Proposition 50K1270

Projet de loi portant réforme de l'impôt des personnes physiques.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

May 28, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

personal income tax direct tax tax on income

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V LE N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.
• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) 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 4, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, your committee examined this draft during its meetings on 6, 12, 19, 21, 25 and 27 June. The Minister of Finance first focused his presentation on the presentation of tables reasserting our fiscal pressure in its European context. Belgium holds the European record for total tax pressure, tax pressure on labour income and all tax and para-tax levies on labour.

The minister then showed that the gap between our over-debt and the European average is close to that of our over-taxation. Therefore, we can infer that the tax overload is largely due to our over-indebtedness. The debt reduction effort, undertaken in the mid-1990s and accelerated by the 2001-2005 Stability Program, can and must lead to a parallel reduction of the excessive tax burden.

The Minister clarified that the government’s will is good to program this reduction in six stages: – 1°. “Stop” tax; – 2° indexation of the barems; - 3°. elimination of the complementary contribution of crisis; - 4°. Reduction of the professional pre-count; - 5°. Tax reform – 6th. Tax convergence with neighboring countries.

The fifth step is implemented by this project, which is based on four main axes: - 1°. reduction of the tax pressure on the income of labour; - 2°. Neutrality in relation to life choices; 3. Improving the care of children; 4. More environmentally friendly taxation.

The Minister then highlights the various measures for implementing these four axes of the reform. I will limit myself here to list them in fourteen points: - 1°. the introduction of a tax credit for the lowest income; - 2°. improvement of the package for professional expenses; - 3°. reduction of the tax pressure on average income by a change in the scheme; - 4°. Abolition of tax rates of 55% and 52,5%; - 5°. new benefit in terms of costs of moving from home instead of work; - 6°. reimbursement of public transport costs; - 7°. alignment of the tax-exempt quota for married and isolated persons; - 8°. double tax reduction for pensions, pre-pensions and AMI benefits; - 9°. Decrease of income other than professional income; - 10°. granting the conjugal quota to legal cohabitants; - 11°. reimbursable reduction for dependent children; - 12° granting a supplementary reduction for single-parent families; - 13° increase of resources for children cared for isolated children; - 14° tax reduction for energy-saving investments.

The Minister then explains the progressive entry into force of the measures, all of which will be fully applicable to 2004 income, and announces that if the evolution of public finances allows, some measures could be accelerated by further integration into the professional pre-account.

In conclusion, the Minister insists on the importance of the reform, whose budget impact is estimated at 134.5 billion and which represents a reduction in the tax burden of 169 billion. It shows by a table that by adding the other tax measures already taken by this government, the decrease in tax pressure between 1999 and 2006 is considerable. Another table that the minister will provide later in the discussion shows a decrease of 10.8% in 2003 and 24.6% in 2006.

Finally, the Minister recalls the measures already taken in terms of deductibility of custody fees for children under 3 years old and hopes to soon be able to extend this benefit beyond this age.

Nineteen bills were attached to the examination of the draft. Eleven of them that would be too long to detail here were exposed by their authors, ⁇ MM. Leterme and Vanvelthoven and Mrs. Creyf. I would like to refer to these proposals as well as to the report.

The general discussion was quite thorough. I will try to keep in mind the main elements of the various interventions, without however being able to be exhaustive. I repeat them in the order in which they spoke in the committee. by

by Mr. Chabot expressed satisfaction with the project and ⁇ welcomed the tax neutrality in relation to the choice of life, the introduction of a tax credit for low-income and better child care. However, it is questioning the sustainability of the necessary budgetary resources. It is concerned about the rate of levy achieved for income immediately exceeding the ceiling to benefit from tax credit and contributions reductions. He acknowledges the removal of the two highest tax rates but regrets that the opportunity has not been seized to reconsider other benefits, notably in favor of stock options.

by Mr. Goyvaerts doubts that the reform will ⁇ the goal announced by the VLD of a 10% reduction of the tax pressure. He believes that due to a slowdown in economic growth, some measures scheduled for 2004 will never come into force. He believes that the moral choice that marriage constitutes continues to be sanctioned on the fiscal level.

Your rapporteur believes that the project meets the criteria for a successful tax reform and will have favorable economic repercussions. He recalls that the objective is to bring our tax pressure back to the European average and that, given the fiscal reforms ongoing in neighboring countries, this average continues to decline. He concludes that, despite the considerable effort to reduce the fiscal pressure made by this government, new initiatives will still need to be taken to ⁇ the set goal.

by Mr. Gobert emphasizes that the project makes several advances in the direction of tax justice, with the exception, however, of the abolition of the highest rates.

He insists on the need to effectively implement taxation through correct tax collection, which requires precise identification of sources of income.

by Mr. Vanvelthoven welcomes the reduction of the tax pressure on work operated by the project and recalls the measures already taken, in particular on the social level. He welcomes the introduction of a tax credit for low-income. However, it fears that the shift due to recruitment does not allow the benefit of the measure to be granted at the time when its beneficiary needs it most.

by Mr. Verherstraeten makes reservations on very specific issues relating to the children in charge of divorced persons, to the recovery of tax debts in the event of de facto separation in the year following the separation. It would also like to anticipate the benefit of the deductibility of food benefits.

by Mr. Tavernier believes that reducing taxes is not an end in itself and that even if no one likes to pay taxes, taxation is at the heart of our socio-economic system. However, since the gap in tax pressure compared to the European average is greater in terms of IPP, it makes sense to have started by reducing the labour tax. He even believes that a larger reduction could have been agreed on the condition of compensating it by the increase of other taxes. It cites ecofiscality, property tax and corporate tax. He regrets that the government has not made that choice. He also regrets that the reform does not propose a reduction in tax expenditure by applying baskets.

by Mr. Leterme considers that the impact of the tax reform should not be calculated beyond the term of the legislature and that its impact is then much smaller than announced. He is also surprised that the ecologist and socialist parties support a reform, in his eyes, too marked by the liberal philosophy. by

It follows a long exchange between members on the various social and environmental measures contained in the reform. He regrets that the project does not further simplify tax legislation and is surprised that there is no limitation of the various reductions. by

by Mr. Leterme is in favour of reducing the tax pressure on labour. However, it takes into account all measures of the project which it comments critically and formulates alternative proposals on the basis, in particular, of attached proposals submitted by its group. It does the same for the aspect relating to the neutrality of life choices, insisting on the aspect of discrimination against married couples, which it would like to see accelerated entry into force or to postpone to a little later the abolition of the highest marginal rates.

by Mr. Pinxten believes that the measure relating to the movements between the home and the place of work is insufficient and could reserve unpleasant surprises for the taxpayer. He also considers the reduction measure for insulation works too limited.

by Mr. Desimpel welcomes the project which, by its importance, will have very favorable repercussions on the evolution of our economy. He urges the government to quickly present a corporate tax reform.

by Mr. Poncelet is part of the legitimate concern to reduce the tax pressure and finds in the project many measures also formulated by its group. However, he is concerned about the budgetary consequences of the extent of the reform, to which the measures already taken need to be added. The impact of these measures seems unlikely in the long run, except to maintain a rate of growth of primary spending as restrictive as in the years 94 and subsequent.

As this rigour seems incompatible with current and future aspirations, he predicts painful budgetary arbitration. by

Finally Mr. Pieters is also questioning the feasibility of the budget given the other promises made by the government. For him, the problem will arise especially in the next legislature and will force the next government to cut spending. He is also concerned about the impact of the reform on municipal finances. Furthermore, it considers that the proposed measures to improve the accounting of costs related to children are very insufficient and recalls the proposals of its group in this regard.

During the discussion of articles, 26 amendments were submitted, of which 5 were adopted. I would like to refer to the report regarding this discussion.

The bill was adopted in second reading with 8 votes and 3 abstentions.

I will now give the floor to Mr. by Leterme. I will then give the floor to Mr. and Poncelet. by

I have the habit of taking into account language regimes and I always try, as far as possible, to ensure linguistic alternance. I also consider political parties. The honour is now in the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, first of all, I want to regret the little interest in this draft. It seems to me that the Flemish liberals – with the exception of the Chairman of the Chamber who is politically neutral for office reasons – are massively absent, as one man. Of course, the simultaneous holding of committee meetings is part of the statement. However, I am sorry, because this is a very important bill. From the opposition, I would like to communicate this to the minister, and the little interest gives a bad picture of our assembly. Today we have a local guest who is attending our work for the first time. Well, this mass absence gives a bad picture of our work and I regret this. Their

I now come to the core of the matter.

First and foremost, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr van Weddingen, for his report. He gave a very good synthesis of the yet quite extensive discussions. The Secretariat has also managed to deliver a very good report. As a colleague from the opposition, I would also like to point out here the important role that Mr. van Weddingen has played in the recent fiscal history of our country, either as a royal commissioner during the eighties or as an eminent member, I mean even as the chairman of the Committee for Finance, and an expert in the Senate. This important role is not always recognized.

In a first general presentation, I would like to anticipate a number of critical comments on the different components of the design. These include comments from my fellow politicians Pieters, Pinxten and D'Hondt, who will address a number of elements separately. My intention is to formulate a first general political stance on this draft.

The CVP, of course, has nothing against the principle of a tax reduction, nor against the principle of a tax reform. On the contrary, the fiscal sanitation of the 1990s and subsequent economic growth offers opportunities to reduce the excessive fiscal pressure in our country - which can be historically explained.

That pressure is indeed too high, but there are explanations for that. It took courage and intervention to restore the budget. At one time, group leaders of the then opposition talked about "la rage taxatoire". That "rough taxation" was sometimes needed to sanitize the budget and put it back on the right track. One could not expect all salvation from the abolition of spending and from the economic growth that was too low at that time. In principle, therefore, we are not opposed to a tax reduction, on the contrary: we would have moved to it too. For this reason and consistent with our previous statements, we had the courage and sense of responsibility quite soon after the beginning of the legislature — the minister will not deny us that — to submit a coherent legislative proposal ourselves. We didn’t wait for the government’s initiative to be technically prepared — for which all understanding — but we set ourselves vulnerably by putting ourselves on the table a coherent bill with clear choices in it. I am talking about that further. I would like to emphasize this in order to show that we are also in favour of tax cuts, but that we are consistent with previous criticisms to incorporate its budgetary impact into our budgetary discourse.

We are committed to budgetary objectives. It seems to me an element of responsibility and political courage to emphasize that our bill on budgetary cost price at cross-speed is less expensive than the bill we are called to discuss and that will be approved by a number of colleagues, which at least the minister can hope. The method used in dealing with this important matter seems to me to be an example of how the role of an opposition faction can be fulfilled, namely, itself offensively and transparently putting on the table an alternative, which consistently defends and on the basis thereof determines the attitude towards the government initiatives. To be honest, I must add that some of our proposals have been taken over by the government and the majority and will therefore be approved. I do not mention them, they are mentioned in the report.

Nevertheless, I fall with the door into the house: we will not approve this bill, this tax reform. Globally speaking, our appreciation has moved too much to the negative side. The tax reduction is positive, but the way it is completed makes us formulate a lot of criticism. The way this majority completes the tax reduction is insufficiently in the extension of our vision on this subject. I will limit myself to a number of points of criticism in this general intervention on behalf of my group. A number of colleagues will go deeper into some parts aspects with more knowledge of matters. My last point of criticism weighs politics the heaviest for us. A first element of criticism is that this tax reform is the perfect illustration that the government of Verhofstadt — I say almost Verhofstadt I, but for me there must be no I because it implies that there will be a II — confronts us with the fact that we are dealing with a government that is much more than an executive a promising power. He has, by the way, driven it so far to add to the form for the tax declaration 2000 a folder with the announcement of what comes to the people when this draft is approved. So that is the announcement of things that were not even approved by Parliament: that is the illustration of the promising power. Even if we look at what will actually be approved, it is evident that the announced tax reduction — with a cross-speed budgetary impact of 134 billion francs — for the own legislature of this majority and government, and that is, until the middle of 2003 — for us it should not last so long — is only 25.7 billion francs.

In view of the elections, of course, something must be deducted from this. Budgetally speaking, during this legislature there will only be a reduction of 25 billion francs instead of 134 billion francs.

This perfectly illustrates the government as a promising power. It makes many announcements and promises to the majority parties a 10% tax reduction for all; thus a tax reduction of 169 billion francs, or 135 billion francs after the effects of revenue. During this legislature it will actually only be 25.7 billion francs. This is a promising power, not an executive power.

It is not unimportant to emphasize this, because it is not only claimed by the opposition. Last week in Knack appeared an article from the Minister of Budget, Mr. Vande Lanotte. He said in his well-known direct style: "As for tax reform, the law allows a spelling. Currently there are 35 billion francs, 10 billion in 2002 and 25 billion in 2003. After that, each year is reviewed how much reduction exactly comes. We have a two-year game every time to determine whether we need to go faster or slower, depending on the carrying power of the moment itself.”

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Budget thus says himself that a tax reduction of 134 billion francs was promised, but that one should not believe too much of it, because for him on an annual basis only a tax reduction of 10 billion francs for 2002 and of 35 billion francs for 2003 is fixed. Since the legislature ends at the election, in the last half of 2003, it is in fact about a tax reduction of 25.7 billion francs. Mr Vande Lanotte makes it clear that this is the only thing he has committed to and that the rest needs to be considered in accordance with economic growth and circumstances.

Mr. Minister, I come to the first major criticism of our group. As with many other government decisions, for example the NMBS file, you make us a proposal whose funding and budgetary promises were spread over time. Between the rules, however, one can read that this majority will not engage beyond this year and halfway next year, the end of this legislature. Consequently, everything else, such as this tax reduction, can be challenged. Not only do we claim this, but also the Deputy Prime Minister of this government, Mr. Vande Lanotte. So that is our first criticism: the spread in time, with which one turns the population a wheel in front of the eyes. Just like the folder with the tax declaration form, this bill is a electoral folder. However, we know what happens with many promises of this majority.

I come to the second element of criticism. The reduction of the tax pressure on labour is not realised. According to the government agreement, the government will ensure a steady decrease in fiscal pressure during the legislature. Therefore, it is not about the combined parafiscal and fiscal pressure, social burdens and taxes, but about a steady decrease in the fiscal pressure, the tax pressure. This draft should contribute to this. On an annual basis, this bill provides for a maximum reduction of 25 billion francs for personal tax for 2003. However, this is in sharp contrast to the surplus revenues that have been generated in the meantime and to the increasing fiscal pressure. According to our calculation, in this way you return only one-third of what you have already received more for various reasons.

The Prime Minister always argues that the tax reform is intended to return to the taxpayer what he deposits to the State, but that is not true; that is not true because it is not implemented. There has already been collected approximately three times more, including income from personal taxes, than what this government will return during this legislature. I can illustrate this by the following figures from the National Bank. During this legislature, the global tax pressure — personal taxes and indirect taxes — has already increased from 28.6 to 28.8 points of gross domestic product and the tax pressure on labor by 0.4%.

Mr. Minister, instead of decreasing the fiscal pressure, we actually, under your responsibility, record an increase. We are only halfway through this legislature. If this is the first week of the legislature, then you could still give your adagium about the after-sales service. The draft was aimed at reducing the fiscal pressure, specifically on labour. Well, despite all your tables and all your claims in the commission, the preconceived goal, in particular that slightly more than a third of the taxes collected – already more than anticipated – will be repaid, will not be realized.

My first element of criticism concerns the distribution in time. In fact, this draft is more a electoral pamphlet than a commitment to the population. After all, instead of a tax cut of 135 billion, we will have to limit ourselves to a cut of 25 billion during this legislature that runs until 2003.

My second element of criticism is that the reduction of fiscal pressure is not realised.

