Proposition 52K2521

Projet de loi portant des dispositions fiscales et diverses.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

March 26, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

VAT EC Directive European tax cooperation tax tax authorities direct tax tax inspection indirect tax tax collection game of chance registration tax corporation tax stamp duty

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

May 5, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Daems, the rapporteur, refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, I draw from this draft the two main points, namely the ratification of the measures for the construction and hospitality sector, on the one hand, and the extension of the crisis measures for the labour market and the self-employed, on the other.

First, the ratification for the measures for the construction and hospitality sector is in concrete terms about the VAT reductions to 6 % for the construction and 12 % for the hospitality sector. Whoever looks at the economic situation today finds that it would have been almost scandalous or criminal if we had not taken these measures. Now we can only state that we made the right choices and that these choices were necessary. Recently, a survey was conducted among architects. It showed that the construction scheme alone increased their work volume by more than 26 %. For the contractors, that was even more.

More recent is the extension of the crisis measures for the labour market and the self-employed. You all know that this was supported by the majority in the committee yesterday. An opposition party had submitted these amendments to this draft and they were also approved there. Here too, the same conclusion is in place. The situation on the Belgian labour market does not look good compared to the European averages, but the result is much better than in other European countries. From this we can only conclude that these measures have worked and should continue to work. All recent economic forecasts from the Planning Bureau, the European Commission, the National Bank and others show that the rest of 2010 will be economically very difficult.

The unfortunate thing about the way these measures were extended is that this happened very quickly and without too much consultation with the social partners. I am convinced that we would have done this better. We just have to be honest and say that the political reality did not make this possible. There was the choice between the non-extension and putting a few thousand jobs on the slope or between the extension with limited consultation. The latter was the right choice.

What are these measures concrete, both in terms of number of people and budget? I think that we should emphasize that in all the different labour market systems by March 2010 alone, more than 6 500 employees benefited from that temporary unemployment and slightly more than 2 000 people from the crisis loan. If we put this together, we’re talking about 8,500 jobs. This measure would normally expire on 30 June. The amendment approved yesterday in the committee and the present draft extend these decisions by at least three months.

I think we should look not only at the labour market, but also at the insolvency insurance for self-employed. I think what predicts a balanced package is that can be defended because it pays attention to both self-employed and employees. I think this is a package that in its entirety belongs here. We are therefore pleased that the exact same conditions were included for one and the other measure. Specifically, this means that all these measures are extended by three months and that there is the possibility to extend these measures by another three months by a decision of the Council of Ministers.

The easiest criticism of these measures may be that they cost a lot of money. This does not appear to be the case. The budget included in the budget is 85 million euros. In the first quarter, these measures at full speed cost approximately 15 million euros. This is sufficiently convincing to suggest that a three-month extension will have no budgetary impact. On the contrary, if these jobs were lost and we did not renew these measures, the budgetary impact would be much greater.

For our group, a further budgetary check will have to be carried out again upon a possible subsequent extension to check whether sufficient resources are available.

In a very brief summary, given the current economic situation and the impact on the labour market that is now beginning to rage in full intensity and of which we have unfortunately not seen the last – everyone knows the pending dossiers and everyone has in their own region ⁇ threatened with closure – the conclusion is that we have no choice but to approve the granting of these measures. That is the only right decision we can make today.

Mrs. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, when the King accepted the resignation of the government a few days ago, we have seen all sorts of reports appear in the press, all sorts of disastrous reports that talked about blocked files. One of those dossiers and one of the concerns, of course, concerned the temporary crisis measures we took for our employees. The ghost of the loss of employment appeared immediately.

Fortunately, this is not going to be so far. We will give the evil prophets a clear answer here later with the vote on the extension of the crisis measures. As colleague Waterschoot has already said, we in the committee, also thanks to colleagues Van Biesen and De Block, very clearly chose an amendment to extend the crisis measures by three months, with in addition the possibility of an additional extension by three months through a royal decree consulted in the Council of Ministers.

Colleagues, with this, we take very clearly our responsibility towards both the employees and the self-employed. I would like to repeat this again because it is very important. For workers, it is very concrete about the granting of the crisis loan, the economic unemployment for employees, the reduction of working hours and the crisis premium. There is also good news because of course we are also concerned about the financial picture. Who will pay for the extension of these measures? Is there sufficient budget to extend those necessary measures?

In the budgeting process, we clearly put a budget on it. As for the employee gap, EUR 85 million was initially registered for the first semester. Calculations from the RVA show that the application for the three quarters will cost 45 million. For the whole year, the costs are budgeted at 60 million, which is 25 million less than initially planned.

In the case of self-employed persons, the image is also affordable. The initial amount of 13 million euros can be revised to 4.6 million.

This week, an article in The Time showed that the loss of jobs in our country last year was less serious than expected. The National Bank had predicted a job loss of as much as 74,000 jobs. In fact, we were able to limit it to 38 000. That is no reason for euphoria, as still 38 000 people have lost their jobs, 38 000 families are now in very difficult circumstances and are eagerly looking for an exciting new job.

