselves prevented from raising their tax rates to organize the compensation, compared to the decrease you intend. by

Some municipalities have already broken the fiscal pact to raise their tax rates before the reduction you anticipate comes into effect, or before the real impact of the reform. These communes are already working on an increase in the local tax, violating the fiscal pact, and when the minister of custody, the son of whom you know, tries to prevent the communes from acting in this way, these same communes address the Council of State, in particular that of Mr. G. by Eerdekens. Everything leads to the belief that these municipalities will gain cause in the State Council. Therefore, the reasoning we hold is as follows: No matter how praiseful your policy is, in the event of cumulation of it and measures taken by the federal government, especially in the field of policy reform, the impact for the citizen will not only be zero but in the long run, we will be moving towards an increase in the tax rate, whose responsibility will be borne not to the federal state, which will safeguard its image as usual, but to each municipality that will have no choice but to increase the local tax. So what you are proposing today in terms of tax reform and here in terms of aid to municipalities is nothing but a deception and sooner or later you will have to assume the consequences.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Collega Pieters has already, in his well-known excellent way, made clear the position of our group. I would like to add another four points.

Ms. Moerman just said that it is inconsistent that the CVP urges budgetary caution in the committees for Budget and Finance in the afternoon and wants to reduce certain additional expenditure, while the CVP causes additional expenditure after the afternoon in respect of the withholding of tax revenues to be transferred to the municipalities. I would like to correct Mrs. Moerman. It is not because we insist on budgetary prudence — something that is more necessary than ever given the budgetary situation of our country — that we as the opposition should not put alternative emphasis on spending.

We are making different choices than the majority parties. I have no problem with acknowledging that we are effectively making different choices regarding budgetary control. For example, we would not allocate an additional 500 million francs to the European Presidency and at the same time save 1 billion francs on rest homes, on the back of the elderly. The current choice is a choice for more luxury and more display, something that also acts provocatively on the protesters who already announce themselves for the European meetings in our country. We would indeed make other choices. We would not treat the elderly in the intramural old-age care so heartlessly.

Mr. Speaker, whatever the Minister attempts to do, the evidence of Mr. Pieters remains standing. In the committee, he also cited evidence based on documents from the Flemish Association of Cities and Municipalities. The VVSG is a pluralist organization whose management bodies are composed of politicians of different backgrounds. Do you doubt that, Mr. Minister? In the governing bodies of the VVSG, do colleagues from the liberal, the socialist, the green group sit?

Mr. Minister, Mr. Pieters has used the documents of this pluralist institution in his striking evidence presentation in the Committee on Finance and Budget. So you can no longer argue that two years of purple-green government, on the Flemish level supplemented by the People's Union, has led to an increase in the burdens of the municipal governments. All parties agree on this. Even the House Chairman has recently expressed himself in very clear terms. Of course, you’re trying to create the image of a federal government that reduces taxes, but in practice that’s not the case. I do not want to repeat the debate of two weeks ago here, but you will only return a fraction of what you have already collected to surplus revenues during the previous two years.

Mr. Minister, do not make illusions, the people realize that although the federal government, the federal minister of finance, and the liberal faction say “thanks to them we are reducing taxes”, the fiscal pressure does not decrease. When point by point comes, and when people make their accounts, they will see that the balance between the almost simultaneous federal tax and the additional charges imposed through the municipalities is negative. This also applies to municipal governments held by majority mandators, including liberal mandators. When you are faced with that reality, the credibility of your statements and those of your fellow spirits about the so-called burden reduction will prove to be hollow.

Mr. Speaker, the last point I would like to point out is in the extension of what colleague Moerman has already put forward. This point has been discussed since the debate on the federal, regional, provincial and municipal task distribution, and especially on the financial burden distribution between those different levels of government, so for several months. It concerns the entire problem of monitoring the budgetary and fiscal impact by the municipal governments of the federal or Flemish measures. I take the freedom to make some critical comments in the context of the current discussions on a number of objectives of the policy, both at the level of the Flemish Region and at the federal level.

Mr. Minister, I have spoken more specifically about the "belfort", a kind of observatory that should follow the municipal finances according to the proposals of Flemish Minister Stevaert. I am also talking about your intention to commission the Finance Needs Department of the High Council for Finance to monitor this matter, namely the impact of federal decisions on municipal governments.

In this regard, I would like to formulate four critical comments.

First, I assume that the additional contract can only be assigned to the High Council for Finance, the financing needs department, if it is strengthened both in terms of personnel and equipment. After all, it would not be logical if the financing needs department of the High Council for Finance received this important assignment without having additional manpower and additional resources, unless the Minister does not take that assignment seriously and shifts away to the High Council, hoping that nothing more will come out of it. Moreover, last week, at the vote on the draft law relating to the Silver Fund, the financing needs department, and the High Council for Finance in general, already received an additional assignment, more specifically within the framework of the annual opinion to be given on the Silver Note, which will determine each year how many funds will be transferred fictitiously to the Silver Fund.

