Proposition 53K1954

Projet de loi instaurant une contribution de stabilité financière et modifiant l'arrêté royal du 14 novembre 2008 portant exécution de la loi du 15 octobre 2008 portant des mesures visant à promouvoir la stabilité financière et instituant en particulier une garantie d'Etat relative aux crédits octroyés et autres opérations effectuées dans le cadre de la stabilité financière, en ce qui concerne la protection des dépôts, des assurances sur la vie et du capital de sociétés coopératives agréées, et modifiant la loi du 2 août 2002 relative à la surveillance du secteur financier et aux services financiers.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Dec. 13, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

bank special tax financial policy financial solvency guarantee credit institution monetary crisis

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

∉ N-VA LDD VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) voted to reject.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) voted to reject.

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 ¶

Dec. 22, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

by Mr. Philippe Goffin, co-rapporteur, pointed out to me that he also referred to the written report.

Since the fall of 2008, we have faced a financial crisis of a rare intensity, which comes first from the American risk and then from the risk of sovereign debt and the euro crisis.

European institutions have been mobilizing for months to prevent the spread of the Greek crisis. A real economic and budgetary integration at European level is necessary and is finally drawn up. Policy makers must work to restore confidence in our economic and financial system to ensure our well-being and that of future generations. Difficult decisions have been made and have enabled our country to go through these crises while preserving the interests of our fellow citizens.

Major reforms have been initiated, in particular in regards to the regulation of the financial sector. A more stringent regulatory framework is needed. The Belgian state had to intervene directly in several banks to maintain the banking system. This was necessary both to protect citizens’ savings – this was our priority – and to avoid systemic risk.

For the Reform Movement, these state interventions call back a strong signal from the financial sector. For us, it is essential to hold the various financial actors accountable by establishing a fair banking contribution in particular. This contribution must be at the level of the responsibility of the sector in the current crisis.

The conclusions of the European Council of 18 June 2010 recall the commitment of all Member States to establish a system of levying or taxing financial institutions in order to ensure a fair distribution of the costs of the crisis and to define incentives to limit systemic risk. In addition, this levy is part of a credible crisis resolution framework.

Furthermore, this bill adapts the part relating to the contribution to the deposit protection system, following the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 23 June last year. The Special Fund for the Protection of Deposits and Financial Instruments was created to guarantee deposits up to EUR 100,000 per depositor.

Mr. Minister of Finance, in general, we will be ⁇ careful that these measures do not affect the price of services rendered to customers.

Beyond this bill, we want to further strengthen regulation and financial supervision. Therefore, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Minister, we advocate to implement as soon as possible the measures that will result in better risk management, increase the solvency of banks, to frame the remuneration of the members of management committees and to strengthen the financial knowledge of each citizen.

Financial markets have a European and global dimension. We support the introduction of a financial transaction tax, the creation of one or more independent European rating agencies, and the tightening of the European framework for regulating speculative funds.

Finally, Mr. Minister of Finance, the special commission Dexia is actively working to draw lessons from the consequences of the crisis that led to the dismantling of the Dexia Group and the purchase of Dexia Banque Belgique by Belgium. We look forward to his conclusions and concrete recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, ladies, gentlemen, gentlemen, ministers, dear colleagues, remember: in 2008, Fortis ⁇ sank and dragged into its shipwreck the savers, the workers, the economy itself of our country. The urgency was such that it was necessary to act overnight, and all the other major banks had to turn to the public authorities to not shake. The public authorities, the various governments of this country had to get on board to not let these mad mastodontes sink, to save the savings of our fellow citizens and the employment, to also save the economy of our country in view of the systemic risk caused by the bankruptcy of such a major bank.

Since the beginning of the 2008 crisis, we have shared and supported efforts to work to rescue banks. We thought we could say, “Never again.”But this year, the banking system weakens us once again. Once the rescue was successful, we continued to demand a contribution from financial institutions. We believe that this is a just return of things, given their proven responsibility in this crisis and the aid that the State has provided to the financial sector to get its head out of the water.

Today, the new government presents us with a project that aims to create a real contribution from the financial sector. According to some estimates, it could reach a billion euros. Banks are now taxed. They must take responsibility for the crisis they have caused. It will also be an incentive to limit the systemic risk. Finally, the method of calculating contributions to the Deposit Protection Fund was revised to take into account the opinion of the Constitutional Court, adding risk-related elements.