It shows that with the crisis measures, with the steps that this government has taken, we have been able to limit the loss of jobs in our country. I think this was absolutely necessary.

As I have already said, it is important that the crisis measures are extended for the workers, but also for the self-employed. You know that Open Vld always has an eye for the self-employed, those who provide jobs. These measures also receive the necessary extension.

As early as mid-2009, we provided for a temporary extension of social insolvency insurance, in particular to self-employed persons suffering from economic difficulties as a result of the economic crisis. Until then, that bankruptcy insurance was reserved for those who actually applied for bankruptcy.

We have expanded these categories. For this new group, a bankruptcy allowance was provided for six months to bridge the difficult time. The measure was extended for another six months at the end of 2009. The benefit is actually equivalent to a minimum pension for self-employed.

Colleagues, we will soon vote very clearly for the extension of the crisis measures, both for the self-employed and the workers. I hope that everyone will approve of the present text.

We can say to the panic sowers in this country that we take our responsibility here to extend those necessary crisis measures.

I see a lot of colleagues here. We don’t know if we’ll see each other again after the election. That creates uncertainty in us, but a lot of people are also living with that uncertainty. It is therefore our task to minimize that uncertainty and to extend those measures. Therefore, we will soon demonstrate in the vote that we absolutely do not allow the political situation to prevail over the interests of the citizens. I hope that soon everyone will approve the extension of the crisis measures.

First, I would like to congratulate myself on the fact that we have been able to find the best way, given the circumstances, to confirm the measures taken by this government and its majority to support the economy in this period of economic and financial crisis. In particular, I think of the reduction of the VAT rate in the construction sector and in the horeca sector. It was necessary to confirm the royal decrees taken in this matter. Both sectors have a high workforce density. It was therefore necessary to feed the economic circuit and ensure that people find work in those sectors that are still able to offer jobs as long as the order books and consumer habits are sufficient.

I would also like to return to the measures enabling both self-employed and self-employed to face, with the maximum efficiency, the economic crisis that our country is going through.

Employment – you won’t challenge it – is the major concern of most of our fellow citizens. As men and women politicians, it is therefore our duty to reassure everyone about the possible future in this matter. For my group, whether a worker is employed or self-employed, he must be treated with the same respect and consideration.

Employment is the lungs of our economy. Without employment, no income. Without income, no consumption. Without consumption, there is no economy. The constatation is simple. The measures to be implemented are obviously a little more complicated.

Beyond its socialization function, employment is also a vector of personal development, which is primary in everyone’s life.

There is a sad and triple conclusion. April was still deadly in terms of corporate bankruptcies as 802 companies had to put the key under the door. Between 1 January and 30 April 2010, 3,470 companies went bankrupt, resulting in the loss of more than 8,000 jobs.

It is used to say that one measures the economic health of a country by its number of SMEs and their activity. I often talk about this in my speeches, there are, in this country, 920,000 self-employed who are somehow small business leaders. These small bosses not only create their own jobs but also create jobs for others. These jobs represent 60% of the jobs in our country, which means the importance that this economic sector should be given.

In order for this employment rate created by self-employed persons to be ⁇ ined and, if possible, to increase, we need to establish a better social status for self-employed persons. We have been working on this for years with Minister Laruelle. There was little to do to adjust the pension of the self-employed to that of the employees. Unfortunately, we will not be able to immediately cross this last necessary direction. I think we have a duty to promote a better social status for self-employed workers so that they continue to maintain the flame of activity and job creation in our country.

I am pleased that our group, supported by all the majority groups and even the opposition, was able to make an amendment adopted to extend the crisis measures in favour of self-employed by temporarily extending the current social insurance in case of bankruptcy. It also considers the necessary assistance to self-employed persons who see their income fall due to the economic crisis and who are therefore in great difficulty.

I am convinced that this extension will allow many self-employed, whether they work alone or in society, to keep their heads out of the water and avoid many bankruptcies.

The worker is at the center of our concerns and, as much as I welcome the measures taken in favour of self-employed workers, I am also satisfied with those taken in favour of self-employed workers. Indeed, whether it is temporary reduction of working time, crisis-time credit or mechanisms for full or partial temporary suspension of employment contract for employees – to recall, this is a measure to which we are strongly committed – these measures have clearly contributed to limiting the number of dismissals.

As of March 31, more than 2,000 companies applied to anti-crisis measures; economic unemployment affected 6,534 employees in March. There were already 10,000 in January. 2 012 people were benefiting from crisis-time credit in March and more than 3 000 workers received a crisis premium of 1 666 euros as a result of a dismissal. That is, if these anti-crisis measures have directly affected a large number of people.

Currently, as a result of the economic crisis that our country is going through, the order books of some companies are not yet sufficiently filled to keep all employees in service. The prolongation of these crisis measures is, in our view, a necessity for both the company and the worker. Last year, we were already demanding more flexibility in the job market. We are obviously always in favor of the extension, which we advocate for the start of this measure concerning the economic unemployment of employees.