I now come to my third element of criticism. The government agreement also provided for a simplification of taxation. A whole paragraph was dedicated to this. Both in the government agreement, in the policy statement and in the policy note of the Minister of Finance is swinged with the ambition to use this reform - which in fact is a mere reduction, and then again - to simplify our taxation. This ambition is not realized either. Indeed, the system of baskets and deduction points, which was designated by the government itself, will not be implemented through this design. Furthermore, how far is the preparatory study work that would be carried out by the High Council for Finance in this regard?

In any case, the system of baskets and deduction points within a certain ceiling, in which, the taxable person himself chooses the precise modalities regarding housing-work movement, housing, life insurance and the like, is in no way simplifying. A unique opportunity is missed. Indeed, in the closure of this hemisphere, we know that a simplification of taxation through the abolition of deduction items, which must then be compensated by higher deduction possibilities in other areas, is only possible if there is budgetary space, if resources can be used for this. If one tries to simplify by deducting from a certain category of the population because the deduction is limited, it is only possible when that same group is entitled to something extra; that then compensates for the limitation of the deduction.

Despite the budgetary space and despite the ambition that both the government agreement and the policy note and the ministerial statements testify, the bill does not meet the intended goal. On the contrary, because in the meantime there have been elements that lead to complications. Mrs D'Hondt will provide the technical explanation on this subject later. In that context, I think, for example, of the tax credit, which is in fact less effective than an increased deduction of costs for professional expenses, to combat the unemployment decline. In addition, the tax credit provides a deferred advantage and makes our tax legislation even more complex.

Not only is the possibility of simplification missed by the failure to realize the system of baskets and deduction points, but also elements are added to the whole that make everything even more complicated. And then I will limit myself to the example of tax credit. Mr Pinxten could take the example of the cost deduction for housing work traffic, where things are really driven to the top.

This is the third criticism. The first criticism was that it is an election pamphlet, as the announced, major tax reform will only be addressed in the following years and spread over time. Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Budget Vande Lanotte, has already said that this will have to be reduced at the slightest economic recession. In addition, there is also the fact that there is no simplification. The second criticism was that there is no reduction in the tax burden in this bill, because only a third of what is collected more is returned to the people.

So I come to my fourth point of criticism. It is actually a pity that my good friend and honored colleague Jef Tavernier is not in our midst. We have been pleased to welcome him regularly at committee meetings. It is unfortunate that in the bill that is now ahead, taxation is insufficiently used as a guiding element in a number of policy areas where control is however more than necessary. The word management is well chosen in this context.

I am speaking, among other things, about the mobility dossier, where the government also set quite ambitious objectives. One of them was the strengthening of public transportation. In that regard, we see that the policy in fact, including in financial terms, does less than the Dehaene governments in much more difficult budgetary circumstances. An example of using taxation as an element of policy guidance is the incorporation of tax incentives through the personal tax to actually do something about mobility. Nor does that happen. I am referring to the Ecolo-Agalev group.

The fourth force line, ecological taxation, is, according to the documents of the minister himself, worth 1.5 billion francs. The total budget is 137 billion francs. Thus, 1.5 billion is the type weight of the contribution of the green group in this bill to reform the personal tax.

The use of personal tax as an element of policy-making and also of society-orientation, including in the mobility and energy consumption sectors, is indeed marginal. Fortunately, the wrapping around the records and the designs themselves is green, pale green actually. At the minister, the envelope is blue, light blue even. Apart from that green wrap around the report and the draft, there is hardly any contribution from the green groups. I repeat again the figure of 1.5 billion francs for power line four on a total of 137 billion francs. It is a missed opportunity to use taxation as a policy trending element.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Ecolo-Agalev group, I am going back to the actuality. Of course, you will not be surprised by a minister who criticizes you in the Eco-tax file for cutting back past achievements. If a Minister of Finance even puts such things on the slope, and those small achievements, of which I, as a member of a faction that until recently was in the majority and which was responsible for the dossier of the Ecotaxs, admit that they are imperfect, screws back behind your back, it is not surprising that in the context of the establishment of the tax reform you can not fulfill much more than a decorative function. Your contribution remains relatively small. In our eyes, this is a missed opportunity.

My fifth point of criticism is that the design is not enough child-friendly. However, I admit that a number of steps are taken. We consider it a missed chance that you do not comply with the proposal of colleague Pieters to make the costs of childcare fully tax deductible. We had, by the way, further proposals, including the problem of the people who earn too little to be able to enjoy the deductions for children in charge, the problem of the non-take ups. We would transfer these amounts to the child allowance system, which would enable us to realize equality between children and which would enable those non-take ups to mean a more direct response to the weakest in our society. We regret that this was not taken over.

We find that regrettable. The missed opportunities in the field of child-friendly taxation are therefore our fifth element of criticism.

The sixth criticism is, of course, the most important – you will expect nothing else from my group –: with this tax reform, what the government had announced is not realised at all, in particular the tax neutrality of every form of society or – we use a more direct language – the elimination of tax discrimination at the expense of the married.

Over the past two years, the majority has arranged with some irony and arrogance, typical of those holding power, saying that they would perform what the CVP should have done. It would implement the program of the CVP. That is not true, colleagues. On the one hand, we have taken steps and even the most far-reaching steps to eliminate tax discrimination. On the other hand, now that the budgetary space is available, the government hardly does anything to eliminate that discrimination, at least not in this legislature, for which it, however, bears the responsibility and which is the only one to be politically taken into account. I refer to the discouragement of your Minister of Budget, ladies and gentlemen of the majority. The government’s promise to eliminate discrimination at the expense of married persons is not fulfilled.

President: Paul Tant, Second Vice-President Chairman: Paul Tant, second vice president. In view of the sharpness of the debate and to refute the argument that we have had the opportunity to eliminate discrimination for decades, I will extend for a moment our approach from that time. For us, eliminating tax discrimination to the detriment of married people has always been a priority. Fiscal discrimination is actually the result of a sociological social development that I will briefly outline.

If we look at the tax statistics in the annual book of the Tax Administration, we find that the social trend of single residents and even more of actual cohabitants that can be found in the statistics as single residents, from the beginning of the eighties, became more and more strong. Since then, the phenomenon of unmarried cohabitation has become increasingly widespread. With a few years of delay, this social phenomenon is also discovered politically. Indeed, politicians only later noticed that in addition to the real, actual single persons, a category of persons arose who, although taxally and in statistics considered as single persons, in fact were not. They lived together with a partner without being married and thus did not go under the tax burden of the marriage due to the consolidation of income and the lower tax-free minimum. The concept of income consolidation, which was introduced into our taxation after the Second World War, no longer responded to that new sociological reality, which became widespread especially from the early 1980s.

With some delay, this issue has been put on the agenda, for the first time by the Christian Democratic factions in the 1980s. It is, among other things, because of the disadvantaged budgetary situation that governments could only later work on eliminating discrimination. They did that too. I refer to the previous major tax reform to reduce the tax pressure of 1988, which colleague of Weddingen could also extend, which was created under Christian-Democratic pressure and signed by a Christian-Democratic minister. This reform brought about three major innovations, namely the decumulation, the introduction of the marriage coefficient and the deductibility of the costs of childcare.

If the measures of 1988, taken under the impetus of colleague Van Rompuy, to eliminate the tax discrimination of married persons, are translated into current terms, then in terms of 2000 we reach an amount of 203 billion francs on an annual basis.

If the 1988 measure had not existed, the discrimination at the expense of the married would have resulted in a budgetary package of 260 to 270 billion francs. Well, more than two-thirds of this discrimination was eliminated in 1988. This may be a few years late due to the delay moment. The policy reacts a little later, at the moment the new sociological reality appears. In addition, there are a few additional years due to the difficult budget situation. In 1988, however, most of the road was taken, under the impetus of the Christian Democrats. I would like to add another footnote to this. Per ⁇ the economic situation should have been taken into account. Some things should have been spread over a few years. In any case, efforts have been made. The adage that makes rise in majority circles, in particular that the CVP has not done a job of it, is not correct. There was work done, in particular with the reform of 1988. This proves that this has always been an absolute priority for us.

By the way, even in the very difficult budgetary financial situation of the late 1990s, just before the new coalition enters, under the impetus of Christian Democrats, a step, though modest, has been taken with an increase of 1,000 francs per person of the tax-free minimum, with the intention of strengthening this step in the years to come. In budgetary terms, this meant a cost of 1.2 billion francs on an annual basis.

Our criticism is that this government absolutely does not prioritize tax discrimination despite the fact that there is now budgetary space to lower taxes somewhat. There is consensus on this. I will, of course, support this statement.

Mr. Minister, it will be noticed by everyone, but there needs to be a little more conscience in this country – in that respect we will try in the coming weeks and months to make ourselves meritorious in spreading your bad news – that in the phases of the various measures included in the four strengths of your fiscal reform, in particular that measure for the elimination of tax discrimination to the detriment of the married, is pushed backwards. This measure comes into force for the first time in 2003 with a budgetary impact of approximately 3 billion. It should be taken into account that 2003 is an election year and that you are only responsible for this legislature. Not only do I say this, also Minister Vande Lanotte says in Knack that he has engaged only for the years 2002 and 2003. What is then done from this majority to eliminate tax discrimination remains limited to 3 billion francs. Not anymore . 3 billion francs of the remaining 60 billion francs of permanent effort. 270 billion in total in current terms of which slightly more than 200 billion corrected in 1988, an effort in 1999 with the intention of moving forward, broken down by this majority. Now, from the remaining amount, 66 billion francs, you will spend only 3 billion francs in this legislature to eliminate the tax discrimination against married couples.

However, the economic circumstances and tax receipts give you the space to do more.

The fundamental difference between this government’s approach and that of the Christian Democrats is that within the budgetary consequence of a necessary sanitation, we have taken steps — steps far more important than your steps — while this purple-green coalition makes only promises and will implement only 3 billion francs of tax cuts for families during this rule period. Moreover, you do not prioritize the elimination of tax discrimination against families. The abolition of the highest barricades with a budgetary impact of 7 billion francs will have priority over the measures for the benefit of the married. The energy-saving measures, the shame of the Greens, are given priority over the elimination of discrimination to the detriment of the married. It is very clear that this is not a priority of this government. Vande Lanotte admits to having committed only 35 billion francs: 10 billion in 2002, 10 plus 25 billion in 2003, 35 billion francs on an annual basis in 2003. He adds that the rest will be reviewed annually. The married in this country know how far they are. The content of the present bill and your discourse should make it clear to the families that at the slightest conjuncture reversal – not further, in my opinion, as the press speaks of a budget control of 600 million euros – they will share in the clashes. If the budget needs to be updated, the families will pay the lease. Then it will be revealed once again that the elimination of tax discrimination against families is not a priority for this majority. For the Christian Democrats, this was and is a crucial action point. I would like to emphasize this again because some majority parties want to hang a different picture.

My sixth and most important criticism is that the elimination of the tax discrimination against married people is not a priority for this government. Moreover, you allow some discrimination to persist. The government agreement states that the taxation form of society must be neutral. This is a purple green term. This should mean eliminating discrimination against married persons as a priority. You do not do this. More even you do not do it for everyone. You allow some discrimination to persist. Some discriminations are even being intensified. I give two examples. If the measure of increasing the permitted means of subsistence for children of actual cohabitants is applied, this a contrario constitutes additional discrimination to the detriment of the spouses. The extension of the tax exemption for actual cohabitants with children to all actual cohabitants with children a contrario creates a new discrimination at the detriment of the married. Certain measures of the draft create new discriminations.

A number of discriminations are ⁇ ined that affect thousands and thousands of people, not always the strongest shoulders in society. Some tax reductions are still determined per family. To date, the tax reduction for pensions and replacement income for married persons is calculated for both spouses together. Your tax reform will introduce a split calculation for pensions, old bridge pensions and illness and disability benefits. This is good to work away from the discrimination against married people. However, there is one but. There, however, comes the monkey out of the sleeve: this does not apply to the new bridge pensions that were to be paid from 1 January 2004. For the new bridge pensions and unemployment benefits, the cumulation for married persons continues to apply. This discrimination is ⁇ ined. You promised that you would eliminate that discrimination, but you are not fulfilling that promise.

Around a second important element, colleague Dirk Pieters and I myself held our amendment for the article-by-article discussion and the vote. Article 154 of the Income Tax Code establishes an actual tax exemption if the income consists solely of replacement income and if the amount does not exceed the maximum statutory unemployment benefit, about 400,000 francs. These include income from sickness benefits and disability benefits, pensions and unemployment benefits. The introduction of the actual tax exemption avoids that for a single person the ordinary tax reduction would lead to an effective taxation because he would exceed the tax-free minimum. The rule that the incomes of both spouses must be aggregated from those replacement incomes is incorporated in the new article to be voted within the framework of this draft. Persons with a small pension, a small sickness or disability benefit or a low unemployment benefit and who are married are excluded from the actual tax exemption by the new wording of Article 154. This will lead to a new discrimination against a whole category of people who are among the weakest in society.

For the report and for everyone who will be aware of it through the media, I would like to give an example. I assume the assumption of a family whose husband and wife have an equivalent replacement income of exactly 432,000 francs. That amount is important because it approaches the ceiling of the actual exemption. Make the comparison of the tax paid by married persons, versus actual cohabitants. The difference between the pensions of spouses and the pensions of actual cohabitants is at the detriment of the spouses. Two married people with a pension of approximately 430,000 francs must pay 10,860 francs tax if they are married, but do not pay any tax at all if they actually live together. That is a discrimination by Article 154, which is ⁇ ined by you in spite of the greatly announced complete elimination of tax discrimination to the detriment of the married. In purple-green terms, it is called "making taxation societal neutral".

Also for those in the new system who can enjoy the bridge pension – “enjoy” I do not mean here ironically – with a similar amount from those replacement incomes, there are differences. Married people will pay 74,928 francs in tax on an annual basis in the example I cited, but actually cohabiting 0 francs. For the latter, the actual tax exemption applies up to the ceiling of approximately 430,000 francs.

Unemployed people do not have the strongest shoulders in our society and should be respected. For unemployment benefits of the same amount, two married persons pay 135,752 francs tax on an annual basis, while unmarried persons or actual cohabitants pay 0 francs.

In summary, I can say that you are not only tightening some discrimination, but you are also ⁇ ining some of them. This is often at the expense of people with a modest or very modest income. There are even more discriminations, which Mrs. D’Hondt will soon recall as it is about ⁇ ining discrimination in the family pension sector.

Mr. Leterme, you have already exceeded the agreed time a little. Mr. De Croo asked me to remind me of this, no matter how good I find your argument.

Mr. Speaker, I try to get the time, which the Minister has made us lose by not appearing here on time in a correct way. It is important that we can develop our reasoning, not only because it is truthful but above all because it deserves to be heard by the population. In the coming weeks and months we will try to make ourselves meritorious by bringing this to the man or woman.

We are not in principle against a tax reduction but we have six major points of criticism in this tax reform.

First, everything is spread over time. This draft is in fact a electoral folder. Only one-third of what has been received more from people through the personal tax is returned with this draft in this legislature. Secondly, the fiscal pressure does not decrease with this design.

Third, there will be no simplification of our tax system.

Fourth, the personal tax is not used as a guiding element, including to shame and shame the Greens.

Fifth, the reform is not child-friendly enough.

The sixth point of criticism is the most important. You do not fulfill your promise to work away from the tax discrimination of married people. This requires an additional effort of 66 billion francs. In this legislature you provide for this only 3 billion francs. In addition, you leave a number of key discriminations intact and add a number of actual discriminations.

