Proposition 54K1468

Projet de loi contenant le deuxième ajustement du Budget général des dépenses pour l'année budgétaire 2015.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Nov. 18, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

budget national budget

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

PP VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (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. 16, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The speakers are MM. Laaouej and Piedboeuf.

I am referring to the written report.

Thank you, Mr Laaouej. by Mr. Piedboeuf does the same. We start with the opposition. The word is for mr. by Laaouej.

Mr. President, Mrs. Minister of Budget, Mr. Minister of Finance, dear colleagues, let’s say it from the beginning, the 2016 government budget is not on track. Sorry to start this way, but the truth has its rights. The budget train continues to run out; it is not from today and it is not close to stopping. Your budget balances between approximations, unpredictions and some mystification.

In the unstable context we know, what we expect from the government is to demonstrate a great sense of responsibility. You have not used us so far to a very great seriousness and it is difficult to trust you. Should I recall the episode of the 750 million, which became 600 million, of which the Regions were unjustly deprived as regional additions? Should I mention the underestimated corporate tax and VAT tax revenues that have led you to have to adjust your 2015 budget for ⁇ €800 million for this problem alone?

Do I have to say here the little credit – and that was confirmed by the facts – that the Court of Auditors gave to your estimate of the budgetary performance of your new measures? This was the case in 2015, and it is still the case in 2016. All of this we had already said to this tribune, and every time you wiped out our observations and criticisms with a back of your hand.

A budget, of course, is a forecast and we can’t expect an accuracy near the euro, we agree. Budgeting is also a matter of trust. And you will admit that your heavy mistakes of the past, yet identifiable and identifiable, mistakes in which you have locked yourself, refusing to listen to our warnings, do not plead for that trust to be granted to you.

Unfortunately, with the review of the 2016 budget, things are not close to getting better. You continue to deny the economic and fiscal realities, which is quite regrettable.

Dear colleagues, our public finances and our economic parameters still carry the stigma of the 2008 economic and financial crisis. In the European Union, and in particular in the euro area, economic growth is low, and Belgium does not escape this finding. Our major economic partners also face difficulties, whether present or future. In particular, consider the possible effects on Germany of China’s uncertain economic development. Not to mention the fact that our social security has faced, in recent years, growing needs related, too, to the adverse effects on the real economy of the deregulation of the global financial markets.

Fortunately, social security has been able to play its role as an economic stabilizer and has not allowed domestic demand to collapse, even if it has somewhat crippled. Thanks to the efforts undertaken in recent years at different levels of power, job creation in spite of the difficult context will have prevented a strong growth in unemployment that could have worsened the situation.

As for the international environment, it is unstable, as you know: war in the Middle East, difficult political and economic relations with Russia, chaotic oil price evolution, global refugee crisis, climate challenge – to take just a few examples.

During our work, there has been a lot of discussion about the policy of the European Central Bank, which is relaxing. However, the long-term effects cannot be measured decisively.

Of course, we should not forget to add the importance of the evolution of public debt, which control remains a challenge (not yet met at this stage) and a necessity. Unfortunately, this development is worrying and is not close to settling, when we look at the report of the National Bank and the Plan Office, which assesses for 2020 at a growth of 1.1 of GDP the consequences of your policy in this regard. It is considerable!

It is in this dangerous context that we are given to review your budget. The least that can be said is that it is not at the level of the stakes. The 2016 budget, as well as the 2019 budget trajectory, do not reflect a clear vision, either in the short or medium term, or in the longer term. You do not respond to the imperatives of the present and you are compromising the future. There is a reason for this. You have locked yourself in the promise of a so-called major tax reform, the tax shift, which blends under the same vocabulary labor tax reductions, reductions in employer social contributions, increases in consumption taxes, for the most part, and – marginally – some additional levies on capital income.

The fact is that, finding the inability to keep the promises announced, the day before the last summer vacation, you had to review your copy and increase the budget resources dedicated to your promises, but without funding them. This is what you pay in your 2016 budget. This political act of a non-funded tax reform will have heavy consequences in the medium term: it will aggravate our structural deficit, undermine the capacity of future federal governments to act in new policies, weigh the bill for future generations and weaken us in the face of the challenge of the cost of aging.

You could have had the courage to finance your labor tax reduction but not by raising consumption taxes. It means giving with one hand and taking back with the other. Nor, as you did, cutting more and more in public services and social security. Because this is sending the invoice – an insidious invoice – to our fellow citizens.