A Fund shall be established to finance measures taken to limit the impact of a possible failure of institutions. Just as it will push for more ethics, this project offers additional means to combat the abuses of financial speculation. The rate of contribution was increased by a majority amendment and is still around the German and British rate.

The world of finance has plunged our country, our fellow citizens, but also the whole of Europe into difficulties. It has caused dramatic and dangerous crises for the real economy. For my group, it is very clear: this sector must take its responsibilities by contributing to the significant budgetary efforts we need to provide. It’s time to go looking for new revenue from those and those who have profited from laissez-faire and casino finance. This is the initiative of the government, and I welcome it!

But I would like to warn the banks: there is obviously no question that the amount of this tax is reversed to our fellow citizens, their customers. It is time to take responsibility and take responsibility. Consumers will not have to pay the note!

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate how much my group considers it urgent, important and necessary to reform the financial system as a whole. The sector must expect a profound reform of its way of operating. When you see the result for Dexia Bank, you understand that this system has gone crazy! Speculation and deregulation should be erased from our vocabulary!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the current banking tax aims to prevent situations in which a state must rescue a bank, as it has already done. We have some concerns about this bill.

First, this tax is not levied on branches of foreign banks established in the European Union. This tax has an impact on the competitive position of our Belgian financial institutions. Foreign bank permanent establishments provide a very limited contribution to the Belgian economic activity due to the very limited allowance of loans. Because the Belgians are good savers, they would like to raise this savings money to borrow it in another country.

Second, the calculation base used. According to us, this is not at all related to the goal. Through the risk indicator used here, the contribution threatens to strengthen the economic cycle of the banks rather than to act anticyclically. As a result of this new contribution, financial institutions risk having to dispose of more liquidity if things go badly than when things go well. In order to take into account the cyclical effects associated with the supply policy and to eliminate these effects, a sub-score shall be awarded to eliminate or reduce that negative effect. It asks rice again whether financial stability from an economic point of view will no longer be promoted by an anti-cyclical reserve policy rather than by the withdrawal of these contributions. The present draft law does not interfere with what the sector itself proposes. She would like to discuss this with you.

I appreciate your sincerity. I quote you in the committee: “In the current state of affairs, the bill merely imposes a remuneration without anticipating profound reforms in the matter.”

Mr. Minister, you confirm, therefore, that this bill is only for the purpose of getting money down.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, in the chaos of the past few days, the topic has been somewhat overshadowed, but with the 2010 budget it was burning up to date and ⁇ after the destruction by the Constitutional Court.

Today we are talking about banking. When we discussed this in the committee, colleagues of the majority in the walkways said, “We have not yet been able to read it, everything goes too fast.”

For those colleagues who have not yet had time to study the new bank tax: it favors banks with a high leverage.

Today’s Standard states: “Small banks find the new arrangement unbalanced” and especially “Bank taxes are unfair”. That says it all.

I found it ⁇ fascinating to hear the first two colleagues’ comments on the financial crisis. They say that what went wrong there must be corrected, but that is not in accordance with the letter of this law.

Normally, the strongest shoulders carry the heaviest loads. Normally, those who are responsible for a debacle are also those who must take action for it. Not so in the financial sector, not so in this Parliament.

This principle has been repeated in the aftermath of the financial crisis. In order to give citizens the idea that they should not only pay for the pieces of that same financial world, this banking contribution was launched in 2010, registered in the budget as an insurance against future problems.

The best insurance against future problems is changing the architecture of the financial sector. I would like to hear the majority members say this. I would like to hear them calling on the Minister.

I only wonder why, after a report from the Special Committee on Banking in 2008, in which the same majority parties that now form the coalition agreed on the division of banking activities, you should apparently ask today in this Parliament for a study of the desirability of the division of those banking activities.

This is hypocritical and not credible. What Open Vld then considered very urgent, she now apparently finds absolutely to be avoided.

So today there is an insurance against future problems registered in our budget, a Special Protection Fund that will protect our savings as long as that system is not adjusted and it does not look like this will happen soon with this government.

Up to a ceiling of 100 000 euros, the savings are protected. There is no insurance coverage at all. The funds will be used immediately to finance the current expenditure.

So while we wait for the plans for a new architecture, while we wait for a study of the desirability of a split of the banking activities, the urgency is temporarily gone.