So far, my brief explanation. I don’t want to blame myself, but I think she has corrected some things. In particular, it allows us to look through the great slogans and statements, even over the efforts of the Christian Democrats in the past, whether or not, in the field of eliminating discrimination, among others. My colleagues will deal more extensively with a number of other aspects.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I thank my colleagues because it is true that I wanted to communicate in the plenary assembly.

In fact, it is possible to make a critical reading of the proposed tax reform, through the opinion on discrimination between men and women in the context of income tax. This opinion was issued in April 2001 but, for reasons I do not know very well, probably procedural problems, it could not be joined to the general discussion in a committee; I had also informed its chairman. Therefore, I am really pleased to browse this review with you in order to check whether or not the reform contains improvements in reducing gender discrimination.

I also received a work instrument. Mr. Minister, continue to write your report for the Minister of Equality of Opportunities since, once a year, you report on equality policies which serves as a reference in the context of the application of means to combat gender discrimination. This political instrument is important for us as parliamentarians as well.

I reviewed the opinion and I must admit that the reform contains significant advances in equality: some issues have been taken into account. Of course, the resolution is not yet reached 100%, but the situation is evolving in the right direction. There are still things to improve, but the world is not rebuilt at once and the construction sites remain open.

As regards the direct discriminatory measures, pointed out in the framework of the opinion, I note that the Minister has integrated them all, in particular the age difference between men and women in regards to taking into account a life insurance contract in the tax calculation, obviously with a transitional measure. by

We also note the abrogation of Article 252 concerning the real estate pre-count for the personal property of the wife which, until now, could be recruited under the name of the husband. A third file concerns the payment of the spouse’s tax debts from which he/she is de facto separated: he/she finds here a draft of solution, after having experienced improvements such as the right to claim, residence, etc. by

It is also worth thanking the Minister for the effort made in the direction of a considerable progress. In fact, the bill, in its article 394, incorporates a paragraph that allows to derogate from common law of recovery in the head of separated spouses. The tax on income taxable from the first year following the de facto separation can no longer be collected on the income of the other spouse. You can argue about the duration since I have heard about protests about two years or a year. For me, the progress is so important that I can only congratulate the minister and adhere to this measure.

However, Mr. Minister, it will remain the issue of past liability and all those persons who are still today subject to the compulsion to pay the tax debts made by the spouse in the event of separation. The Credit Observatory’s 2000 report, published in the press this morning, indicates that one of the major problems remains the issue of single, separated women, often in charge of all household debts, including tax debts. There, it would ⁇ be appropriate to think about a prescription methodology, a working method; I hope that you can further advance in this management of the passive.

There has been a lot of discussion about tax credit. It is true that we find here a response to the distribution of income to grant the benefit of reduction to households whose incomes are so low that they do not enjoy any tax benefits.

The opinion of the emancipation committee proposed a thorough study of this category of non-taxable or small taxpayers. I would like this to be a gender analysis. Therefore, there is still a construction site to be conducted and we must equip ourselves with analytical tools in order to understand the composition of these revenues. by

With regard to the deductibility of child dependents, I have listened carefully to Mr. Leterme and I think that an effort has been made but there is still a lot to do. Therefore, I would also like to look more closely at the different situations relating to children’s costs (age, illness, etc.).

In the difficult case of cumulative income for young people, adding professional, semi-professional income and food pension, positive solutions have been unleashed.

As regards the alimony paid by one of the parents, no work has yet been done on the tax harmonisation of their deductibility. Mr. Minister, I would like this track to be explored in the context of the examination of a project or proposal or, more generally, of the dossier of the food claims fund. It is about finding balance and fairness in tax matters in this area.

Finally, I would like to recall that the opinion committee also requested a thorough study on the mechanism of the conjugal quota. In the present project, the formula of the conjugal quota is extended to all forms of life. Therefore, we have neutrality in terms of life choices. However, I think there is a huge problem here and all women’s associations report it. All those who have studied the tax question raise the question of equality between men and women with regard to the conjugal quota and the advantage attributed in general to the only income of man. There is indeed a field of study to be conducted. Mr. Minister, I know that you have set up a working group on discrimination between men and women in tax matters. I hope that he will take into account the opinion we have given. I hope that he will take this matter into his hands and it is with great interest that we are waiting for the results of this work.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the political agenda of the late summer and autumn of last year, more specifically of the months before the municipal elections of 8 October 2000, was fully marked by the imminent reform of the personal tax you proposed on 28 August 2000. This design should be the crown jewel of this government. Today, the majority is out of their absence. This design also fits into the government policy of the announcements.

Political statements, one more punitive than the other, were daily in the period after the performance. Everybody remembers the heroic discussion. It was then, by way of speech, an evergreen in all political debates about the SP cents and the VLD percentages. The question arises whether it is the percentage of the taxes due or the percentage of the income after tax. Also the VLD chairman in the run-up to 8 October 2000 made another shot for the bow by emphasizing that the VLD demanded a 10% tax reduction before the end of this legislature. In the fallrope, there was also the PS who had difficulty digesting the abolition of the high tax bars. She saw this as a gift to the rich and instead demanded that pensions be raised.

The aim of the tax reform is to implement a substantial tax reduction by raising the tax-free minimum, reducing the highest tax rates, rearranging the bars and reintroducing a reimbursable tax reduction.

The main goal of this tax reform, namely the reduction of taxes, is not world-shocking news. This was already the goal of the personal tax reform in 1988. Also then, the maximum rates were reduced and the introduction of the generalized decumulation of the professional income and the marriage quota led to a decrease in the average tax rate.

There is a lot to say about the timetable of the fiscal measures. Following the wave of tax cuts announced by the various ministers, group chairs and party chairs within the framework of the open debate culture, a credible timetable had to be drawn up. This can only be achieved by extending the timetable to the next legislature. Mr. Minister, if we look at your table of the entry into force of the various measures, we find that the bulk of the measures in question — I mean more than half — is pushed into the shoes of the next government. The majority of the measures will only come into effect in the next legislature. For example, in the last paragraph it is provided for 2004, which represents 53% of the entire tax program, i.e. for the revenues of the year 2004 and the reporting year 2005.

The implementation of the light green measures, as well as the low-income tax credit, come first in turn. The light green measure includes the extension of the reimbursement rules for residential-working traffic, currently with a maximum distance of 50 km back and forth.

With the limited budgetary impact of 1.5 billion Belgian francs, or roughly 1.1% of the total package, this is undoubtedly a measure to steal the Greens.

Tax credit is in itself a good measure. Just because this measure allows the lowest taxable income to enjoy the tax reduction, which in the past was not always expressly the case. We are not convinced of the efficiency in the practical handling. For example, the tax credit is granted only after the closing of the tax return and the effects will come at a time when the family status is likely to change, 2 to 3 years later. In fact, it is a postponed loan. This measure aims to reduce taxes for the lowest incomes but does not, in our view, simplify the system.

The liberals, on the other hand, – to the great dislike of other coalition partners such as the PS and the Greens – have made the abolition of the highest tax shifts an important priority.

The elimination of discrimination against married persons was first discussed in 2003. Partly because the first split of the increase of the exempt minimum for each spouse is only 3 billion francs to a total of 44 billion francs. The Flemish Bloc has always been a major advocate and advocate of the same tax treatment of married and cohabitators. Married people should be taxed as if they live together, not vice versa. We note that in recent years more and more people choose a different form of society than marriage. This is not only a result of a changed social mentality, but also of a rational search for the path of the least taxes. After all, it is clear that marriage has adverse fiscal consequences for the majority of married people, while it is only beneficial for a small minority. The few tax benefits still associated with a marriage are still rarely applied in practice as a result of the changed income structure of the modern family. Today, both partners are usually required to earn income because they can thus ensure the financial stability of their family in today’s society.

If this government takes into account the changed social values — I mean, for example, the fact that Prince Laurent is no longer considered a child in charge and therefore receives a rich dotation — then it can no longer be accepted that a tax punishment based on a moral choice, in particular the marriage, continues to exist. It is therefore, in our view, a missed opportunity and a wrong priority to address the elimination of discrimination between married and cohabiting persons only in 2004 — in the next legislature. The question remains what the budget space will be at that time. I refer to the interview last week in the magazine Knack with the Minister of Budget, Johan Vande Lanotte. Mr Leterme has already mentioned this. The financial effort that is then made is too small, especially if one knows that the tax discrimination of married persons amounts to about 70 billion francs annually. The correctness of this number was confirmed in the previous legislature by the CVP and SP.

The question that we can ask in the current plans for tax reform is as follows: "Is there only winners?" I think the answer will be nuanced and that consequently the percentage of winners across the entire tax population will not be 100%. For some of them, the reform will be a status quo, for some, the tax due will even rise.

The reason is the often undeniable complexity of our tax system. Numerous spending, deduction points and family characteristics play a role and make the tax reform opaque. The transparency of the effects of existing legislation and of the planned reforms is hindered. This is exactly what is strange about the current draft for tax reform. Instead of simplifying the tax system, however one of the principles of this government, it makes tax legislation even more complicated. Despite some simplifications, the Financial Inspectorate has serious doubts as to whether all of the proposed measures will lead to a simplification of the already complex tax legislation. Therefore, the control of the taxpayers remains inadequate. This is again a missed opportunity.

There is a little bit under the grass of this tax reform. After all, it is not entirely clear what the families of all the announced beautiful measures will eventually notice in their wallets. The effect of the current reform has to be translated. In my opinion, the risk is not negligible that the effect of the reduction of the personal tax is threatened to be lost by an increase in the municipal and provincial tax. There are a number of fiscal storm clouds. In fact, most municipalities and cities are no longer able to link the ends together without tax increases. They are therefore seriously considering drastically increasing the property advance tax, the upcents, the environmental tax, or other forms of taxation from next year.

Flemish Prime Minister Patrick Dewael has also seen the mood hang. He is currently trying to tighten the Municipal Fund with the additional revenues from the Lambermont agreements, the ink of which is only dry. We still have to wait to see what will come into practice, especially when we take into account the courtesy of the current coalition partners. Everyone wants to get a piece of the cake.

Mr. Minister, you claim in your reform to respect the autonomy of the cities and municipalities. However, the separation between the types of taxes is not so clear. The total amount to be paid will be assessed by the families. This can sometimes cause surprises. At the end of the ride, so in 2003, you will probably have to explain why the citizen in total will have to pay more, and not less, taxes.

The budgetary space that this fiscal reform should enable depends on two options. Either the growth of government spending is 1.5% and in that case the promises made are a viable map. Either the growth of public spending is 1.8%, and in that case the deficit for 2003 is estimated at 20 billion francs. In reality, the situation is even less rosy. Currently, the primary expenditure for Entity 1 is 1.6%, and for Social Security is approximately 2.3%. This scenario does not even take into account the possible growth slowdown. Nevertheless, the budget still takes into account a growth of 2.5%. In the given circumstances, this can no longer be called cautious. It is even on the brink of realism.

If the government wishes to implement its draft on the personal tax, it will in any case have to pursue a strict spending policy. Given the time frame, the budgetary impact will not be so pronounced during this legislature, but that effect will most likely become evident during the next legislature. The question is who will have the political courage to carry out any savings.

Mr. Minister, at the beginning of your presentation in the committee you have confirmed that this draft focuses on one magical number, namely 134.5 billion francs. Whenever this amount is pronounced, your eyes blink in a way of speaking. In Euros, this number would not speak to the imagination.

You also provided a symbolic date, namely 1 January 2003. From that year, not for nothing an election year, various measures will be felt well. Let us hope that your dreams are not cheating. In any case, the first sitting time for the students is currently over, a second sitting time is provided in September. However, we will not wait for that. If we have to review your design today, we must admit that it does not completely take away our approval.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, after the Lambermont agreements and while the Belgian Presidency of the European Union has been effective for a few days, we are invited to discuss the draft tax reform. The Government undertook, in its Declaration of Federal Policy of 17 October 2000, to elaborate a general reform of the tax on natural persons. by

After making a preliminary comment, I will explain to you how the Socialist Party is satisfied with the text that is proposed to us today. Next, I will allow myself to share with you some regrets that we would like to repeat. Finally, I will give you a suggestion.

First of all, a preliminary question: my first concern is budgetary. As I have already stated in the Committee on Finance and Budget, some are worried about the future. Following some studies by the Plan Bureau and the BBL, the question arises whether the manoeuvre margins will be sufficient in the coming years to implement this reform. It is true that, thanks to the budgetary rigour exercised both by the previous governments and during the arc-encycle legislature, significant margins allow for the realization of various projects. by

It should also be noted that the economic circumstances are favorable. But I wonder how long this budget clarification will last. This is what explains my fear about this. You reassured us on this point and we trust you.

The reasons for the satisfaction of the Socialist Party are as follows. Overall, we are in favour of your project. Some have argued that it was not a reform in itself but various arithmetic modifications aimed simply at revision of bars. I think it is a reducer. On the contrary, beyond the form – and in this regard, I would like to emphasize the quality of the project that is presented to us – this text is a real reform that introduces new and original concepts into our tax law. This corporate tax reform meets several requirements of the Socialist Party, which makes us ⁇ happy. I will cite a few. The partners of the current majority were able to find a consensus on tax neutrality in relation to the choice of life. This is very expensive for the Socialist Party. Therefore, we are pleased that taxation is now adapting to society. It was not normal, in fact, that inequalities in tax treatment were based solely on differences in legal status and not on differences in facts. Thus, we can only welcome measures such as the alignment of the tax-exempt minimum, the extension of decumulation to all incomes and the assimilation of cohabitants to the married. by

Second reason for satisfaction: this tax reform is part of the perspective of the development of an active social state, concerned with the integration of the largest number of men and women in society, in particular through a broader access to better paid jobs. The aim is to reduce the tax pressure on labor income. In this regard, it aims to give priority to those with low or middle income to benefit from the tax relief. This was also one of the demands of the Socialist Party. You know how much employment is a topic that holds us at heart.

Third reason for satisfaction: the measures taken will immediately increase the salary of the workers. The increase in the package of professional charges will increase this pocket salary from 2002. by

Among other measures, those taken at the level of recovery are excellent. They put an end to an old system that seemed inhuman to many. by

I have some regrets, I said. Despite some satisfaction, let me give you some disappointment topics. by

First of all, if it is true that the tax credit is an innovative idea, we regret that replacement income is excluded from it, while there is a real logic of individualization in this project. We deeply regret that unemployed and pre-pensioned are excluded from this. by

In addition, the present reform removes the highest marginal rates, i.e. those of 52,5% and 55%. This deletion has symbolic value for some and it is possible that such rates are no longer justified in a European context.

It is also true that a manifest imbalance continues to exist between the taxation of labor income and that of other income. But why did we not take advantage of this removal of the rates of 52,5% and 55% to revise the property taxation of stock options and that of extra-legal benefits? By looking for new margins and revenue, this would have helped to further reduce the tax pressure on labor income. by

Last regret: nothing seems to go in the direction of administrative simplification. In this regard, I would like to make a suggestion. In my opinion, it should be revised how the taxpayer must declare the amount exempt from travel costs. Many have lost their Latin. by

In conclusion, this reform is a good reform. It is in accordance with the government agreement.

Our group will of course vote on this project which will be favorable to many taxpayers.

Finally, I dare hope that this legislature will enable us to deal with other important cases. I think not only of a corporate tax reform but also of the Tobin tax as well as the taxation of savings and surplus-value.

I join my thanks to those of the other speakers to congratulate our rapporteur.

Taxation is a complex political instrument and the functions of taxation are multiple. by

The most direct function is obviously the function of yield: the tax serves to finance collective functions and the various public services, too often forgotten. A second function is the redistributive function: the tax allows to correct inequalities by ensuring a redistribution between the different income categories. A third function is the incentive function: the tax allows to act on the functioning of citizens according to the choice of society.