A second point of criticism is the Minister’s intention to charge the High Council for Finance financing department with the follow-up, monitoring, of the financial relations between federal government, provinces and municipalities. The problem in this area is the acquisition of information. It is obvious that in order to be able to provide a well-founded, thorough advice, the Finance Needs Department of the High Council for Finance must have information. Well, both under the Municipal Credit, now Dexia, which is well placed to have direct access to it, as well as pilot-finding, among other things by the High Council for Finance, it is not so obvious to quickly and accurately obtain information from the annual approved budgets at the municipal level. Their

Of course, the financial and fiscal decisions taken in the field are a condition sine qua non for the Financial Needs Department of the High Council for Finance to be able to give an objective, well-founded and scientifically-founded advice on this subject. In this regard, first and foremost, a statistical problem arises for which the High Council for Finance is currently not well equipped. Per ⁇ it would be appropriate to hold, for example, the Institute for National Accounts, over which the minister also has some competence, accountable for this. It seems to me even appropriate, when it comes to making predictions concerning the evolution of the financial flows between the federal government, the municipalities and the provinces, to examine whether the Federal Planning Bureau — over which the minister also has some authority — is not equally or even better placed to fulfill this task.

Mr. Speaker, my comments are limited to this, supplementing the remarks of Mr. Dirk Pieters.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, other speakers before me have pointed out that the proposal that was accepted by the committee is not that which came to us from the Senate and which, after being adopted there, appears to be called "project", since it had been adopted. This is proof that our two assemblies are fundamentally different; this has already been said today.

We sometimes have the obligation to deviate from ideal purity and face budgetary constraints. The House of Representatives is responsible for ensuring budgetary control and the proper use of the state money. The Senate, he, has other considerations, ⁇ more noble, higher. Each assembly must, in this respect, assume its own identity. This is why some of us have wanted to maintain the budget feasibility of this orientation, channelling it somehow and spreading it partially until 2003, so that we can ensure the compatibility of this benefit to the municipalities with the proper management of the state budget. by

From the beginning, in my proposal, I had ⁇ ined a rate of 1%, thus avoiding the overall removal of this levy. Why Why ? We thought it was useful to maintain a link between the municipal revenue and the Ministry of Finance. In this regard, if communes sometimes want to claim the speed of payments or their correctness, it is useful that the service they receive from the State be remunerated by them in the form of a fee, so that they can assert their rights and have a dialogue of equal to equal. Without this levy, it could happen that the Minister of Finance, at a more or less distant time, says all of a sudden: "Ladies and gentlemen municipalists, collect your own taxes; it is no longer our matter; get it done." I think that at that time, the collection of taxes in full autonomy by the communes would ⁇ reflect the strengthening of the communal autonomy, but I think that the State would then again be accused of putting on the back of the communes new charges, since the organization by the communes themselves of the collection would probably cost more than that percentage. This service to the communes must therefore be ⁇ ined; and this with remuneration.

by Mr. Pieters says that the municipalities already fill a series of charges for the state. It is true. They have also claimed it. Since the independence of Belgium, the municipalities have claimed the possibility of filling certain charges they do not wish to get rid of. I think in particular of all the services of proximity, the services of the population and the civil status. These are the centuries-old tasks of the municipalities.

This is part of the mission of the municipalities. This is the whole difference between Jacobinism and decentralization and the proximity of community services to their population. So I think this is extremely important and I think we should not confuse all the debates on this subject.

Communal finances have often been mentioned and in particular the charges that would be placed on the back of communes by the federal power. I would like to remind you that the financing of municipalities is essentially the responsibility of the regions at present. We decided this clearly and almost unanimously. Regions, and in any case for the Walloon Region, have decided on a number of measures useful for the financing of the municipalities. Regarding the burdens against which the municipalities may consider that they increase as a result of policies generated by the federal state, it is not necessary to confuse everything.

by Mr. Fournaux, in his amendment, speaks in particular of the refugee policy. For the municipalities that have agreed to return within the framework of the measures proposed by the federal government in the field of refugee reception, that is, that have agreed to take their responsibilities in this regard, the situation is less costly for the municipalities today than the previous year and this in a very clear way. We can align all the figures and demonstrate that for the municipalities that have accepted a real policy of refugee reception and who have agreed to take care of this reception in housing and the management of refugees for which they receive 1,075 or 1,155 francs per day and per refugee, it is clear that this is obviously not a burden for the municipalities but rather a participation of the federal state in the financing of the reception of refugees in our country.