Ms. Rutten asks for the word.

I have just just started!

Mrs. Almaci, if you take that passage from the government agreement and you read what is in the chapter on financial regulation, then you should not selectively quote. Desirability is one aspect, but it is also about the consequences, the extent of its impact on our economy and how we best address it. You will see that there is also a commitment on behalf of the government.

If we make such a decision that goes in the right direction, we also need to know where to start in a country where financial activities are important. You agree with me that these are important, because otherwise the impact of bank rescue would not have been so gigantic.

We do this not blindly, but thoughtfully. There will be a study. Based on facts and data, work will be carried out.

So you do well to read that whole chapter, which is indeed very ambitious.

Mrs. Rutten, I can’t blame you. You were not there in 2008. A lot of work has been done in the special banking committee. All parties, including your party, were present and agreed with the principle.

You cannot give me any reasonable argument today why the principle should then be entered into a study. On all other matters, I would like to exchange thoughts with you.

I would like to add the following. In Britain, however, there is a huge lobby with the City. It can also be in Switzerland and in many other countries where the banking lobby is stronger than in our country. So why is it not possible with us? It seems to me that you have taken a hit at home to gain a lot of time especially for that same big banking sector.

Mrs. Almaci, first of all, I find it very remarkable that you refer to Britain. For the sake of its banking sector, that country has put itself out of European reforms and has volunteered to stand aside to strengthen the City’s interests. It is remarkable that green! reference to it.

Second, basically, you say something very important. In Britain, ringfencing was chosen. If we choose a necessary division of activities, we can do it in two ways. We can very resolutely choose to completely disconnect the activities, or we can decide to frame what the activities are within one entity so that we minimize the risks. That choice alone deserves to be thoroughly studied, so that we do not decide like a chicken without a head.

We all agree on the direction, the necessity and the desirability. The way we should transform it and the impact it has on our economy, we will look at from the study of the National Bank.

Mrs Rutten, I guess you call Professor Paul De Grauwe, former senator for Open Vld, a chicken without a head. I note that you call the four experts of the 2008 Special Banking Commission chickens without head. I note that you call the members of all parties, including yours, who at that time found this very desirable, chickens without head. I also note that you have a very short memory, in this majority. That is the most important determination.

I will tell Mr. De Grauwe again, the next time I meet him.

Unfortunately, the urgency is therefore clearly completely gone, the recommendation of then has been forgotten and you are trying to turn the people’s gaze away from it by referring to other things. It happens abroad, not only in Great Britain, where one has indeed chosen ringfencing despite gelobby, but there are also many countries where one chooses for an effective split. You want to make it an abstraction. It is your agenda, of course.

As it now looks, the savings pot is more than necessary. There is even literally written in the legislation today that in 2012 the remuneration will have to be higher due to a higher risk. We will need that savings.

As long as the architecture is not there, the insurance premium should encourage safer banking. That is the principle. This opportunity was also missed in 2010. The bank contribution that was then chosen was a flat tax that did not take into account the profile of the banks.

As we predicted then, after a lot of debates — and the socialist colleagues agreed — this law did not last long. Argenta appealed against them and in 2011 it was granted equality from the Constitutional Court, which literally stated that credit institutions are treated equally for the calculation of the contested contribution. Without any weighting based on a risk profile, credit institutions which primarily finance themselves through collecting deposits from the general public are treated disproportionately compared to institutions which primarily finance themselves on the capital market.

In the meantime, there is this second proposal, which is now underway. This time too, the majority failed to deliver proper work. The new system still does not adequately take into account the actual risk profile of the banks. It requires a flat-rate contribution to financial stability. For the big banks, therefore, it is still more advantageous to borrow money on the market than to collect deposits. Deposits are taxed at 0.245 % in 2012, 0.15 % in 2013 and 0.10 % in 2014, while withdrawals on the financial market are taxed at 0.035 %. Calculate the difference!

The risk indicators affecting this tax shall not affect this. They are too advantageous for big banks that speculate.

The risk factor “risk-weighted assets” used in the text is based on ratings or internal models. These are two ⁇ that have proven their bankruptcy in 2008 and since then several times again with the Dexiadebacle. Systemic risks are also not taken into account; the larger the bank, the higher the contribution should be. The size of the bank is not taken into account.