The environmentalists’ options in terms of taxation are obviously not limited to only environmental aspects as some would like to make them believe. Our options are developed around different priorities. For us, it’s about reconstructing a taxation that is more just and social, more ecological and more respectful of everyone’s choices.

More just and more social, because the only logic of the market leads to fundamentally unequal income structures and because taxation must be a redistribution tool that should reduce the gap between high and low incomes.

A better inclusion of children in the calculation of the tax is, in this regard, an important element. by

More ecological, because economic development must engage concrete in the path of sustainable development. This is the whole incentive function of the tax that is concerned here. The tax tool allows to weigh on the attitudes of citizens to orient them towards behaviors that take better into account the overall balance of the planet. by

Respect for everyone’s personal life choices. There is objectively no reason to be treated differently on the tax level depending on whether you are married, cohabiting or isolated. by

The draft law on corporate tax reform that is presented to us today reflects a number of these priorities. by

First, the tax credit for low-income. Sometimes called negative tax, this tax credit will constitute a real tax refund for low wages, which will see their pocket salary increase. The measure helps to reduce inequalities, but it also helps to remove employment traps, i.e. situations where people, for tax reasons, have an interest in not working. It is regrettable, however, that this measure is addressed only to employees and self-employed persons and is not extended to unemployed workers or to social benefits.

In parallel and in the first axis of the reform, note that the changes in the tax rates will benefit more than 80% of the taxpayers. And the increase in flat-rate professional costs benefits first of all the low wages. by

Second point: Tax neutrality with regard to life choices is also implemented in the reform. The exempt quota of the spouses will be aligned with that of the isolated. The reduction for replacement income will be granted individually. Income from capital and labour shall be taxed separately. There are significant inequalities that are corrected by these measures.

Third point: the children. They are better taken into account in the calculation of the tax. Supplementary slaughter fees for single-parent families are increased and the ceiling of maintenance pensions is raised. by

Fourth, energy-saving investments in homes are encouraged: replacement of old boilers, placement of solar panels, energy audit of homes. by

Fifth, travel costs between home and work are better taken into account in the tax section. by

Finally, as Ms. Coenen recalled this morning, significant progress has been made in reducing discrimination between men and women, even though it is a construction project that is not fully completed. by

Of course – let’s be clear – we regret some aspects of the reform. Thus, while the reduction of the number of IPP rates has a simplifying virtue, the choice to remove the two highest rates is, for us, quite regrettable. by

But the balance sheet remains overall positive for this tax reform of natural persons. For us, the reform of the IPP is obviously only one of the elements of the government’s fiscal policy. And this is the set of reforms that must be taken into account in evaluating the guidelines taken and the progress made. Thus, in another fiscal file – the eco-bons – a major concrete realization of a voluntary policy of environmental protection was the subject of a political agreement. Thanks to a reduction in VAT and excise taxes on different beverages, we will taxally favor those who choose the most environmentally and natural resources-friendly packaging modes. Those who opt for the "all to throw away" will pay a packaging fee, which materializes the concept of the polluter payer. by

Having reached the political agreement, we will review the legislative texts in the coming months. The same applies to various other decisions relating to green taxation that should soon come into effect. I think, for example, of the reduction of excise duties on low-sulfur fuels or the reduction of the traffic tax for LPG cars and EURO 4.

Another important point is the corporate tax reform. The Government Declaration provides for a reduction in the nominal rate that must be carried out in a neutral budgetary framework, that is, from our point of view, for the same tax year, the ISOC revenue of the State before and after the reform must be identical. The interesting report of the Supreme Council of Finance proposes many ways to expand the taxable base, effectively lowering the nominal rate while respecting the commitment to fiscal neutrality.

The following issues will also be the subject of discussion and decision in the coming months: the issue of taxation of greenhouse gases within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol and its ratification, the physical person tax baskets for which the Supreme Council of Finance is currently conducting a study, the possibility of taxation of speculative financial flows and finally the variable nature of traffic taxes on motor vehicles.

The government has resolutely engaged in a voluntary action in tax files. The IPP reform is the first major file to be translated into legislative texts. It benefits from our support in the global context that I described in my presentation.

Mr. Speaker, I have applauded Mr. Gobert without agreeing with him in everything. I disagree with him where he considers the abolition of the highest marginal levy rates of 52,5% and 55% a regrettable matter. You should go to the reading room where the full press is accessible. There is a Dutch-language newspaper that has a headline "You will only...". Being a woman in Afghanistan is the worst thing that can happen to you. Another example is that taxpayers are in Belgium. That is a little contrary to your position. Therefore, being a taxpayer in Belgium is currently equated with being a woman in Afghanistan, and we all know what that means.

Our global burden, fiscal and para-fiscal, is ⁇ high compared to our main trading partners, the countries around us. This difference is largely due to the level of personal tax in our country. The effective burden pressure on, especially, labour, is clearly above the European average in Belgium. That prevents job creation, as well as a fair remuneration of the working taxpayer. We welcome this fiscal reform because it is time for the global tax burden to be reduced to at least the level of that of our key trading partners, in order to allow our country to maintain a competitive position in Europe. The high burden works demotivating for the working population. They have resulted in many companies — we now also touch the corporate tax — moving abroad due to high costs for them and also high wage costs. They also have a hindering effect on the trade in economic goods and services. This trend must be reversed. Internal shifts are necessary in order to ⁇ a more social, work-friendly and ecologically aligned taxation. That is what we say, all together: green taxation is necessary. The VLD believes that the fiscal reform proposed by the government provides the right solution to this problem, including by taking into account each of these gaps and by implementing a substantial tax reform. The fiscal reform, which we will approve here this week, is based on four strength lines: reduction of the burden on labor, realization of the neutrality of the tax system with regard to the choice of life, better accounting for the burden of children and green taxation.

Let us take the first force line, in particular the reduction of the load pressure on labour. A first measure aims to ensure that more low-skilled people participate in the labour process by increasing their net income and thus liberating them from the unemployment fall. The government is doing something new. It proposes a refundable tax credit that would be introduced for low-income workers. This is based on the finding that the organization of solidarity must go beyond the passive remuneration of those who do not participate in the labour process and must also extend to cases of low-paying labour, which, unfortunately, is still too many. The tax credit becomes a tool that promotes employment and combats poverty. It is intended to grant the tax credit to regular income from labour, both paid and self-employed labour. These income will then be described by the new term activity income. Below a certain level, the tax credit is converted into an additional income and shows the characteristics of a negative income tax such as the "working family's tax credit", introduced in Britain by Mr. Blair's government.

The tax credit leads to a substantial increase in the income of employees who have a salary close to the minimum wage or who work part-time. It therefore stimulates the access of young people and women to the labour market.

The increase in the rate for the fixed operating costs is a second measure aimed at reducing the fiscal pressure. It is proposed to increase the initial rate of the barem from 20% to 25%, but retaining the maximum rate of 100 850 francs.

I come to a third measure: reduce the pressure on middle-income. The adjustment of the personal tax bars can at least partially compensate for the loss resulting from the non-indexation of the tax scales since 1993.

The abolition of the highest marginal rates in absolute cost is not even the most expensive measure of the full tax reform. In fact, the high marginal rates force taxpayers to resort to forms of fiscal high-technology, to travel abroad, or to other means that fall outside the legal framework. The result is an increase in social injustice, with economically adverse effects. After all, they are the most dynamic and creative elements that quickly move to other countries. It should also be noted that in many other European countries, precisely that reform, namely a reduction in the marginal rate, has already been achieved, which makes it even more attractive. The marginal rates of 52,5% and 55% are therefore abolished, making 50% the highest rate.

Finally, within the first force line of the fiscal reform, the government formulates a number of measures that are part of the mobility policy. Thus, the taxable person is encouraged to make movements between the place of residence and the place of employment in a different way than with his own car, car for double use, minibus or motorcycle. Employers are also encouraged to invest in the organization of public transport for workers. We can only welcome this.

Neutrality over the choice of life is the second force line. The tax system still relies on a "classical" form of cohabitation, namely two married people with or without children. These families are subject to different tax rules than the actual families, which in some cases are more advantageous but usually more detrimental. Therefore, a tax system is clearly not neutral in relation to the choice of life. The proposed corporate tax reform therefore eliminates a number of major existing discriminations against married persons, on the one hand, and extends a number of tax benefits from marriage to cohabitants who are bound by a social contract, on the other.

A first important measure of this reform is the full equality of legal cohabitants with married persons in terms of income taxes. In fiscal matters, the group of married persons is now defined more broadly than in the Civil Code. A legally cohabiting partner is equated with a spouse. The fiscal legal equalization has resulted in the tax advantages that married persons had over cohabitants now also apply to legal cohabitants. First, it concerns the application of the marriage quota, the possible granting of a co-operative income and the mutual compensation of losses between both partners.

Then it is proposed to increase the tax-free amount for each spouse to the same amount as for a single spouse. In addition, in the calculation of the tax, the decumulation scheme is clarified by emphasizing that each taxable person obtains its own tax-free amount.

The government also proposes a number of measures relating to incomes not resulting from labour. The statutory sickness and disability benefits will now be granted per spouse. The basic amount will remain the same in the future, regardless of whether they are single, cohabiting or married persons. As the base amount for the tax reduction, the current amount for the tax alone is taken.

Non-professional incomes are also decumulated and that is important. After all, an important feature of the personal tax is the progressiveness of its tariff structure; the higher the income, the higher the tax scale. Consequently, since the income of spouses is still partially taxed together, the taxes to be paid for a married couple will be higher than those for two single persons who enjoy the same income — in tax terms — as the married couple. The Government thus rightly proposes to carry out for them a complete decumulation, both of the movable and the immovable income as well as of the occupational income and various income.

As already stated, the benefit of the marriage quota will now also go to legally cohabiting persons; they will be able to enjoy it insofar as they meet the conditions of income, just as married persons are.

Finally, in addition to the aforementioned measures on discrimination between married and cohabiting persons, the draft also seeks to eliminate the existing discrimination between men and women. The rules amended by the draft cover the tax reduction on long-term savings, the age conditions for the conclusion of insurance contracts and the benefits provided for in such contracts, the confirmation of the real estate advance tax and, very importantly, the collection of the tax in the event of an actual separation.

Mr. Minister, I suspect that many women along with me will be very happy that the column married woman finally disappears from the tax return. Indeed, the tax service has long reflected on the social reality in that regard.

The third strength line is that the child burden is taken into account in a better way. The tax reduction for children under custody will now be refundable within certain limits. This measure once again aims to solve the problem that some taxpayers, precisely because of their low incomes, cannot benefit from the tax reductions. After all, those who earn too little do not pay taxes and therefore cannot benefit from a tax reduction. It is positive that the government has understood this and is acting through the tax credit and possibly in the form of benefits for children in custody.

The next element is the increase of the limit amount of the means of subsistence to be still burdened. There was a lot to be done around here, in particular regarding the specific number of job students who are also children of divorced parents and for whom a maintenance allowance is paid, which was taken into account for 80% to determine the means of subsistence. An amendment in the committee found a good solution to this problem, in particular that average maintenance payments will no longer be taken into account to determine the net livelihoods of a child. That is a positive evolution that will work in hand with the more regular employment of job students.

Also positive is the additional reduction for single-parent families, which will now be reduced to a base amount of 35.096 francs.

I would like to come back to the “greening” of taxation. Energy savings in the residential sector will be promoted for a total of 1.5 billion francs. The incentive consists in that the taxable person who makes one or more well-defined works with an energy-saving effect perform in his home has the right to a tax reduction. This right is granted only once per tax year to the property and to the taxable person who is its owner, owner, inheritor, estate holder or fruit user.

What are the effects of tax reform in its entirety? First and foremost, as the previous speaker has already said, we must place the tax reform and the personal tax in its global context. In this context, the government has already implemented a number of significant tax cuts. I will name only a few: the re-indexing of the tax scales, the gradual abolition of the crisis contribution, the improvement of the deduction for childcare and the introduction of a reduced VAT rate for labor-intensive services. This means a tax reduction of 11.4 billion francs for the year 1999 and 24.5 billion francs for the year 2000.

I would like to ask a question.

Mrs, you say that the government has already taken other important measures such as indexing the tax scales. Can you explain what measures this government has taken?

Mr. Peterson, I know the discussion very well. We have spoken to them several times in the Finance Committee. Of course, as an opposition, you claim a piece of honor because you say that the principle decisions had already been made before. You cannot deny that this government has enforced the decisions and that now the re-indexing of the tax scales has become a fact. I would say with confidence that the principle decision had already been made, but now it has gotten its effect. This is a measure that comes to the expense of the current government. I am sorry for you being in the opposition now, but that is a fact.

It is a substantially important point, and at the same time it is part of a controversy that we have ⁇ held with humor and playfully for years. You say that the principle decision was taken by the previous government and that the current government is implementing it. Even that is not correct. All the decisions to be taken were made in the previous legislature. It is true that one will now be able to reap the fruits of it increasingly. This has nothing to do with the current government. I see the minister shaking his head. He will then have to say what measures the government should have taken to introduce the re-indexation of the tax scales. The answer is not a single one, because those decisions had already been taken by the previous government.

My questions went in the same direction.

Mrs. Moerman, when you say that you regret that Mr. Pieters is in the opposition, is that — I suppose — not intended for the report?

You do not have to interpret it literally. I said that I personally feel sorry for him. (The Hilarity)

Every year we have to make a new decision regarding the corporate advance tax. This was not the case with the previous government at the beginning of 1999. In 2001, we reimburse a significant amount of income from the first quarter of 1999, because the re-indexation was not taken into account in the corporate advance tax.

It is indeed true that the previous government made that decision shortly before the elections, a decision that would have a significant influence on the next government. That may surprise you, even more because the CVP has repeatedly criticized that the tax reform we want to implement now, more than 2 years before the elections, will have an impact in 2001, 2002, 2003 and even in 2004. Two years before the elections we take new measures for the entire legislature and ⁇ for a year after. That is a big difference from the previous government, which just before the 1999 elections decided on a reform that cost about 1.2 billion. With our reform, we will receive 50 billion less tax money from citizens in two to three years. We have therefore followed the same reasoning, in particular that a fiscal reform is intended for the long term and not for two or three years.

I do not understand the criticism of the CVP that this fiscal reform is spread over two or three legislatures. Our plan in this regard is now fixed, two years before the elections, while in 1999 it was only two months before the elections.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to replicate this.

Mr. Minister, you are ignoring the fact that you are voting on a law today, while very many articles will not come into force until 2003 or 2004. This is in no way comparable to the decision to reintroduce indexation. That is a very different issue. Then the government has taken a measure whose effect increases with time. That is a clear difference. You agree with your criticism, Mr. Minister. I only note that you are incorrigibly stubborn and continue to claim the merit of re-indexing the tax scales, while you know very well that this is not right.

This is indeed a good comparison. After all, we have to make a new royal decision on the corporate advance tax every year. This was not the case before 1999. Now we also need to make a new royal decree every year again for the application of the re-indexing of the tax bars in the corporate advance tax. We follow the same reasoning.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, after the conclusion of this interesting and short interruption, I give you the total amount that these measures cost the State but charge the taxpayers. The measures I have just listed will have an annual beneficial effect of approximately 80 billion francs for all taxpayers at the end of the legislature. With the personal tax reform we are discussing here, a budgetary impact has reached 134.5 billion francs or 1.3% of gross domestic product. This represents a reduction in the personal tax by more than 10%. Together with the abolition of the additional crisis tax and the re-indexing of the tax scales, whoever may have the paternity, this reform will result in reducing the tax pressure by about 2% of the gross domestic product. The fiscal package should therefore be considered in its entirety. It is evident that, for budgetary reasons, the full fiscal reform is not carried out all at once, but is spread over time. However, the increase in the available income of households as a result of the fiscal measures proposed will have a positive macroeconomic impact. This will increase consumption. Production will grow. Investments and employment and the initial increase in income could still be provided, and a multiplier effect would arise.