As far as the police reform is concerned, I will not stop talking about it today, as we will talk about it tomorrow and in particular about the impact of this reform on the municipal finances. The debate remains open and ⁇ we will have to maintain a vigilance of municipalists for municipalists, maintain an increased vigilance in this sector of activity. This debate will take place tomorrow and we will meet tomorrow to discuss it.

Everyone who is interested in the evolution of the communal finances knows that the origin of the difficulties of the communes lies essentially in the decisions of the municipalists that we have accepted. I think of the general revision of the barems: each municipalist accepted it in his municipality or did not, and here we also agreed to raise the treatments of the mayors and schevins. We must assume the consequences because an act is only truly political if it involves responsibility for what it proposes. The wage charges, including those of the mayors and schevins, are the main cause of the difficulties of the communes. All studies on municipal finances demonstrate this gladly. Everything else has a filmic effect compared to the increase in wage charges and I think it’s good to recall that.

I think that there is often confusion between the defence of municipal finances and that of some deficient or deficient municipal management. In this regard, I would like to have the courage sometimes to admit that we are in a post-election year, which followed a electoral year during which spending was incurred by some municipalities in a sometimes unconscious manner, for personal commitments or investments that exceeded financial capacity, and which were made in the year preceding the election. It is clear that every six years, we are in a post-election year with a number of difficulties in communes that are generated by some broadness or generous political visions that manifest a little before the elections. We must have the courage to acknowledge it without confusing everything, especially when we are in a period of budgetary approval, as at the moment, in most of our municipalities. And again we see that many municipal budgets were fake budgets.

I am ready for the public list of false municipal budgets to be established: out of the 582 municipalities in Belgium, how many false budgets are proven by the accounts? The gap between accounts and budgets shows that there are sometimes distortions in management. You should have the courage to acknowledge it.

There are 589 municipalities in Belgium.

I did not count Mr. President. He’s going to talk about it, because he’s going to talk about it.

Mr. President, as I said to Mr. It is important to avoid common particularities. by

We might be surprised, Mr. Deputy Mayor Bacquelaine: in any case, as far as I am concerned, I rejected the invitations to go to attend the departure of the Tour de France in Huy – common of the person who was the first to initiate in the Senate the debate on the subject we are discussing today. At that time, your party had supported this debate in the Senate. What makes us angry in this debate is the policy of "two discourses": on the one hand, mayors, including parliamentarians of the majority, who do not stop complaining, and on the other, a government that must assume its responsibilities.

Certainly, Mr. Bacquelaine, we could support, or even applaud, the first part of your speech, but do not sink into particularism! Otherwise, we would be forced to support Charles Michel who denounces this situation. I do not have the impression that this targets the municipalities of many parliamentarians from the opposition.

Mr. Fournaux, the Senate is the Senate; and we are us.

I have not mentioned any municipality in particular. I don’t understand what you mean when you talk about individuality. I think that we should not confuse the defense of the interests of the communes in our country with the defense of the obstruction of the Orthodox management. Otherwise, we will serve the municipalities that ensure good management. For my part, I think it would be a mistake and an encouragement, a "price" for mismanagement. Mr. Fournaux, you who are a good municipalist, should support this kind of speech.

As for the impact of the tax reform, I would say, “Excuse me?” Everyone who meets taxpayers in their municipality is obviously happy to talk about this tax reform and get the approval of their fellow citizens. For the first interest of each of the inhabitants of our communes is to be able to benefit from the income of their work in the widest possible way. by

This tax reform obviously benefits all inhabitants of our country and, as all inhabitants of our country are also inhabitants of our communes, I think that this reform is in favor of the communal interests.

In addition, I would also like to get out of the fetishism of rates. A rate is always, by definition, relative. What matters is what the taxpayers get out of their pockets, what they actually pay. by

Now, outside the tax reform and, before that, the elimination of the complementary contribution of the crisis, most taxpayers have already seen reduced by half what they pay in municipal taxes. When it is thought that municipal taxes are often 6%, only the removal of the additional crisis contribution (3%) represents a reduction of half of what most taxpayers pay as municipal taxes, without touching the municipal tax base.

As for the tax reform, assuming that the taxes are reduced by 10 or 15%, it is clear that if the rate remains the same, the decrease will translate in the same way. At that time, I assume that many municipalists will inform their fellow citizens that they participate in the reduction of taxation. If, on the other hand, they want to maintain the same municipal tax, it is enough that they increase the relative rate of their municipal tax by 10 to 15%.

I welcome this orientation to reduce municipal charges by 700 million in 2002 and by 1,4 billion in 2003. There are no two speeches, Mr. Fournaux. It goes in the same direction. There is simply, as I said at the beginning of the exposition, a compatibility between budget feasibility and the willingness to help municipalities face the financial difficulties they may encounter when they properly manage their budget. That is the advantage.