Let me explain how good governance is. This is perverse. The new system encourages the change of business model and the reduction of credit to SMEs. Even investing in PIGS papers or in complex products becomes more interesting than lending to SMEs. These are the literal words of a medium-sized banker in our country.

In response to the criticism I gave in the committee, where, by the way, there was ⁇ little interest from the majority in the bill, the minister said that it was about the contribution to the special deposit guarantee fund. That is correct. This is the argument used to justify the disproportionate pressure on deposits in the new law. For me, this is a ⁇ cynical answer. It suggests that the new majority has learned nothing from the financial crisis, nothing. After all, were it not the big banks that speculated whose savers were always in trouble? Was the deposit guarantee fund not created for them in the first place? Was it not for them that the guarantee was extended to 100 000 euros? Or were it the small bankers, those who held deposits, who caused the problem?

You go from the second. This is completely incomprehensible.

Madame Almaty, I think two things are confused. The will to reform the current system is still present, I have had the opportunity to say it in this same tribune. There is work to be done, but we must leave time to time. This cannot be done in one day. This requires a profound reform. Alongside that, one can criticize whatever one wants, but it is simply a taxation. For one time, we get to tax the banks and you should be delighted with it.

Let us not confuse things. On the one hand, there must be a reform of the system, on the other, there is the will to set up a taxation and to use that money to anticipate a possible problem, hoping that there will be no more. However, this remains a taxation.

You are talking about big and small banks. You are a big bank when you have a lot of money. This is a percentage of the funds. So the big bank will participate more, will pay more than the small bank. It is quite logical.

I do not understand your reasoning about small and large banks, how to differentiate them. We are in percentages, so the more we have funds, the more we will participate in the effort that is required at the banking level.

I recall the estimates, even though we will know the figures only a year after the establishment of these funds. Taxation is estimated at one billion euros. Some will say that is not enough. In my opinion, it is already not bad.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mathot, I will try to contain myself. I suggest you read your law.

The government has saved the financial system and therefore a contribution to the rescue must be paid through the Special Protection Fund. The contribution must also be proportionate.

However, the proportionality of the contribution in your law today makes it possible for smaller institutions that safely bank, that have not received government support and that have not been saved, to pay proportionally the most.

That is it. I have the calculations here. I want to give them to you later. However, I have here the calculations with the percentages you give. I just read them to you: 0.245 % in 2012 on deposits, 0.15 % in 2013 and 0.10 % in 2014, while withdrawals on the financial market are taxed at 0.035 %.

Mr. Mathot, these are the numbers in your law. They show that you tax the safest banks the heaviest. They are totally contrary to what you say here. Read your own law.

Thus, your new system is counterproductive. It favours banks with high leverage and again punishes the classic savings banks, which hold many deposits and do little on the speculative market. On the contrary, you encourage them, by the percentages I have just mentioned, even to enter the speculative market. So the new regulation is again a missed opportunity.

There are specifically four areas in which a fundamental revision of this bill is needed.

First, there is the contribution to financial stability, which you must make at least dependent on the size of the institution. You should take into account the size of the institution, as is the case in many neighboring countries. Article 3 must therefore be adjusted.

Secondly, there is the increased contribution for 2012-2013, which was just reflected in the text, by the fact that the risk is greater if necessary and we will have to intervene, and therefore we will have to use the savings.

In recent years, there has been an incredible amount of time wasted. The members of the sp.a share my opinion in this regard, in particular that the financial architecture needs to be properly addressed and adjusted. The increased contribution should not be calculated solely on deposit guarantees. In the other case, you say that in 2012-2013 we will be more at risk, but that we will just allow the institutions that operate risk-free or operate well to be charged for the risk. The contribution should be balanced across the pillars of financial stability and deposit guarantee.

You need to adjust the risk model. Such is fundamental. The contribution should be modulated on the basis of the market share of the deposits of each bank. There should also be a risk weight based on the leverage of each bank. Banks with a leverage greater than twenty will, according to us, have to pay one and a half times more. Banks with a leverage that is less than ten will have to pay more than half.

Article 8 of your law must therefore be thoroughly updated. Your risk factors must be adjusted. I have said that in the committee.

The complex models you refer to for risk weighing have not worked and have even had a risk-increasing effect. They give a false picture of reality and cause discrimination.