The Planning Bureau has calculated that GDP will increase by 0.8% in the medium term and that 24,000 new jobs will be created in a six-year period. The return effect on public finances would amount to approximately 20% of the initial costs in the medium term. At cross-speed, the government’s financing capacity, primarily surplus minus interest charges, would amount to 1.3% of GDP versus —1.6% for calculating the return effect. It is no more than normal, the opposite would probably surprise you, that the VLD fully supports the current bill, holding the reform of the personal tax, and will also approve including the greening of the fiscality without further comments.

July 4, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, it is surprising to have to establish the huge interest in this plenary session on this topic! There were more members present in the committee to underline the debate than at the moment in this hemisphere.

The SP will approve the tax reform because we, socialists, feel good about it. This is not the first social tax reduction to be approved and implemented in this legislature. I refer to the indexation of tax scales. At this point, Mr. Dirk Pieters requested a correction. He stressed that this decision was taken by the previous government. You will not be surprised that I feel comfortable in this discussion. The Socialists were part of the previous government and approved this decision. We are present in this government to implement it.

Mr. Pieters, the minister had, in my opinion, a point when he wondered at the criticism of the CVP that this government decides a number of measures that will only be implemented in the next legislature. With the indexation of the tax scales, this was no different. This was a decision of the previous government that would be implemented in the next legislature.

I cannot ignore this comment by Mr. Vanvelthoven. It is not my intention to interrupt the speakers constantly. This morning we only interrupted on this point. I am reluctant that Mr Vanvelthoven again refers to this point. This could indicate that he did not listen to my response to the Minister’s statement.

Yet yes.

The current bill contains a number of provisions that will only come into force in the course of the next legislature and will come into force on 1 January 2003 and 1 January 2004.

January 1, 2003 is, I hope, the current legislature.

Many measures will only come into force on 1 January 2004.

We have obtained a two-thirds majority. It may be easier to keep it up until 2003.

Mr. Minister, there are rumors that this government wants to use the alleged coincidence of European developments to call for early elections. However, let us not conduct this debate.

One case is fixed. Most measures only enter into force in 2003 and 2004. The majority of the measures are only at cross-speed from 2005-2006. Please note, this is not a point of criticism.

This would be an inconsistent criticism. If I claim that the effect increases over time, you are right if you answer me that with indexing the same happens. Indeed, the measure to decide to index the tax scales has a sliding effect over time. That is coherent. I would like to point out that some measures in this law only enter into force after the next legislature is already in office. When indexing the tax scales, this is not the case, although a royal decree is issued annually. I think there is a difference between them.

Second, I think that in this debate there may be some intellectual honesty around the following. The budgetary margin to realize all these things has actually been created in the previous legislatures. Just at the end of the previous legislature, which was supposed to be unpopular for years, two popular measures were taken. First, it is the very modest adjustment of indexing. The second measure concerned an adjustment of 1000 francs for the elimination of discrimination against married persons. These two modest measures could be introduced with the very limited available space. Your budget space is now bigger. You can fill them. However, you are so ungrateful to the previous legislature that you do not even want to acknowledge that those two measures were taken by the previous legislature. I regret that you do not even give the previous legislatures that merit. This cannot be called a new political culture.

Mr. Peterson, it is not my job to judge. You have already recorded a few minutes of the speech you will hold later.

I will answer the questions later. Nevertheless, I would like to respond. I would like to point out that there have been sanctions, however, not during one or two legislatures, but over twenty years. There was an exception between 1987 and 1992, during which period no actual sanitation was carried out. In fact, there have been repairs for twenty years. The space we have now is due to the renovations of those twenty years. This is not the merit of the previous legislature alone.

I propose that you allow Mr Vanvelthoven to speak, although I have nothing against interrupting with his consent. However, we should be able to continue working.

Mr. Pieters, I would like to share with you the merit for the difficult sanitation measures in the 1990s. That merit is not only to you, but also to us. We also claim them, as well as the difficult things we have been able to improve for citizens.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I mentioned the reindexing. The gradual abolition of the crisis contribution is also included in the law. This abolition is primarily aimed at low-income. The deductibility of child care costs has been increased. Benefits for occupational accidents and occupational diseases are completely or partially exempt from tax. On the proposal of the SP, other fiscal measures have been introduced, such as the deductibility of capital settlements. People who were unable to obtain life insurance due to an inherited condition or a previous illness are guaranteed to be able to purchase a home. The tax benefit also applies to them. In this legislature, several matters have already been decided in favour of the taxpayers. The tax landscape in Belgium has changed slightly in two years. These measures are especially beneficial to low and medium-income groups.

The cherry on the cake is the discussion of today, which will be voted on tomorrow. I will not discuss all these measures one by one. We have already shown our appreciation or less appreciation in the committee. I will limit myself to the main lines.

We believe that this tax reform will at least benefit low and middle income. I want to illustrate this with a few figures. 21 billion francs, 15% of the total budget of the available resources, is explicitly allocated to low-income families. I am talking about the repayable tax credits. There is a refundable tax credit for low-income workers. This concrete means that these people can count on a stockpile of 1,500 francs net per month in addition to their salary. Mr. Minister, we hope that your administration will succeed in granting that tax credit to the taxable persons concerned as soon as possible through the corporate advance tax and that the taxable persons do not have to wait until the moment they receive the attack. In addition, the reform includes, for approximately 70 billion francs, more than half of the available budget, flat-rate tax reductions that benefit low and middle-income relatively more: the increase of the tax-free minimum for married persons by 22,000 francs per family, the adjusted tax reduction for married pensioners by 20,000 francs per family, and the increase of the flat-rate professional costs for workers, which generates approximately 4,000 francs per year. In this regard, I would like to refer to a contribution of two taxists of the ACV Study Service in "The Guide on the Social Area" of September 2000. They have evaluated three ways to reduce the pressure on labor. These include the increase of the flat-rate operating costs for modest income, the adjustment of the tariff discs and the increase of the tax-free minimum. They assessed the impact of those proposals through a simulation program. This shows that all these measures, together amounting to 85 billion francs or two-thirds of the total budget, score well to very well in terms of reallocation of income. We are also pleased that the overall package of measures, including the abolition of the two highest rates, increases the progressiveness of taxes. This means that after the tax reform, the highest incomes will fill a larger portion of the pot tax money. That is an important data for the SP to approve this tax reform. It is not a linear tax reduction of 10% for everyone, but there is a tax reduction that is 10% in globo. Proportionally, however, lower incomes will benefit more from the tax reduction than higher incomes.

Mr. Pieter, let Mr. Vanvelthoven hold his speech. You will be speaking later.

Mr. Speaker, I would be cautious in the way you express yourself after what happened here this week around among others Belgacom. If there ever arises a situation in which a normal debate can develop, you ask not to intervene. You who have given so many interviews about the revaluation of Parliament, ask that one should be silent as soon as one raises the finger.

Mr. Pieters, Mr. Vanvelthoven has asked to hold his speech and I respect that. You have asked for more speech time later, and that will happen. However, let Mr. Vanvelthoven finish his speech first.

Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Vanvelthoven effectively asked him not to ask questions, then I will not do so.

Mr. Vanvelthoven just told me that he would like to hold his speech. Mr. Pieters, I have heard a few things here that I get some on my hips. You say there were few public debates in the Chamber. I made a list and it turned out that there have never been so many since I am president. I would also like to make a list of interruptions. If someone allows interruptions, and rightly, then it is this president. However, one should also give the speaker the opportunity to finish his course of thought. If you really feel an insurmountable need to interrupt, then I can of course hardly resist that on behalf of the Chamber. Is that the case now?

This is due to a misunderstanding between you and me. I even thought that interruptions now and then you were tenderness If now it turns out that this is not the case, I will not do it again. It is not an irresistible coercion.

However, if I hear Mr Vanvelthoven say that the progressivity of the tax system is increasing, it is normal that I want to ask him whether the abolition of the maximum rates is also part of it.

That is indeed a good question.

This is indeed a good question. However, if Mr. Pieters had listened carefully, he would have heard that I have already explained it.

Even taking into account the abolition of the highest rates of 7 billion francs, this tax reform increases progressivity. I give two examples. For small earners with an income below 500,000 francs, the taxes fall by more than 50%. For the highest income, above 2 million francs, the tax is reduced by 6%. This means increasing the progressiveness of the tax. High incomes will contribute more to the total tax pot in the future than small incomes do today.

Mr. Vanvelthoven, what about the progressivity for a disk above 1.2 million francs? Do not misunderstand me, Mr. Vanvelthoven, I am also in favor of this. Saying that progressivity rises when one gets the top rates down, however, you won’t get sold anywhere.

Mr. Peters, the data shows this. With progressivity I mean that the low-income benefit more from this tax reform than the high-income, despite your and partly our criticism. For us, the highest rates should not be abolished, but that is part of the package of measures. Globally speaking — anyone can account — low-income people will receive a greater tax reduction than high-income people.

This means that progressivity is provided.

Progressivity is indeed strengthened. The tax on low incomes will be much lower than it is today. Therefore, there is a greater difference in progressiveness.

I apologize to Mr Vanvelthoven.

Mr. Peterson, you should not have any pity on us. We feel good about the tax reform. I understand that you also feel good about it. The only thing you have a problem with is that certain measures might need to come into effect for you faster. However, I heard you say that you can agree with the globality of this tax reform, despite the fact that you will abstain tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote against.

You are even against it, Mr. Pieters.

From a global perspective, this tax reform can take away our approval. That is not to mention that we have called attention in the committee and also today for a number of existing injustices.

One of those injustices lies in another point of Article 154 of the Income Tax Code. That article provides for a tax exemption for persons for whom the taxable income consists only of replacement income that does not exceed a maximum amount. We have submitted an amendment to this issue in the committee, in which we have drawn up some examples. The application of this Article may in some cases give rise to undesirable tax additions. A person with an unemployment benefit that earns only a few hundred francs in a given year is faced with a surplus tax of more than 10,000 francs. That was never the intention of the legislator. The same applies to someone who lives out of a pension. A slight increase of the pension above the maximum amount also gives rise to significant tax additions.

We have submitted an amendment to limit this surplus tax at least to the income supplement. You said in the committee that you found this a proposal that is worth investigating in any case. The discussion in the committee did not take long enough to calculate its cost and realize the technical development. However, you have pledged to have this investigated by the administration. I would like to insist on this again.

The committee also seriously debated the problem of single-parent families and more specifically the fact that children from such families, who do a holiday job, are discriminated against children from two-parent families. The draft law addressed this discrimination and opted for a solution in which the maximum amount to be contributed would be raised by 18,000 Belgian francs. Our and other groups proposed that the maintenance allowance should no longer be included in the determination of the amount of net livelihoods. The solution, which came out of the bus and which consists in not taking into account the maintenance allowance of 6,000 francs per month in the determination of net livelihoods, may take away our approval, moreover because this is linked to the increase of the amount to earn for children of single persons. This means, according to our calculations, that — up to a maintenance allowance of 13,000 francs per month — children of single persons can do the same vacation work as children of married couples.

I have two questions for you, Mr. Minister. First, you know that it is difficult for those concerned to calculate how much they can earn each year in order to remain in charge of their parents. Therefore, it may be useful to place a simple calculation program on your website so that it is easily accessible and easy to calculate for taxpayers. The second question relates to the amended text. Disputes could arise as to whether maintenance payments, which are not taxable on the basis of the child, can be deducted on the basis of, for example, the father, because, for example, he pays retirement payments or does not regularly deposit. Such a situation cannot, however, result in this child, who receives irregularly deposited alimony, having to charge those alimony in order to determine the net means of subsistence. As the text is now formulated, it could be inferred that only regularly paid maintenance payments are no longer taken into account in determining net livelihoods. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it was also intended to exclude any kind of maintenance, including non-regularly paid maintenance, up to 6,000 francs per month.

Another improvement for families whose parents have been separated is undoubtedly the possibility now introduced to no longer bring the divorced spouses to court for debts of the other spouse. In the bill, which will be voted on tomorrow, there is a solution for the future. This is a very good thing. There are many striking examples in this regard. What will happen to things from the past?

Mr. Minister, there are still a lot of scary situations. Last week, a divorced woman with four children came to take care of me. She still works herself, and she has been separated from a self-employed for several years. Her home has been sold in the meantime. As a result of the revision of her ex-husband's taxes, she has now received attacks of 1.5 million francs and 2 million francs. For this woman this is a catastrophe. She is now faced with wage confiscation and with the withdrawal of tax refunds. Mr. Minister, is it not possible to find a solution for such people, who can no longer benefit from the current design? These people often walk with their heads against the wall. It is often said “dura lex, sed lex,” “the law is hard, but it is what it is,” but a solution must still be possible in such cases?

Mr. Minister, I would like to make two comments. First, the pleasant part is behind the back, I think. The tax reduction — by 134.5 billion francs — has been settled. The difficult part has yet to come. With this I mean the discussion on the transformation of the deductions, the baskets, and the simplification of our system of personal tax, for which we await the opinion of the High Council for Finance. I think the simplification will not be easy. The money that was available goes to tax cuts. In any case, courage will be needed to make the tax system simpler and more transparent for the taxable person. We urge serious work to be done during this legislature.

Secondly, I would like to comment on the lack of fiscal controls. I interviewed you about it some time ago. This is a topic that is of course close to your heart. I do not go as far as the government commissioner, Mr. Zenner, who through the press announced his opinion that the tax administration is "une entreprise en quasi faillite". But it’s five for twelve for the tax administration, so I think urgent action needs to be taken. Following my previous interpellation, you announced that you would come up with a boardboard on both tax fraud and on the daily tax control. According to your announcement, this would happen even before the recess. The journey begins soon, so we expect some concrete news from you about this.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to inform the Chamber that our good colleague, Mr. Stefaan De Clerck, wrote me a friendly letter. In this he offers his resignation as a member of this Chamber. He requested that his resignation be filed on 4 July 2001.

I wanted to express my appreciation for Mr. De Clerck while he was present, but he asked not to do so. Nevertheless, I cannot fail to thank him for the many days, months and years that he has spent among us as a minister, as a member of the Chamber and as a party chairman. On Thursday, we will take the oath of his successor.

Mr. Speaker, I think I understand from your words that you wish to repeat the good experiences with Mr. De Clerck.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, if we look at this draft from a green perspective, we can hardly get rid of the impression that the Minister has shortly succeeded in taking his green colleagues twice. This is the first time he has done so in connection with the ecotaxes. Yesterday, Mr. Leterme, our group leader, has already paid attention to this, and we will continue to pay attention to it. When we look at the draft on the reform of the personal tax we also feel that there are not many green accents in it.

While reading the papers, I wondered how that happened. Spontaneously I then thought back to a television program by Bruno Wyndaele, The Last Show, in which the Agalev excellence that is part of the core cabinet was present and where she could come blinking in front of the camera to do her first night conclave at Lambermont. When asked by Minister Aelvoet how she could sustain that, she replied: "Yes, but occasionally I also do a tukye between." I had to think about it spontaneously when I went through this. I think the green excellences have continuously slept. After all, if I look at this entire fiscal package of almost 135 billion francs, I almost need a telescope to detect one green accent anywhere. We find something: somewhere at the bottom we find 1.5 billion francs for the greening of fiscality from the income year 2003, converted into percentages a kind of weight of the greens in this government of 1.1%. Indeed, Mr. van Weddingen, we must correct this, for in the first force line — reduction of the burden on labor — there is also something else. 2.5 billion francs will be allocated for residential work traffic, starting from the income year 2001, and half a billion for the reimbursement of public transport costs. Subject to a small correction, we can increase that type weight, that green type weight in this tax reform from 1.1% to 4.5% in total, of which the largest part is still in the income year 2003. There have been times in previous governments with less satisfaction.