In this regard, I thank the Minister of Finance for the constructive dialogue and the spirit of openness he showed during the discussion in the Finance Committee on this subject. It is true that everything must be considered as a whole. When one is in charge of a state’s budget, the demands are numerous in all areas. He is happy that it is so. Everyone advocates improvements for all socio-professional categories and for all levels of power. It was not obvious that such significant budgetary resources could be used to help municipalities and I am delighted with this.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what is proposed here, but in a political debate it is also important to know who defends what. Until now, it was very important in Parliament to know who belongs to the majority and who belongs to the opposition. In some cases, there is also a clear distinction between the different parties. Within some parties it is also important to know to which state one belongs. However, on the basis of this debate and the various pleas that we have heard, I find that it is at least equally important to know whether the parliamentary member belongs to the municipalists or the non-municipalists. This is actually a confusion of interests that should be avoided completely.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, First of all, I would like to repeat exactly the same speech that I was able to deliver at the time of the debate in the Senate. Indeed, I have not changed my opinion between the beginning of the debate in the Senate and the conclusion of the discussions, here, in the plenary session of the House. by

First of all, it must be realized that the State effectively charges administrative costs to the communes for a small part of the taxes that the State collects on behalf of the communes. The 3% collected only apply to the additional taxes on natural persons. Nothing is planned for other levies, including real estate advance. by

From the beginning, I say that it is possible to make an effort on the side of the State with regard to these administrative costs, but progressively – this is what is proposed today – and without abandoning the levy entirely. by Mr. Bacquelaine, on the other hand, very correctly explained the reasons that justify the maintenance of even a minimum levy, even of 1% in this matter. I have said this in the committee and in the plenary session of the Senate. - that the solution adopted was not acceptable in the head of government. I am pleased that the budget debate that was able to be conducted in the House committee, effectively made right to this view of things by programming a gradual reduction and keeping 1% of administrative costs. by

This is a first element. Therefore, the state will actually make an effort with respect to the municipalities. It will be in the order of 700 million next year, and 700 million additional the following year. This is not neutral at a time when a number of reforms are being evoked that could have an impact on municipalities, but that are not yet coming out of effect today. It is also sometimes quite paradoxical to hear at some times that the tax reform will have effects only very late and that, however, it should already be taken into account today in the municipal budgets.

In general, I would like to add two additional elements. by

I have already mentioned the first element. The tax reform has no direct effect on municipal revenue. I repeat, it is the responsibility of the communes to set the additional ones quite freely, in full autonomy. And I hope that a large number of municipalities will accompany the movement to reduce the tax pressure on the work decided at the federal level. One cannot, in an assembly like this, advocate for the reduction of the tax pressure on work and, in another context (the communal context), advocate for the maintenance of this pressure or for an aggravation. We need to be consistent in the various assemblies we participate in. by

The second aspect concerns the efforts already made. I would like to remind you that since the entry into office of the current government, we have mostly wanted to help the communes by speeding up, first of all, the repayment of debts, of the backward ones that were always at the expense of the State in the direction of the communes. When I took over the charge of the Department of Finance, more than 14 billion francs were still owed to the communes. All of this was repayed in an accelerated way to complete this repayment at the beginning of this year. When I read — we will probably return to it — in one or another amendment that the State retains tax revenues for several months and, therefore, enjoys an interest in those revenues, it is totally false. Tax revenue can only be identified at the time of role-extracted warnings. This year, we even went in the opposite direction since the state has granted advances to the municipalities without calculating charges on these advances. We naturally recovered the amount in subsequent payments, but we opted for an advance to the municipalities. Therefore, let us be clear when we look at the relations between the state and the municipalities.

There is also an agreement with the committee regarding the financing of the municipalities. First, there is a reduction in administrative costs from 3 to 2 and later to 1%. It is also decided to create a new section of the High Council for Finance. Thus, it will be a fourth department responsible for the transfer between the federal government and the municipalities. We must therefore evolve into an audit with a fourth division of the High Council for Finance. This includes the control of transfers from the federal government to the municipalities. It is impossible to carry out such control between regions and municipalities.

So there is only an agreement on the transfer of the federal government to the municipalities. However, there is no agreement to have the fourth department conduct a study on the impact of some decisions at federal and regional levels on municipalities.

Mr. Pieters, this is a response to your question and to that of Mrs. Moerman.

I think that with the text that is submitted to you today, we are moving toward a first intervention on the part of the State in relation to the communes. by

The Conciliation Committee requested that the regions provide the same effort, which is generally the case through exceptional interventions of the regions to come in aid to municipal finances during this year.

I think I can say in a realistic way that if the House adopts the proposal, it will come to the aid of the communes, taking into account the budgetary prudence that must be ours, prudence that has justified a new budgetary control, in recent days, at the level of the federal state.

General discussion is closed. The general discussion is closed.