Now, all this, all that I have just described, you have done. Not only did you do it, but it’s not even enough to finance your tax cuts. And it is not the thin and uncertain capital revenues you anticipate that will change something to this finding.

Our fellow citizens do not just need a tax reform, they need a tax reform that is fair. Just because they do not empty their pockets under the pretext of getting them a little slick, just because they do not deprive them of public services and social protection, just because they make sure that the reduction of labour tax corresponds, at the same time, to a more equitable taxation on capital.

We will have the opportunity to return on Friday on the tax shift, but let us already recall what emerges from the general report of the 2016 budget on the financing of this tax shift, on page 15. For the year 2016, you reduce employer contributions and other charges of companies by 845 million euros. And, still in 2016, you will reduce the taxes on labor by 858 million. To finance the whole, you are raising consumer taxes by 1.1 billion, capital taxes by 549 million – I will have the opportunity to say how hypothetical this is. You plan, for the financing of your tax shift, on a Belfius dividend of 75 million, on a National Lottery Renta of 30 million and, finally, on 100 million euros of savings.

These figures and this picture are clear. In 2016, the increase in consumer taxes far outweighs the reduction in labour taxes: 1.1 billion more on consumption in 2016 and 858 million less on labour. In 2016, for at least 250 million euros, it will be the households who will finance the cuts in employer contributions. For this reason in particular, and there are many others, your budget is antisocial.

You have made, as I said, another choice: a non-funded tax reform, which plumes your budget trajectory. Let’s be concrete: on page 58 of your overview, the 2019 structural balance announces an additional effort of €3.15 billion.

Even if you have to say and explain to us in length of debate that this has nothing to do with tax shift, you will only convince yourself. As if the tax shift had no effect on the evolution of tax revenues! It is wrong to know the realities of the budget than to assert such a thing and you know it. It will be noted at the time that these 3.15 billion missing already include the return effect that you estimate at 900 million euros.

The question is what you are going to do. Are you going to raise taxes on consumption? Are you going to raise the tax or increase the excise tax? Is that not enough for you? Will you continue to suffocate public services and provoke their ongoing deflation? Will you cut further in the social rights and in the social protection of workers and their families, pensioners, beneficiaries? Will you have the courage to tell us, on this stand, how will you do to get back to balance by 2019? Until now, you have kept yourself from telling us more. One thing is certain is that such an attitude is not responsible.

But let’s take a closer look at that figure of 3.15 billion euros. Is it not underestimated? Isn’t the real effort to be made by 2019 more important? Add to that the €400 million you have pledged to add for security. I will return to this point.

Let us consider the 2016 budget, which already contains the aggravation of your structural deficit in the horizon of 2019, and proceed to a small round of the horizon.

First of all, let’s look at the recipes. As I said recently, on the occasion of my introduction, you have mastered the art of swelling. be careful ! If you want to blow up your ball too much, it could explode.

If we look at the situation in detail, the electricity VAT will rise from 6% to 21%. The Office of the Plan ⁇ ins a budget return on cruise speed by 2020 of 572 million. VAT has already entered into force. In your budget, you retain 1.2 billion, with 712 million coming from the increase of the rate from 6% to 21% – to which you add 250 million as regularization, rectification and 249 million for a technical correction for which, like the Court of Auditors – apologize a little – we find no explanation. In total, you expect, for the increase of the VAT on electricity, a supplementary revenue of 1.2 billion while for the Office of the Plan it is about, at most, 572 million. In other words, you keep the double.

Under these conditions, how do you want someone to consider your budget to be serious? But that is not the only problem.

Take the Caiman tax. Visibly, you have listened a little to what you have been told since you have submitted last-minute amendments that, thanks to the flexibility of the opposition, may be able to be adopted in due time in this assembly. However, this will not solve all the problems. There, you tap high, you indicate 460 million euros in revenues! The Court of Auditors has told you that there is a risk of tax evasion and evasion, and tax journals say the same. When you are told that there might be a point for you to re-examine the veil of your estimates, you say that you will succeed. No one believes it! Not even your tax office. When you read the sheets of your tax administration, on which the Court of Auditors relies to do its analysis, it is explained that it estimated the recipe based on the few elements in its possession, or very little. She estimated that, 460 million, was the maximum limit of the maximum estimate. Nothing is done, no caution, no reservation, you take the maximum amount. You will have bad surprises, especially since you can’t see this measure alone, you have to see it in conjunction with tax regulation. You can’t get two revenues from the same stream: either people will go to regularize and pay the regularization, or they will pay the transparency tax. Both at the same time, it is impossible. You know this well because the amendments you have submitted aim to bridge the two measures.