I therefore fully understand that the chairman/secretary of Agalev stated in De Morgen that he was only moderately satisfied with this government. Honestly, I would be that in his place. He has every reason to be very moderately satisfied with the government work delivered. In my presentation, I would like to speak more concretely about the Articles 6 and 9 of the draft which are interconnected. My group suggests removing those articles because the soup is simply not worth the cabbage.

Article 9 – so-called – encourages the movement of residential work and the movement by means of other modes of transport than the own car. One wants to do so by granting a flat-rate deduction of 6 francs per kilometer, even if the actual costs are lower. There are limitations on, as you know: 2 x 25 kilometers. In addition, the amount falls within the proof-of-proof cost scheme and further there is the budgetary limit of 2.5 billion francs. These are the three constraints that lead to this. In turn, this means that it is a maximum amount of 66,000 francs per year. If one adds the table of the fixed occupational expenses and calculates the percentages into an income, then one finds that one actually already has fixed occupational expenses for an income of 479,000 francs. This means that people who earn more than 479,000 francs make better use of their package. One can ask whether there are many or few. No one can answer it exactly. The only thing we know is that the average taxable salary, compared to that 479,000 francs, today still stands at and around the 780,000 francs. In 2001 this could be even higher. Even for the married wives, this is about and at the 600,000 francs, so much higher.

The group that could rely on this measure will be extremely small from the outset. In particular, this means that Article 9 has very little or even no use. I look forward to the evaluation you have announced. I am curious to know how many people in practice will resort to the new article 9 of the draft.

I will not extend it long, but one could note bene the comparison between what is proposed in Article 9 and what was decided by the previous government in relation to Article 38 of the Income Tax Code regarding the exemption of bicycle fee. This comparison has already been made in the government and I would like to do it here. In Flanders, this measure affects 12% of people who move from home to workplace. 12% of Flemish people do this today by bicycle, compared to 1% in Brussels and Wallonia. That was at least — let me be chauvinist — a measure that had a significant impact on a large group of workers.

Taking into account the arrangement that the previous government had implemented in this regard, the new Article 9 has as a concrete consequence for the residential-work movement by bicycle that the employee is only benefiting from a choice for the flat fee. So the new article has little or no meaning. We do not claim this because we are in the opposition, Mr. Minister, we try to approach the matter objectively. I quote the Tax Guide, a handy booklet compiled by a number of taxists, regarding article 9 of the draft: “It will ⁇ not be enough as an incentive to persuade the taxpayer to leave his car for residential-working traffic aside. Therefore, the fiscal impact of this measure must be neglected.” This statement does not come from us, but can be read in the Tax Guide.

Furthermore, the measure will cause the underoccupied and overloaded officials of your ministry to receive even more requests for explanation about this vague arrangement, about this meaningless novelty, and that is very much. This will result in additional complications for workers who go to work using a different mode of transport than their own car. So, more complication and less efficiency of tax application. This applies to cyclists, but even more to those who want to use carpooling; because for them, after all, the system becomes hopelessly complicated.

Let us assume that after the evaluation of Article 9, the parameters, the 2 x 25 km scheme or the 6 frank scheme, are used to make the measure meaningful. I advise you to reflect on the outcome, because when the measure is effectively implemented, one will use less of the package. This will result in an additional tax on the tax authorities. At that point, there will arise a contradiction between the announced amendment to Article 9 and what you actually intend with Article 6 of your draft, in particular the encouragement of a group of workers to give up the cost-for-payment. With Article 9, you will thus, in the long run, introduce something contrary to what you want to ⁇ today with Article 6: in particular, persuade the public to give up the cost-for-payment.

Mr. Speaker, the authors of Fiscologist talk about this article 6 of a deterioration. The magazine Trends — an unmistakable non-CVP Source — published on Article 6 an article entitled: "Fiscal discouragement public transport". And that with a purple-green government, for now purple with a green tint!

Article 6 deals with whether or not the employee is exempt from the contribution paid by the employer, in the costs of moving from his place of residence to his workplace. I will not extend this, but limit myself to the following comment.

This concerns the category of persons who, as defined in the draft and the WIB, regularly use public transport. Well, now there is no difference between employees and taxpayers who either rely on the flat rate or prove their professional expenses. Indeed, if no subscription is purchased, then the employee is in any case exempt from tax of 6,000 francs and if a subscription is purchased, then the full amount of the employer's contribution for the move to work is exempt. This means that employees who regularly use public transport and prove their actual professional costs can benefit from the full exemption.

I will save you an exhaustive example in this regard, but it comes down to the fact that when an employee enters into a train subscription of 80,000 francs as professional expenses and the employer intervenes in this for 40,000 francs, the employee is exempt from tax on this intervention.

But what does this government do? How will she hit this employee? Well, by allowing him to deduct the amount of 80,000 francs for his train subscription, but by reminding him immediately that the employer’s contribution of 40,000 francs is now only tax-free if he does not prove the actual costs. In particular, this means that a taxable person who chooses to prove his professional expenses — and that is the right of every taxable person — and submits his train subscription is punished by tax. For someone with a train subscription of 80,000 francs, that makes it a significant amount, as those involved are punished at a rate of 50%. If the employer’s contribution amounts to 40,000 francs, he shall be punished for half, or 20,000 francs. At a rate of 45% it is, of course, a little less.

Whatever it is, the employee who goes to his work by public transport and buys a subscription for which he wants exemption is punished because he is obliged to renounce the flat fee.

From this I can only conclude that Article 6 undoubtedly discourages a number of persons from going to their work by means of public transport.

This is because public transport users, who today prove their professional costs, are declining significantly. This is a very substantial category. Therefore, in The Fiscologist, one rightly speaks of a deterioration, a fiscal discouragement of public transport.

I would like to conclude with a general decision. I assume that the purpose of the draft is to stabilize the fiscal pressure. My opinion is that a reduction in fiscal pressure can only be achieved if economic growth in our country collapses. If you don’t put them together, then you won’t get a reduction in the fiscal pressure. If the fiscal pressure decreases, it will not be attributed to this fiscal reform, but to slow economic growth.

I come to a second final conclusion. This draft fails in terms of the announced simplification and increased transparency of our tax system. In your policy note of 21 November, you talked about bringing together a number of withdrawal options in three or four baskets. You had a basket for employment, a basket for mobility, a basket for savings taxation and a basket for real estate investments. Today you present to us a design that gives you the opportunity to actually use it, to introduce simplification. However, in your design you actually do exactly the opposite. You make things even more complicated. I do not want to say more about the technology of the tax credit. For the residential-working movement, the situation for the ordinary taxpayer becomes hopelessly complicated. In your policy note, you are talking about transparency and simplification, and today you are doing the opposite. Some will say that this is inherent to politicians, but I did not expect that from you.

A final, disturbing conclusion for us is that with this draft, you not only make taxation more complex and less accessible for the ordinary citizen, but that you actually dare to discourage public transportation as well. Of a government of which Agalev and Ecolo are part, we could never have imagined that they would accept that there would be even one article or a passage that would result in a discouragement of the use of public transport for a large category of taxpayers, namely the group that uses public transport and at the same time proves its actual costs.

I would like to conclude with the title of the newsletter on taxation from the De Fiscoloog of 30 May 2001, which is entirely devoted to the draft that concerns us this afternoon and which will be voted tomorrow. The title speaks for itself: ‘Personal tax reform: waiting for better times’. Mr. Minister, that is what we intend to do.

The rapporteur, Mr. van Weddingen, will – which is often the custom – be the last speaker. Colleagues, you should know that the rapporteur in this Chamber has the right to sit next to the Minister. There was a time when the rapporteur, regardless of his party, sat next to the minister. The rapporteur sometimes responded to comments related to the report.

Why is this custom abolished?

It has not been abolished.

Is it no longer used?

I can only say that the rapporteur was at the time next to the minister to clarify the situation. When the committees were not yet public and only the report was available, the rapporteur was able to testify to what was said in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I may be able to help the colleague out of the need why that habit has become unused. It may have to do with the custom of current ministers to call the phone all the time during the pleasures. It makes no sense to be sitting next to a calling minister.

Mr. Pinxten, you should always pay attention to what the future can offer you. If I remain so quiet at fillibusting, it was because a good chairman or forest guard must have been an excellent stroper, on the only condition that he would not have lost all his lines.

Mr Peterson has the word.

Mr. Speaker, colleague Van Weddingen, I agree with the praiseful words that colleague Leterme spoke this morning about your report and your ability to give any explanation to the report if it would be necessary.

As the final speaker of the CVP, I would like, on the one hand, to summarize our comments and criticisms once again very briefly and, on the other hand, to address some elements that have not yet been deepened by colleagues Leterme and Pinxten.

The design ⁇ contains positive aspects. That would still be lacking. Personal taxes are reduced and the draft rightly reduces the income taxes of natural persons, as the population has had to make financial efforts for years to overcome the budgetary crisis. Thanks to the efforts made in the previous legislatures, a budgetary margin has been again available since 1981 – with interruption.

We also find it positive that the government finally acknowledges that there is a problem with the tax discrimination of married persons and has therefore included in its plan the elimination of a number of tax discriminations. We are also pleased that it was primarily based on the CVP bill, which I had submitted together with Mr. Leterme. In a sense, we could say that we have opposed in a very efficient way as we find whole pieces of text from our own proposal in this draft.

In addition, this draft includes several other proposals and amendments of the CVP. I refer to Mrs. Creyf’s proposal concerning the maximum age for women for tax reduction in insurance and to the debate on the exemption of maintenance payments for the calculation of net livelihoods. In this regard, I refer to the amended bills of colleagues Van Eetvelt, Leterme and Pieters.

I will summarize the negative aspects in ten points. First, only one-sixth of the plan is implemented by this government. Of the tax plan of 134.5 billion, only 25 billion will be realized in this legislature. The balance of more than 100 billion comes at cross-speed only from 2006, making the plan much more a promise than a fact.

Second, the elimination of tax discrimination is clearly not a priority of the purple-green government, even though they recognize the problem. Of the 25 billion tax cuts in this legislature, only 3 billion will flow to the abolition of tax discrimination.

Third, not all tax discrimination between married and cohabitants will be abolished, as pensioners with a family pension, bridge pensioners and unemployed are excluded from the scheme. We can demonstrate that there are still 14 discriminations.

We can prove that in fact there are still 14 discriminations.

Fourth, the real single remains in the cold. We had proposed to continue to treat real single persons taxally more favourably in order to allow the principle of carrying power to play. The government does not agree with this. These four points have already been explained by group leader Yves Leterme.

Fifth, the government makes the complex arrangement of housing-working traffic even more complex, as was argued by colleague Pinxten.

Sixth, the government is reducing the fiscal pressure on labor, but not in the most efficient way. Especially the introduction of the tax credit strikes our criticism. It is a complex formula in which the benefit of the lower labor income is only available with delay. Our simple alternative is: increase the flat-rate deductible professional costs. In this draft reform of the personal tax, the government should have asked itself whether much of the prevailing measures, which take a large slice of the federal budget margin, should be taken into the fiscal system. Indeed, from the point of view of economic and social efficiency, it is often more appropriate to increase social benefits such as child allowances or to reduce workers’ own contributions to social security in order to reduce the gap between gross and net wages. The introduction of a refundable tax credit of approximately 20,000 francs per year aimed at low labor income is not the best possible technique. The refund is not made through the company advance tax but through the settlement of the surcharge, i.e. one to three years after the establishment of the low employment income. It is therefore not at the moment when the citizen really needs it, namely when his or her labor income is low, that this purple-green government rushes to help with the provisions of this bill and establishes an active welfare state, but about two years later, when the income situation may already have changed thoroughly. Not everyone with low income is financially needy. Even the State Council raised in its opinion the question of whether it is legitimate for one spouse to obtain a repayable tax credit if the other spouse has significant incomes.

Our colleague Greta D'Hondt has submitted a bill on this subject that was already rejected by the current coalition. However, the proposed technique of increasing the flat-rate deduction for professional costs is also defended by all social partners in a joint opinion of the National Labour Council and the Central Council for Business and the management committee of the National Social Security. Ms. D'Hondt will, by the way, submit a new bill in that sense.

Seventh, the group of taxable persons whose income is determined on a flat-rate basis of taxation is excluded from the new tax credit for low employment income. This is incomprehensible. The explanatory note expressly states that the tax credit should remain an instrument for promoting employment and combating poverty. The step from unemployment to a self-employed business, with incomes sometimes very low in the beginning, would be too big. Our amendment lists the occupations that can be taxed in a flat-rate manner. It involves 27 groups, including farmers and many small self-employed. For example, 80 to 90 percent of farmers work on a flat-rate basis. Everyone knows that many of them are hardly able to connect the ends, and yet they are not given this advantage. It is incomprehensible and unbelievable for me that the liberal factions have accepted that these self-employed should not enjoy the benefit of the 20,000 franc tax credit.

Eighth, the increase in the tax deduction for childcare is rejected. For the approved childcare, there is no increase in the maximum daily amount and no increase in the age to 12 years. We were in favour of a deduction without a maximum, as the cost of a day of childcare often already exceeds 450 francs. I refer to the report for the rest of the presentation on this subject.

Unrecognized childcare is also undervalued on the fiscal level and in comparison with recognised childcare. It is only an increase in the tax-free sum of 16,000 francs. However, unrecognized childcare is often a necessity. Even if it is not a necessity, this reception deserves social appreciation.

Ninth, the measures in favour of the children under custody are insufficient. I refer to the problem of increasing net livelihoods for children of single persons with regard to the children of divorced parents who receive maintenance and want to do a student job. The proposal as it was included in the draft did not provide an adequate answer. The CVP explained its amendment on this subject. It was submitted again by the majority. It is only because of the main attitude of Mr. Van Weddingen that the CVP has yet to sign the amendment that is substantially ours, in extremis. In this way, the described problem is partially solved.

The tax credit for children of single persons seeks to solve the non take up. At this point, our criticism is the same as the one we have expressed in relation to the activity income. It is not the very best measure because it works too late, only through incoherence — thus with one to three years delay — and because it is complex. We choose the path of defiscalization combined with an increase in child allowances. For further explanation, I refer to the report.

The entry into force of the measures contained in the draft law that have something to do with children is carried out by means of incubation from the year of application 2003. This means that almost all taxpayers will have to wait until 2004 — until the next legislature — to notice any of these measures. Tenth, there is no compensation for the negative impact on the financial resources of the municipalities, estimated by the CVP at around 8 billion francs if the whole comes at cross-speed. I refer again to the report but also to the discussion of the bill for reducing and/or abolishing the 3% collection costs that the federal government charges municipalities. This debate was held in the committee yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, considering these 10 points of criticism you will be able to understand that the CVP has mixed feelings about this bill. Our criticisms are not light. Although this tax reform has good news for the taxpayer, it has missed many opportunities. The taxpayer will really feel the positive effects only from half of the next legislature, provided that the budget margin has not already been spent on other fun things at that time.

It is true that the last speaker must be brief and I will be.

What can I say, Mr. Minister, except that I was waiting for a real tax reform a long time ago! A real reduction in tax pressure. A reduction so significant that every taxpayer will actually have the opportunity to feel it concretely!