This measure represents a kind of oxygen blow for the company, which, however, must not have to separate itself completely from its employees. The employee retains his position within the company. He will find it at the moment when the latter will find its order books and sufficient activity to ensure the running of the company with all its staff. For his part, the employer not only avoids paying heavy notice compensation, but in addition, he is assured to find a qualified worker, once the crisis has passed. Indeed, during the time of the employee’s economic unemployment, the employee can benefit from training that will bring him even closer to the future economic reality.

Therefore, we avoid this financial breakdown, since the state compensates a part of the shortage to be earned by the worker. The same applies in the case of dismissal or the premium granted to the dismissed worker. Far from being precarious, as some sometimes say that we are entering the path of precariousness, temporary unemployment is the only alternative, at the present time, for the maintenance of employment, both for the employer and for the worker.

It is therefore resolutely that we will vote on this proposal, in particular the amendments that concern the workers of this country, whether they are salaried or self-employed, hoping very soon that these measures will no longer be needed when the economic activity and the business order books will again be sufficient to ensure the proper running of the economy in our country.

On behalf of the Socialist Group, I am delighted to see that at this end of the legislature, in a situation of economic crisis following the financial crisis, we were able to convince, nonetheless, a number of colleagues that it was necessary to extend the measures to protect the workers of this country, the measures to maintain the purchasing power of many workers who due to the crisis were either partially unemployed or in a difficult economic situation in their company. Indeed, many companies are experiencing with a delay the effects of the financial and banking crisis and its consequences in the real economy. These measures should therefore be extended in the absence of a probable government after June 30 next year.

We are convinced that these measures should be extended, in particular those relating to the previously mentioned crisis premium, which is granted to workers for the maintenance of their treatment by a supplement of 1 666 euros. The PS fought for the introduction of this crisis premium because it allows to strengthen, even temporarily, the protection of workers whose notice periods are very short compared to those of employees and because it ⁇ ins the purchasing power of these workers. It is part of the other measures, including those instituted by Ms. Onkelinx when she was Minister of Employment, the collective reduction of working hours, the crisis time credit, the temporary suspension or “economic unemployment” of employees and the restructuring card extended to workers victims of a bankruptcy.

We are convinced that these efforts should continue, but they should not continue indefinitely. We believe that the inter-professional agreement should allow, in autumn – if there is an agreement but we call it our wishes – (...)

The [...]

Mr Gilkinet, one autumn, there will be! You are an ecologist, so skeptical about climate change but, I reassure you, even if the minister says there is no more season, autumn will start on September 21 and should normally last until December 21! At least again this year!

We hope that in the autumn there will be an interprofessional agreement that, in particular, will resolve the problem of status and equal treatment between workers and employees, in order to remove this distortion of situations within the same enterprise for workers who suffer the same social difficulties.

We are therefore pleased with the extension of these measures until 30 September. In the perspective of this inter-professional agreement, it is necessary to allow the government, therefore the King, to extend them. We were even in favor of an extension until December 31 unless agreed in advance. If necessary, the government, which will be born of the polls on 13 June, will be able to continue the measure if necessary. I repeat, however, that we would prefer that an inter-professional agreement enables to anticipate and resolve the problems faced and will be faced by workers.

Finally, if we had not decided what should be done in this matter, the SRIB considers that in Brussels alone, 6,500 job losses were hypothetically possible. When we know the already so high unemployment situation in the Brussels Region, excessive compared to the other two regions, which Brussels and Brussels suffer, we would find ourselves in an even more unfair situation with regard to the workers of the Brussels Region, the main region of our country in terms of capital.

To conclude, it is true that, in this way, we maintain an option so far slightly different from what other European countries know. The debate has already been conducted on the situation in Greece and I will not return to it; however, note that the situation in Greece drives the government of that country to take measures that also affect public sector workers and pensioners. To find yourself in a situation where the only solution to the crisis is to pay those workers or those former workers, while simultaneously observing a flood of banks, new profits, exorbitant salaries assigned to traders – all problems still left unresolved or regulated – would have been unfair. It would be unfair for our country to be won, tomorrow, by a disastrous situation similar to that of Greece.

I hope that we will have the heart, including the next government, to maintain the rights and purchasing power of the workers of this country.

I would like to thank the groups in the majority but also in the opposition that support the text.

This text not only recalls the initial intention, namely a number of fiscal provisions on which I will not return, but above all important confirmations regarding crisis-exit measures such as VAT reductions both in the horeca sector and in the building sector.

In the building sector, we remain at a VAT rate of 6% for the renovation of buildings over 5 years of age. In the horeca sector, we are currently with a reduction to 12%, hoping that by the end of the year, the assessments will allow to increase to 6%, which was the initial goal.

For the rest, I am delighted that it has been possible to find a majority to extend the anti-crisis measures in favor of both wage and self-employed workers. These are indispensable provisions in the period we live in to avoid a significant increase in unemployment in the coming weeks and months.

I would like to thank again the various groups that have chosen to support this project.