Your Cayman tax is obviously overestimated. This is the second major source of recipes that is visibly overvitaminated, excessively bloated.

You say the tax regulation will bring you $250 million. Unfortunately, the text is not yet ready. He was sent back to the consultation committee. When will it be adopted, if one day it is adopted? We know nothing!

With regard to the figure of 250 million euros, the Court of Auditors tells you to be careful because if you look at previous years, the regularisations give very fluctuating results. The recipe you mentioned is very random. So be careful! There, too, you do not take into account the Court of Auditors’ observation and you continue to indicate 250 million. But is it really a structural measure? Once the taxpayers have normalized their situation, should we expect that each year for five or six years, you can count on a revenue of 250 million? You are mistaken here too! Now, it is time to look at the veil again!

I come to another point. There are two significant taxes in the budget that are disputed before the Constitutional Court. One came from a previous legislature. This is a good move that should be supported. It is contested before the Constitutional Court. I hope you have a plan B. But, at the same time, this tax – I’m talking about the Fairness tax, this minimum tax for large companies – is expected to bring 215 million euros. I hope you have a plan B. Unfortunately, I see nothing in your reflections, in your speeches that reassures us or that would reassure us. But, I repeat, the risk is not insignificant. I can say that we have a replacement plan.

The second tax is the intercommunal tax. As you know, we told you, it’s not our cup of tea. It is the users who will end up pay that tax increase you impose on them, not to mention the municipal finances. There is something strange there. The tax is disputed. What are you doing? You make the recipe like that. Of the €210 million planned for 2015, you add €110 million. You now expect 320 million euros, while the tax is disputed and you have limited its scope. There is an inconsistency in the approach, in the method which is completely incomprehensible. Of course, there is no plan B, either.

But when we make the sum of these two taxes, we reach half a billion. Therefore, you have a budget risk of 500 million euros. Therefore, the advice I want to address to you is this: prepare to find an alternative solution.

Another quite nebulous point in revenue is the item "Harmonization of VAT bases". This is about aesthetic surgery. This also applies to homes under 10 years old. But, at the same time, we don’t know how you get to your calculations. The Court of Auditors does not know either. Why are you holding a budget revenue of €190 million? You don’t give a convincing answer either.

Another source of new revenue are the Sicafi, a financial vehicle for financing real estate. You are expecting 250 million euros but the text has not yet been voted and, at the time of the committee debates, you were still waiting for the opinion of the FSMA. You also take a considerable risk. That is 250 million euros!

I end the listing here. There would still be a lot to say.

The [...]

I can do that, Mr. Nollet.

An exhausting listing that shows that your budget is not based on very solid foundations on the revenue side. For the 2016 budget, you add a return effect of 225 million – it is well known that return effects are always very random –; 100 million for the redesign of the administration.

A word about the nuclear rent – my excellent colleague Karine Lalieux will tell you more – on which there is also a drastic decline in the expected revenue: 150 million euros. Do you really believe that it is with this that you are going to put this sector in contribution? However, for this budget as well as for the others, this leads to an insignificant loss.

In short, we are facing a serious breakdown in our public finances. Unfortunately, it is combined with a problem of non-financing of the tax shift. So that when I make the addition, between the 3.1 billion you admit yourself in your general statement and all the uncertain revenues I have just listed, the additional effort by the horizon of 2019 is 5 billion euros.

What do you think of the National Bank’s forecast that estimates the return effects at 5.7 billion?

I would like Mr. Laaouej tells us about the effect of tax shift on cities and municipalities. I take advantage of the passage to congratulate Mr. Thiery for his win at Linkebeek.

Mr. Piedboeuf, the National Bank actually provided a report estimating the effects of returning to employment.

I told you, but maybe you didn’t pay attention.

According to the National Bank, the tax shift will lead to an increase in public debt by 1.1 percent of GDP by 2020. If there is an increase in public debt, it is because your structural deficit has grown. There are no thirty-six reasons. The 1.1 percent of GDP, that’s almost the 5 billion I talked about before.

You’re talking about work, it’s very interesting. There is an estimate problem between the National Bank and the Plan Bureau. They don’t give the same numbers. Who has the right method? You refused us a debate with the National Bank and the Plan Bureau. I would have liked to dig. We asked for an hour of suspension; you refused. We requested the hearing of the National Bank and the Plan Office; you did not accept it.