Thus, taking into account the tax measures already adopted since the formation of this government, we will witness, from 2003 — a year still belonging to this legislature — a reduction of the tax pressure by more than 10%. We are talking about 10.8%, and even more than 24% from 2006.

Mr. Pinxten, you laugh, because 2006 seems so far away to you. Nevertheless, it is not really so far away, because in order to reach the normal end of this legislature and leave the time needed to another government to eventually correct the reform, we will already be in 2006!

Therefore, it is not at all illogical to show from now what will be, until 2006, the impact of this reform and of all the other measures taken since the formation of this government, because taxpayers will really benefit from the benefits of them until 2006, hoping that they will benefit from them again later. In any case, until 2006, it seems certain that they will benefit from this reform!

All taxpayers — of which, unfortunately, I am — were expecting this.

It is true that the circumstances allow it today and that it was not always the case until in a recent past. However, Mr. Minister, you have magnificently seized the ball at the jump and, in order to resume a season term, you have made it a “match ball”.

As a committee, I stated that your project meets, in my view, the three main characteristics of any successful tax reform.

First of all, you have developed a project understandable for everyone, because articulating around a few very simple axes that everyone can perceive. However, there are still some complexities. Nevertheless, most of the technical complexities are mainly due to phasing. Thus, by definition, these will disappear with time, since these are transitional measures.

Then your project presents this necessary second quality, i.e. a reduction sufficiently sensitive to be concrete perceived by everyone. Mr. Minister, you have given us enough concrete examples to convince us.

Finally, your project is fair: it affects all categories of taxpayers.

By the way, when one examines the project, it is difficult to choose — to rejoice, in my case — one measure rather than another. I do not intend to sacrifice here to a traditional game of highlighting certain measures at the expense of others, on the grounds that they would correspond more to my philosophy. What strikes in this project is its balance. Any too targeted intervention would necessarily have the effect of distorting the project. Iron was carried wherever it was necessary, without privileging one category of taxpayers over another. This will, I hope, ensure the continuity of the reform. Nothing is more harmful in tax matters — and we have still known it in the recent past — than repeated and sometimes contradictory revisions of tax legislation. Not only does this create fiscal insecurity but it is also one of the main causes of tax evasion. I would therefore be very uncomfortable if I were enthusiastic about one measure while leaving another in the shadow because I honestly consider that all the proposed measures were necessary. From this to the conclusion that no other measure would have been useful or that it would not have been interesting to go even further for some measures, this is a step that I will not take, Mr. Minister, otherwise you would not recognize me! I will not propose them either, since the current and foreseeable budgetary mass would not reasonably allow them to be realized and we would fall into this passage that I have just denounced as to be avoided, namely that we would eventually be obliged, after taking these measures, to take a step back.

What matters is to be aware that, just as the reduction of our debt must continue, the reduction of the fiscal pressure does not end with this project. The end of the tunnel, even if it becomes perceptible thanks to this project, is not yet reached, we know it. The goal was to reach the European average. At the beginning of this legislature, at the time of the government agreement, this goal required a relief of the order of 400 billion. However, while the 328 billion reduction amount announced for 2006 brings us very significantly closer to this original goal, at the same time, reforms are underway in the main neighboring countries and, as we approach the European average, the latter continues to decline. It is at the time when the reform will fully enter into force, at the time when it will be in cruise speed that we will need to make the point and evaluate what will still be our disadvantage at that time. The Minister also recalled, in his introductory presentation — I read it again, it is the advantage of being a rapporteur! - that fiscal convergence constituted the sixth stage of the government’s strategy, after this project which is the fifth.

I said that I would not deal with a particular measure, and I intend to stick to it. But a word still about the reduction of the highest rates. I felt, especially in the committee, reluctance. I will not say more, I felt reluctant about this measure in particular. However, it is a measure as necessary as it is inexpensive. Our highest rate, you know, will go from 55 to 50%, more of the municipal additional, but let’s only take the base rates. We are talking about European tax harmonization, we are talking about indispensable convergences, but do we know that Schröder’s Germany reduces its maximum rate from 53% to 45%? Today, in 2001, it has already been reduced to 48.5%. Is it known that France de Jospin is considering, and there is already a project that exists, to increase from 54 to 43,2%? Is it known that Luxembourg, what horrible comparison, has gone from 46% to 38%? I would not dare to talk to you about the Bush reform, but here, we are considering reducing the maximum rate from 39.6 to 33%. As I said, the end of the tunnel is visible, but not yet reached.

I recognize, for this last comparison, that the state taxes which are added to the federal tax are greater than our local and regional additional taxes.

This is not to conclude that the highest rates must be lowered very quickly, but it is necessary, and I believe that it is fundamental, that the next effort is still focused on the balance sheet and on the middle tranches. The project already allows to recover 50% of ten years of non-indexation of the barems, so there is still something to do.

The psychological effect of the removal of the two highest rates was necessary and I congratulate the minister for daring to propose and support it. I am pleased that there was no demagogic attack, but only some reluctance.

The effect of this reform on the economy will undoubtedly be beneficial. Ms. Moerman recalled a number of figures from the Plan Bureau. I will only retain the 20% return effect in terms of revenue, and it is also so that, while the reform normally costs the budget about 134 billion, in fact, it represents for the taxpayers a reduction of tax pressure of 169 billion.

In conclusion, this first real reform should allow the restoration of some tax credibility for taxpayers. There’s a saying that “calmed cat fears cold water.” Belgian taxpayers, on the other hand, have all become "tax-checked cats" after more than ten years of taxative rage. This is the main cause of the extent of tax evasion.

If one wants to restore — and I think many here want it — the tax civism, one must first restore the tax credibility of the authority. I sincerely believe that this project is an important factor in this restoration. We will therefore support it with conviction.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will not recall all the elements of the project, almost all the groups having found it appropriate to intervene in this general discussion.

I will just comment on a few points after thanking. van Weddingen for the report he has drafted, but also presented orally at the plenary session as well as the services who have worked quickly to draft this document. I would also like to thank the Commission. The discussion took place mainly in the committee. I know that it is always a bit unfortunate to debate in a plenary session in front of a clear-seated session, where we find roughly the same speakers as in a committee. Other discussions are still taking place, for now, in other committees, which prevents members from joining us.

I would also like to thank you for the work done since a number of amendments have been adopted in committees — which may still be too rare — and have helped to improve some aspects of the project to the benefit of some taxpayers. I think in particular of the problem of the alimony rents mentioned above, which has indeed experienced a favorable development within the Commission, as well as, in the field of mobility, the possibility offered to enterprises to increase to 120% of deductibility of the costs they incur for the organization of mechanisms or systems of public transport specific to the enterprise or to several enterprises, from the fiscal year 2003, i.e. the revenues of 2002. These are new measures that were introduced during the committee debate, which are partly in line with the demands made in the Interprofessional Agreement, in particular this provision concerning companies, or which are part of the concerns raised by members of the committee. by

I would like to confirm that we will not encounter any difficulties on the part of the European Commission with regard to this enhanced deductibility measure for companies. It is worth clarifying that the project we are discussing today has undergone a number of improvements as part of the committee debate.

I would like to briefly point out some elements of the general framework of this tax reform.

Mr. Pieters noted that during the previous governments in Belgium it was repaired. In Belgium, we have known repairs for about twenty years. I have already said this in the committee meeting and repeat it now in the plenary session. The current margin is due to these repairs. However, there was a problem in the period 1988-1993. The restructuring of the debt ratio and the deficit stopped. Between 1988 and 1993, the deficit remained at around 7%, automatically increasing the debt ratio to about 138%. During the twenty-year recovery period, the debt ratio decreased from 1993 in the following eight years.

A tax reform is needed. During that twenty-year repair period there are different periods. During the 1980s, simultaneously, the public finances were sanctioned and the fiscal pressure was reduced. This reform was implemented following the fiscal reform of Mr Grootjans. From around 1985 the fiscal pressure therefore decreased concrete, while the public finances were sanited. In the 1990s, public finances were also sanctioned, but fiscal pressure increased by some measures. For example, the tax bars were not indexed and the anti-crisis tax was introduced, a new tax from around 1994. At present, the fiscal pressure is very high. It speaks for itself that we must go in a different direction.

Mr. Leterme recalled the “rage taxatoire”.

It was, if I am not mistaken, an expression regularly used inside and outside of this speaker by Jean Gol who used this formula a lot during the 1990s. In a way, I would like to thank Mr. Leterme to refer to it because it is the demonstration of what has happened for a few years.

It is true that it is the continuation of the sanitation of public finances but with, unfortunately, for a large part, a sanitation based on an increase in the burdens for taxpayers. I could almost use the formula today — I think Jean Gol would appreciate it —: we may be launching ourselves in some ways into a kind of “detaxatory rage”; but it is never just detricting what has been strapped for a certain number of years. by

However, we are going further. I believe that we are decreasing the tax pressure more sharply during these years than it has been increased in the previous years.

It is therefore normal that we now set a new priority, namely the reduction of the burden on labour. There is a difference for companies. First and foremost it is about reducing the social burden. We still need to work on a tax reform of corporate tax. First and foremost, however, there is a reduction in the social burden. A first step has already been taken in this regard during the previous legislature by a number of decisions of the previous government. For private individuals, it is a reduction in the personal tax. We work in two directions. For companies it is a reduction in the social burden and for individuals a reduction in the personal tax.

Regarding the fiscal strategy pursued, beyond this general framework of the sanitation of public finances that allows us to have margins, I would like to cut the wings to a kind of duck, of an image regularly presented: there is a rainbow strategy in terms of tax reform and evolution of taxation, but that should not be cut into slices. This is a common project and the government agreement clearly states this.

All formations of the majority want to move forward in a tax reform that has important social effects, which benefits in a quite legitimate and significant way the social categories with low incomes. Everyone wants to go in that direction. We all also wanted to eliminate most of the discrimination that ultimately harms certain life choices made by our fellow citizens. We all want to reduce the tax on labor – no doubt in this matter – in the same way that we want to see – I will return to it – advance the simplification of tax legislation or that we want to ⁇ various specific objectives, whether in terms of mobility or sustainable development, for example.

So it seems to me somewhat absurd to want to tune the mark, the footprint of a part of a coalition to one of the components of the tax reform. The whole reform was wanted by the various formations of the Arc-Encel majority. It is in this sense that it seems to me most reasonable to analyze this reform as a whole, which is integrated into a multi-stage strategy. It has been recalled several times.

It is true that it seems somewhat surprising today to recall it, but the tax stop was already a novelty given that, for ten years, taxes were constantly increasing. Applying the tax stop for the first time in the 2000 budget, the budget that had to support some costs related to the dioxin crisis, was not so simple when we recall the situation in which our country was in the summer and autumn 1999, when drawing up the 2000 budget. This was the tax stop.

The indexation of tax rates has not been the subject of a decision of the previous government. From time to time, it is good to recall the reality. The previous government has only finally chosen not to suspend anymore; so it has done nothing but has chosen not to suspend again the indexation of tax rates. Before the 1995 elections, the commitment had already been made to no longer remove this indexation, to no longer suspend it but, from the following year, the suspension intervened again. There was a hesitation in 1999: will we still be suspended? It is true that there was no new decision and therefore the indexation had to play again. As I recently recalled, however, this indexation did not play at the time in the professional pre-accounts for the first quarter of the year.

It is in this that I say that it is necessary not only to make new decisions, what we are doing to incorporate this indexation into the tax schemes, but also to pay, to repay taxpayers, in 2001, the surplus of taxes that they were asked on their 1999 income because the pre-accounts were not adapted. This was a second step.

The third was, of course, the gradual abolition of the complementary crisis contribution. I would like to clarify this issue and take two references in this legislature: - on 1 January 2002, there will be only one percent of crisis contribution on all incomes. The maximum tax rate in Belgium will be reduced to 52%; - on 1 January 2003, there will also be no longer any crisis contribution in the pre-accounts: 3% of taxes will disappear and the maximum tax rate will be 50% from the professional pre-accounts.

The next step is the reform, and I will return to it. Of course, it will have to go further and I will also come back to it, but other steps have already been taken. I think of the measures regarding pensions for accidents of work and occupational diseases, the participation of workers in the results of their business (voted unanimously in this assembly), other measures also on the deductibility of custody costs for children under 3 years.

What is the ambition of this part of the fiscal strategy already achieved? Indexation, crisis contribution, tax reform. A lot of numbers have been cited. Mr. Speaker, I will allow myself to cite three of the different periods mentioned: - in 2003, the last year of the legislature: 138 billion reduction of the IPP, compared with what would have been the fiscal pressure if nothing had changed since 1999. It is a little more than 10% reduction of the tax pressure on individuals and I thank you for the elements after the virgule; - in 2006: 328 billion, that is, more than 24% reduction of the tax pressure compared to what would have been this tax burden on individuals without change since 1999; - I presented in commission a table gathering all the elements and we will, between 1999 and 2003, apply cumulatively a reduction of the IPP, always compared to what would have been unchanged, of 318 billion francs. by

This may not be much for some political formations in this hemicycle. However, 318 billion francs over the legislature, returned in some way to the taxpayers through the IPP, this still seems to me a significant element. I do not make any comparison with any other measure taken during this legislature because this type of file contains several concerns and I will return to it.

We are moving towards a general reform of the personal tax with certain costs, but also with a balance between all categories of income and also between all objectives. It is not just about neutrality between the different forms of coexistence but also about reducing the tax on labor. First and foremost, we will reduce the taxes on labor. That is a first goal. Secondly, we will eliminate almost all discrimination. I have already said in the committee that the remaining discrimination must also be eliminated. A draft legislation or a draft legislation may be able to bring further improvements in the field of discrimination. However, the main discrimination is already eliminated in this bill. We are also working on new favourable measures, such as mobility, sustainable development and rational energy use. There are several new favourable measures included in the reform. In addition, important measures are being taken in relation to simplification. The abolition of two scales is already a first simplification. The abolition of all discrimination is also an important simplification of our system.

In this context, I will emphasize two points. I will answer the questions of Mr. Vanvelthoven and Ms. Moerman but I will also say a word on the aspect relating to mobility, which has been often discussed.

Mobility is a theme supported and wanted by all members of the majority. I thought I understood that it was also by all the groups within this assembly. To avoid misunderstandings, all the measures that exist today regarding deductibility or other tax mechanisms related to mobility, are ⁇ ined. I read that there was some hesitation about two categories. In particular, the following question was asked: "Can one still deduct six francs per kilometer if one uses his own motor vehicle to go from his home to the place of work on a distance greater than 25 kilometers to go and 25 kilometers back?" I answer you by the affirmative. Nothing changes. If you come from Ostende or Liège, you will always be able to exceed 100 kilometers per day and by journey, that is, 200 kilometers to go and return will be deducible at six francs per kilometer. There is no doubt: the measure remains unchanged for those who today benefit from a measure of deductibility.

The same goes for the use of motorcycles. Doubts about this have also been introduced for a while in the debate. I will therefore clarify this question: motorcycle or motorcycle users can deduct all charges they can prove; there is no limit to six francs per kilometer. This provision is ⁇ ined and there is always a full deductibility in this matter. We simply added new incentives aimed at favouring public transport, through the possibility of total exemption in the head of a beneficiary: reimbursements made by the employer in relation to train, bus or subway subscription costs, public transport organized by companies. Just recently, I mentioned the deductibility that can go up to 120%: 100% on income 2001, then 120%, from income 2002, initiatives taken by companies to organize public transport themselves. Today, we are often limited to 75%. Now we go to 100% and then to 120%.