The criticism I’m giving now is shared by the banking sector itself, especially by those who didn’t have to be saved. How many more arguments do you need?

and green! have you proposed the necessary adjustments in the committee, with what we consider to be the minimum needed and with what the best solution would be the maximum.

However, they were not taken into account by the majority. I read today in the same article that some bankers are already advocating a repair law to remedy the new law early next year.

If you do not want to justify the opposition today, as was the case in 2010, then I sincerely hope that you respond to the question of the sector itself. The sector has not yet been able to study the law, but the small bankers already say it is unfair and it punishes them excessively. I hope that you will work out that repair law, that you will finally learn lessons from the Dexiadebacle and from the financial crisis, and that you will turn them into solid policies instead of persistently holding on.

This is again a missed opportunity. Just like with the Fortisdebacle, it will take three attempts to do it right. How many crises will follow?

First of all, I would like to thank you for your way of being in commission while the working conditions are not easy. And I hope that we can continue to work like this until the end of the legislature.

Dear colleagues, the draft law in review deserves our full attention. Although it is technically distinct from the bill containing various provisions, it is, in my opinion, inseparable from it insofar as it reflects part of the government’s agreement.

This is about contributing to a sector that has been the source of a significant part of our problems, namely the financial sector.

The massive intervention of our country to save the banks and especially the deposits there are no longer to be demonstrated. This intervention—everyone agrees to say it—was necessary to save the real economy. However, it was not free of costs for the state accounts.

In its latest annual note, the Court of Auditors indicated that the Belgian State had, as of November 15, last year, invested €15.7 billion in the capital of financial institutions, mainly of banking and insurance organizations and borrowed €8.6 billion to the sector and that, without counting the gross amounts for which we have been guaranteed in order to stabilize the situation of certain institutions, in particular, Dexia Holding.

In this context and at a time when we are asking all our fellow citizens to consent to efforts, it would not have been normal not to make a significant contribution of the banking sector to the consolidation of public finances, which is why, through an amendment filed by the majority, the levy rate for the contribution to the deposit guarantee, in 2012 and 2013, was significantly increased.

This contribution is fundamental in order for us to remain credible in the eyes of our fellow citizens. It constitutes an act of fairness: the one who fails pays. But it should not be an obstacle to reforms. More than a contribution, we must impose structural reforms on banks that will prevent, in the future, completely unreasonable speculative behaviors that endanger our economy. This work will, of course, be the responsibility of the Government and the various committees of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak in the long run, but I would like to respond to two critical comments I have just heard here. First, there is Mrs Alamaci’s criticism of the 0.035 % tax for financial stability. The current rate for the financial stability contribution in Europe is between 2 and 4 basis points. We are therefore in the high spectrum of the tariff.

Second, Ms. Wouters wondered why, for example, Belgian branches of foreign financial institutions are not subject to the financial stability contribution. Well, this is basically considered. There is also an estimate of the possible revenue from that tax on branch offices. This would amount to a maximum of 20 million euros. The great risk, of course, lies in choosing for the branch offices to relocate. We have been told that three institutions would generate 80% of those 20 million. However, if there is a high chance that one or two of those three branches will move, then those 20 million will naturally go away as quickly as promised. I think that would not have been a good thing. Therefore, the tax on the branch offices has not been retained, given the danger of relocation. The same argument actually applies to the criticism of Ms. Almaci.

The 3.5 basis points on wholesale funding are indeed accounted for in the text by international comparisons to calculate financial stability. The international comparison has been made: for Germany it is 2 to 4 basis points, for the UK it is 4 basis points. However, the tax on healthy retail deposits, 0.245 in 2012, 0.15 in 2013 and 0.10 in 2014, is not internationally compared. I decided to visit Febelfin. It shows that between France, Germany and Sweden we put the heaviest weight on the deposits.

Why is this not included in the majority amendment? Because it confirms the criticism of the small bankers and our group, namely that you emphasize the retail deposits instead of taking into account the extent of the risks taken by the banks and the size of the banks themselves.

What you say confirms once again that you have been doing completely wrong.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to reiterate to my colleagues that the existing deposit protection is considered a remuneration, not a tax.