Measures also concern co-carrying. What is it about? Those who decide to group themselves in the individual vehicle of a single person, will be able, even if they do not expose any costs for using this transport system, to deduct, from the 2001 income, six francs per kilometer on a total of a maximum of 50 kilometers to go/return. In the explanation of reasons, we have clearly stated, and this has been stated in commission, that we will increase this distance from the 2002 income. After an analysis of the situation, we may still be able to consider further increases in the future. by

All these measures aim to promote the use of other modes of transport than the individual motor vehicle. But it is known — and that is why we have ⁇ ined the deductibility of six francs per kilometre and the provisions on the benefits in kind for commercial cars — that a number of people cannot do otherwise today than to use their individual vehicle.

In the future, these incentives will need to be analyzed, and this also depends on other measures that will be added to them. Public transport companies will need to adapt to these new measures: dissuasive parking lots, easier connections between different modes of transport, better-adjusted timetables. Companies will also need to adapt. I will quote an example that goes out of tax skills: with a tax incentive for carpooling, it is obvious that secure parking spaces will need to be provided to allow people to get to a meeting point before traveling in common. Along the highways, it is seen that cars are parked, especially on highway bridges, because their owner practices co-carrying. Of course, greater security should be provided. These are efforts that public authorities will have to make.

Mobility is a sector – I could have taken others – which is undergoing significant developments, but which are being added to the existing elements.

I come to the questions of Mr. Vanvelthoven and Mrs. Moerman.

The first question concerned the status of the past with regard to the actual separation. There is a solution for the future, but what should be done for the past? A study on this may need to be done. Therefore, I will ask my administration for a report on the state of the past. Maybe a new measure can be taken or a new solution for the past can be found. However, this is a problem of legality. After all, there are different situations. Some people have already made a payment. A new measure may be introduced for people who have not yet made a payment or a partial payment. A correct choice must be made in this regard. I am prepared to submit a concrete proposal on this subject to the committee, possibly in October.

Secondly, it was asked whether it is possible to put a calculation model on the website? I have already contacted the services to check this. This should be possible for calculation models of different sources of income, primarily for young people.

Third, the demand for irregular benefits was raised. There is no difference. There is no taxation in both cases. The reference to Article 90.3 is only a reference for the definition of benefits. However, it is clear to my administration that there is no distinction between irregular or regular benefits.

Fourth, as regards the boardboard of a Commissioner on combating tax fraud and simplification, I have good news. Tomorrow the two board tables will be on the agenda of the Board of Directors. The presentation can therefore take place even before the recess. That may be very late, but it is within the deadline.

Regarding the phases and the entry into force of the various measures, I would like to recall three elements that have sometimes gone unnoticed.

The phase itself. Income from 2001 will already be covered by the reform and it will be fully applicable to income received from 1 January 2004. I would like to point out that as regards independent workers, from January 1, 2004, all the reform will apply to them, through advance payments. So, I hope that through the business pre-accounts, we will be able, depending on budget availability, to make the quickest reform sensible for all taxpayers, including those paying these professional pre-accounts.

Mr. Leterme, the law is the law. We get a new law with full application of the reform from the 2004 income. It may be possible to have a debate on this issue, but such a law will ensure a complete reform from 2004 onwards.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to stop for a moment with the phased entry into force of this tax reform included in the bill. We note that grosso modo one fifth of that tax reform is implemented in this legislature while the rest remains a big question. This is not the language of the opposition. I repeat that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Budget said that for him the measures for 2002 were acquired in the amount of 10 billion francs and for 2003 in the amount of 25 billion francs. For the rest, we will look at the available margins dependent on economic growth. The table until 2006, which covers measures amounting to 134.5 billion francs and which took into account the effects of revenue, does not actually bind anyone because the Deputy Prime Minister himself says that this depends on the economic situation. The economic shift, which should give rise to budgetary prudence, has already led to a budgetary control of approximately 20 to 25 billion francs. It is clear that the first thing that will die, when it needs to be repaired, will be a number of measures included in the phasing. This is a conclusion that we derive from the words of the Minister of Budget.

The government has reached an agreement on this, and I agree with the Minister of Budget. I have already announced that the entire reform will apply from January 2004. However, the first measures will come into force in 2001. We have reached an agreement on the company advance tax for the years 2002 and 2003. As for 2004 and beyond, we may be able to go even faster. There will be a law that will allow for the full implementation of the reform from 2004. However, it is obvious that better economic growth will lead to a faster implementation of the measures. If possible, I would like to implement more measures in the field of corporate taxation. However, the law that will allow for the full implementation of the reform from 2004 must first be approved. If possible, we might even be able to move faster in terms of corporate taxation.

I come to a second comment. It is not only about the introduction of certain measures during the years 2001 to 2004 but also about the introduction in two or more legislatures. This is correct. January 1, 2004 is six months after the end of this legislature.

I have repeatedly asked this question in the committee. Since we exceed the length of the legislature by six months, it is important for taxpayers to know who, in this homicide, wants to challenge the measures that will apply on 1 January 2004.

I thought I understood that the only criticism expressed in this homicide was to demand that these measures be advanced for the most of them, that is, those that affect the discrimination between the different types of life choices. The question that will arise is whether there is a group, a formation that wants, for the next election, to campaign on the theme of challenging the tax measures that will take place on 1 January 2004. Otherwise, it is quite illusory to conduct a debate on facts and measures beyond this legislature. Any measure we take in this assembly really has an effect on several legislatures. In my view, it is normal to work over four years for a tax reform of this magnitude and that everyone knows if they enter into the intentions of one or the other group, once the reform is voted, to question some of its aspects from 2004.

I would like to briefly interrupt the Minister for two comments.

Mr. Minister, first of all, in our group there is a demand to eliminate the discrimination against married people. It’s nice that you’ve noted that question. However, we ask that you now put the measures to eliminate discrimination, which are now detailed measures, and which go less far than what was decided at the end of the previous legislature by the Dehaene-Van Rompuy government, on the forefront.

We immediately added that for us the removal of the two top tariffs could be partially postponed to a later date. We are intellectually consistent, not demagogic. That 7 billion francs could be used to eliminate discrimination faster. This is a priority for us. It is clear that this is not the case for you.

Second, I would like to comment on the phases and the uncertainty regarding the tax reduction after the 2003 elections. Not we, or any other group in this Chamber, question this. It is the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Budget of this government, who says that he is bound only for 2002 and 2003. The rest, he says, should be looked at according to economic growth.

Mr Leterme, the law is the law. The law provides for the full application of the measures from 2004. It may be possible to work faster if there is greater economic growth in the coming years.

The point that struck me most about the calendar is that, in the phase, a number of speakers wanted to cut taxpayers into pieces! They do not seem to realize that there may be married couples who will benefit from measures related to mobility, the revision of rates, the abolition of higher rates or a whole series of other provisions such as the work expenses. It is true that there is a phase, but this concerns first the decrease and, by priority, the decrease on the labor income of all taxpayers, married or not, and gradually the elimination of all discrimination but in four years of income which seems to me ⁇ short.

This is somewhat the same reasoning as the one that consists of isolating children in some way. It is easily forgotten that all measures favouring taxpayers in general, very often favour children because their peculiarity, especially young children, is that they are very often borne by adults on the fiscal level. Measures that reduce taxation on all taxpayers come first to help families with children and then, more specific measures are added. Taxpayers should not be cut into pieces. They form a whole and when a family benefits from a significant tax reduction, this reduction benefits the children.

I will make two final remarks, Mr. Speaker – I will not return to the measures since they have been long debated – one concerning the extent of the reform and the other a somewhat systematic opposition in recent times between the fiscal and the social.

As for the calendar, I have already said that there will be a new phase in four years. I have heard criticism about the aforementioned amount. Once the amount is too high, then again too little. Mr. Leterme, for 2002 and 2003 you may not find the amount so high, but during the budget debate you found the amount too high and you said there might be no margin for it. There is no room for other measures. I no longer understand. It can be either too high or too low, but not both at the same time.

I think we will come to an important reform. There will be a significant reduction in the tax on labor. That reduction does not weigh too much for the budget, and it ⁇ does not weigh too much for the taxpayer.

One must, and it has appeared very often in committees, avoid entering in contradictory criticisms which, at some times, would consist in saying that there is nothing in this reform and that there is not much there, and at other times that, despite significant margins, the reform is too strong in relation to these.

For less than a year, I’ve been quite accustomed to living with these criticisms and since the announcement of this reform last year, I’ve lived in alternation in a certain way: sometimes you have to go faster and do more and sometimes it goes too fast and you do too much, the budget will not support the situation.

There must be a credible logic in the approach. The reform is important; it integrates itself into other elements of reducing the fiscal pressure and is mainly integrated into a general policy — and this is the last note I will make when referring to tax and social elements because this opposition is often absurd.

However, I believe that Mr. Leterme wants to react.

I would also be pleased to hear a first speech from the group. Stop this debate.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, you say that you must avoid opposing the fiscal and the social and I hope that everyone will be convinced of what you are moving forward. But I see that there is currently an opposition between the federal and the municipal. And that is what worries me. You know, as I do, that municipal mandators are increasingly affected by enormous difficulties in controlling public finances, that the commune is the basis of democracy and its autonomy is increasingly relative.

However, there is a clear transfer of financial charges — which are decided in Parliament — to the budgets of the municipalities, while the latter are not even associated with these decisions.

In this regard, the most obvious case remains, I think, that of the police reform. Many discussions have been conducted by your government with all the representatives of the police; however, their main employers, which are now the municipalities, have not been associated at all.

Therefore, the current situation is simple: we do not know where we are going in this case - and even Mr. Eerdekens says: No one can specify what the policy reform will ultimately cost, and many municipalities are concerned about their growing difficulties in controlling police costs. In my view, an opposition between the federal level and the municipal level is drawn more and more clearly.

Another worrying case is that many municipalities are currently facing considerable delays in federal payments to feed CPAS. You know, Mr. Minister—if you want to listen to me—that this problem is becoming increasingly worrying. Last week, Mr. Vande Lanotte recognized him in this tribune. In any case, I can confirm that many municipalities — and this is not our one, you are well placed to know it — are struggling with serious cash difficulties both at the level of their CPAS and at the level of their overall expenditure. And in the train where things go, I can only fear the worst. Certainly, and I am the first to rejoice at this, we are witnessing at the federal level a control of the finances: this is also the fruit of the efforts made by the previous governments — and this is the first time I hear you recognize it in this hemisphere...

If you came to the committee more often, you would hear me say it more often.

Of course, at the federal level, there is greater control of the finances. And while countries like Germany, France and Italy are currently surprised by the economic degradation, you reassure us, Mr. Minister, by guaranteeing us that Belgium controls its finances.

Nevertheless, I remain ⁇ concerned about this huge gap that now appears between the control of the finances at the federal level and the “slinking” of the municipal finances.

Also, Mr. Minister, I allow myself to ask you about the measures you intend to take in this regard. Because it seems to me that some municipalities have not seen their municipal budget approved – regardless of the political trends of their officials.

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, Mr. Speaker. If our group was intended, this would be a misinterpretation of our mindset in connection with a consistent application of the budget reform, on the one hand, and the emphasis that what is happening now would be too small, on the other.

It is lightly different. We formulate the criticism that the government, as in so many other files, in this legislature does much less than what it promises in the long run. If we point out that it only achieves 25.7 billion until the next election, it means “much less than what was promised to the people.”

If you reduce your taxes by only 25.7 billion francs until the next election, you will do much less than you promised to the people, as in so many things. This is a promising power, but not an executive power. That is the contradiction. With regard to the consequences in the budget rectification, we remain with our position. If you want to spend $25 billion in tax cuts, we ask you to consistently use that money to prioritize eliminating tax discrimination against married people. That is a total difference of orientation and priority between, on the one hand, this heterogeneous purple-green majority, which is not coherent in this issue, and, on the other hand, our consistent attitude that priority work should be made of eliminating those discriminations.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, Mr. Leterme, it was a good formula, but only that. Ten percent burden reductions for individuals — the personal tax — in 2003 represents an amount of 138 billion francs. This is a certain intervention during this legislature. This is more important than your concerns. The ACV has expressed the same criticism. In some circles, the government is criticized for doing too much for the personal tax. There is a contradiction between the two different things. Is it true that in 2003 we should ⁇ a 10% reduction in the personal tax?

I will repeat to Mr. Remove what I said in the commission, because obviously the information is circulating wrong. I look forward to this first intervention of your group in this debate. It relates to municipalities.

Regarding the finance department, you talk about charges that will come later. In this regard, we are talking about the police reform. This is not a reason for some municipalities to raise municipal taxes already this year. I am not sure that, in the 2001 budgets, it is justified to provide police charges. Per ⁇ it will need to be made clear on this issue.

The first observation. As soon as I arrived in the department, I tried to reimburse to the communes the delays that my predecessors had allowed to accumulate. Astronomical amounts were reached: 15, 17 billion in late payments to municipalities within the Ministry of Finance. These delays have been completely removed. The municipalities are updated. I even took the initiative this year to make advances to the municipalities to avoid any delay in payments in relation to the tax of natural persons.

Second note: What are we going to do? In this regard, a proposal by Mr. Bacquelaine co-signed by other members of the assembly was adopted in committee. It tends to reduce the fees held by the federal on municipal additional cents from 3% this year to 2% in 2002 and 1% in 2003, while in parallel, establishing a new section in the Supreme Council of Finance that will verify the payments made by the federal to the municipalities. I believe this is a positive evolution beyond the resorption of the backward through new measures.

The third aspect is municipal autonomy. I am at least as attached to it as you. That’s why one of the criticisms I often hear about tax reform, I don’t understand! The tax reform has absolutely no impact on the municipalities. It is up to the municipalities to determine the percentage of additional cents they wish to apply. There is, here too, a contradiction: either it is to the federal to make the decision, but then the municipal autonomy is abandoned, or the municipal autonomy is ⁇ ined and the municipal authorities are left to take care of accompanying the tax reform or not, therefore also to decrease the tax on labour or to choose to maintain it at its current level by increasing the additional cents. One cannot, at some times, advocate for communal autonomy and then, when it is a little more disturbing because it is taxation, ask the State to do its job.

I have not heard much, in recent years, municipalities complain when measures were favourable for their finances. I think, for example, unfortunately for the taxpayer, of the non-indexation of tax rates, which has increased the revenue of the state but also the revenue of the municipalities without having anything to do, or the indexation decided with regard to the real estate pre-count. We need to be honest about autonomy. It will be up to the municipalities to make their choices.

I conclude therefore, as announced, saying that the last point I wanted to mention is this opposition that is often heard between the social and the fiscal. I remain convinced that the fiscal reform, which takes, indeed, a very significant part of the budgetary resources available today, but I would rather say: which makes the population a very significant part of the resources that were taken from that same population during periods of budgetary sanitation, contains elements ⁇ favourable on the social level. It contains measures favourable to the lowest incomes, such as the tax credit, tax schemes, flat-rate fees that are increased, measures regarding decumulation in terms of pension, prepension. But all these measures cannot be isolated from a social policy as a whole. The tax instrument, of course, serves to reduce, as is the case here, the labour tax, to conduct new policies in matters of mobility, sustainable development, energy saving but also new social policies.

This must be very clear: there is, in my view, no opposition between these different subjects. The reform, if it tends to simplify, to reduce taxes, also tends to promote economic growth, employment, through greater purchasing power, and to implement a number of socially favourable arrangements.

I would like to thank the House for moving forward with this tax reform. But, as several speakers have recalled, it is necessary to go further, including in terms of personal tax and corporate tax, in order to stay within the European average.

I am pleased to hear that no one wants to question the elements of this reform that are planned after the next election deadlines. This reform is especially expected by all taxpayers in our country. We can regret the lack of unanimity on such a text, so hoped by our fellow citizens. I hope at least no one will want to oppose it.

General discussion is closed. The general discussion is closed.