We also assume that the financial stability contribution, which has not yet been ruled by the Constitutional Court, will be considered as a remuneration. I have the utmost respect for the considerations formulated here regarding the desirable behavior of the financial sector, but it is nevertheless not abnormal that the cost of the remuneration, which is primarily intended to finance part of the deposit guarantee, is bound by the extent of the service provided, namely the provision of a guarantee up to 100 000 euros.

I would like to peacefully discuss with my colleagues what the legislature can do in the near future to limit risk behavior in the financial sector as much as possible. I would like to warn you that with the remuneration, which is clearly linked to the deposit guarantee, we want to solve all the problems of the financial sector. Let us not confuse the categories.

When asked why branches of foreign banks do not pay the remuneration – you will call the tax – the answer is that they also do not enjoy a Belgian guarantee. If, for example, a branch of a German bank offers deposits here, the guarantee on that money is given by the German taxpayer, not by the Belgian taxpayer.

If you think we need to charge a fee for that, please explain to me which service is accompanied by that remuneration. Again, Mrs. Wouters, Mrs. Almaci and others, I do not deny the lawmaker’s right to further consider, in the near future, in the Committee on Finance, a way to limit risk behavior as much as possible. I suggest, however, that we do not do so solely on the basis of the proposed remuneration, which is clearly linked to the guarantee.

Finally, Mrs. Almaci, I would like to assume that you want to accept a part of my replica, but you say that I still too much benefit the banks with a high leverage. I would like to point out that the new contribution to financial stability is precisely an incentive to reduce the specific risk of capital market financing. It is a remuneration that is calculated on the liability minus the own capital and minus the deposits. In other words, we are actually talking about an instrument that makes those who prefer capital market financing pay more than the others. With a paradox, I could argue that the system installed here still forces even those who do not want a deposit guarantee because they, by way of speech, do not enter the market of ordinary savings, yet still compels them to contribute.

I would like to say that in response to a number of considerations, in particular from the opposition, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the members of the majority who support this draft and who pointed out the yet good exchange of ideas that was possible in the committee, despite the not so simple circumstances for this draft.

Mr. Minister, I thank you for your attempt to correct something that is fundamentally curved. The logic of the Special Protection Fund is to protect the deposits, the whole system that has been endangered by big banks that have speculated with savings involving almost entire economies, and which we had to save.

Today you are proposing a system that proportionally punishes the banks that did not need to be rescued, who safely jumped over the savings, who did not engage in those speculative activities.

You say that they still hold deposits and that this is normal. Something has been created to protect the citizen from the drainage of a system that was so sick that we had to save the banks; you say that it is about savings and that it is therefore logical that whoever has more savings must pay for it. This is the world on his head! The tax on financial stability that you set here is simply linear. It does not take into account the size of the banks. In other countries, non-system banks are exempt from that tax; they do not have to pay, or much less.

Today you are talking about what is crumbling. The logic that this measure came into being just with the intention to make the speculative activities contribute more to this fund, you reason completely away. It is not correct. These banks will call you. The only thing you do with this is to strengthen the competitive level of the big banks saved with government money to the detriment of those small banks. From that market you will make a market where even more speculative activities will happen, because they are cheaper than what you ask here as retaliation to those who safely bank. You are doing exactly the opposite. This is not logical. This is not fair. This does not contribute to a healthy financial architecture, on the contrary. I hope you soon open your eyes.

Mr. Minister, I would like to make two comments.

First, there is a discussion between salary and tax. You rightly say that we are talking about a remuneration because we do services, we set up an insurance. I do not understand why you are not consistent. If you set up an insurance, then it’s good to put a portion of that collected money aside for the day you need to use that insurance to compensate those depository holders. What will happen now? All that money goes into the budget, it is gone at the end of the year and the day a disaster occurs, you will have to appeal back to the taxpayer to secure those deposit holders. Either you provide services and cover yourself up to the moment you have to apply for that insurance. This does not happen. That money is gone, it goes to the operation of the budget and is gone at the end of the year. Either we are talking about a tax and you apply what you are applying now.

Second, superficially speaking, it really sounds good to say that we mainly get the cents from the banks based on the deposits, because it still serves to secure the deposits. That sounds seemingly logical, but it is, of course, very illogical. The threat does not come from the deposits, the threat comes from the banks that take too much risk. If you want to install a security for the deposit holders, then you should not collect at the expense of the deposit holder, but at the expense of the one who may pose a threat to those deposit holders. You do not do that. You do the opposite.