The National Bank makes forecasts on economic prospects on a regular basis. According to its latest forecasts, for the period 2015-2017, 114,000 jobs will be created, but this is not thanks to your tax shift. If we repeat the forecasts of previous years, we speak of a net increase of 14,000 jobs.

According to the National Bank’s latest forecasts, your policy could create 14,000 jobs. If we associate 14,000 jobs with a tax shift costing ex ante more than 6 billion euros, you will understand, Mr. Piedboeuf, that there is a way to better invest public money!

On the spending side, the situation is not much better. You continue your austerity policy. Unfortunately, I lack time to talk about everything. I would like to remind you of the very well done work. by Mr. Piedboeuf was the co-rapporteur.

Your draft budget is very worrying and announces difficult days for the users of public services and the functioning of our administrative or judicial institutions.

First, I will give you a general reflection. Since your government agreement, you have implemented an austerity policy on all floors. You cut in all expenses blindly. I can give it a detail, but the Court of Auditors did it in my place.

You bet in the horizon of 2019 on 650 million euros of savings that you purely call the redesign of the administration, a nebulous expression that actually hides savings in departments. When you were asked to explain in the Finance Committee what this redesign corresponded to, you referred us to Mr. Vandeput, Minister of Public Function. At this point, we still do not have any information.

In reality, what are you doing? You are inventing the budget tartuff. Hide those savings that I could not see! But we are not fools. As early as last year, we had sounded the alarm bell announcing that some savings were not feasible. And the fact is that you had to take exceptional measures in asylum, reopen places you had closed, not to mention the security policies, struck as we were by the shock of the Paris attacks.

Now, you are finally determined to reinvest in security. And this is where we ask you to take your responsibilities structurally by allocating the services sufficient resources to be able to operate effectively. What we must regret is that there is generally and methodically, in your head, a willingness to take away the means, a kind of blindness that is driven by ideology.

And we see regularly returning this ratio of public spending which would, for Belgium, eventually be higher than elsewhere. What you do not see is that it corresponds to needs, except when one is faced with tragic events. This is exactly what, in your head, constitutes a mixture of imprudence and irresponsibility.

We will focus on this provision of 400 million. We cannot do otherwise than talk about it. Four hundred million is a first step, but it is insufficient, given the savings you have subjected to the security-related departments. This security provision must be structural, recurring. At this stage, we still do not know whether you are considering turning this interdepartmental provision into measures or structural revenues for the budget.

More specifically, in order to ensure that we can move towards this balance, which honors our democracy, balance between public order and public freedoms, we propose a distribution in three-thirds. The first third for the nearby police, the police areas, because this is where we can do the framework and prevention on the basis of a police approach.

The second third for the federal police in order to fight big crime, networks – terrorist networks in particular – their financing, everything that involves. The third part is essential for prevention. Fighting radicalism is not just repression. This also requires investments in detection, guidance, education, which is why we urge you to strengthen the cooperation between the federal and the Communities.

Here are concrete proposals! Will you have the courage and determination to follow them? In any case, as far as the Socialist group is concerned – and I thank my colleague André Frédéric for informing me about this – these three priorities, if not met, would prove that you have made an announcement effect rather than displayed a real determination.

Let me highlight a few other points on spending. In the field of justice, we have a minister who announces reforms in all directions, while struggling to manage the poverty of the resources of his department. When asked why he doesn’t get more money, he returns the hot potato to his other government colleagues.

Do you listen to what the Minister of Justice says? I am here to make his relay, his spokesman, because this obviously does not work within the government. See what we are facing! On Friday, there will be a general strike in all prisons. We can also see the services that our fellow citizens are deprived of: see the reform and disappearance of a whole series of peace courts, not to mention the problem of the secretaries! In short, the problems are shocking. must be answered. Justice is a fundamental right. There is no democratic and developed state without a justice that has the means to function.

The [...]

I take this advantage to wish a quick recovery to our excellent colleague Luk Van Biesen.

In the field of defence, we are considering commitments. Does the Defense have the means for its ambitions and will it be able to respond to the call that will be addressed to it?

We ask ourselves when we see that the training of our military is now compromised, that the investment credits are almost null, in any case, very low, and that, on the functioning, the army, like Justice, manages misery. In the current state of things, it seems to me that you also have a part of responsibility here. You have subjected this department to a ⁇ heavy diet, of the order of 1.7 billion euros. It is now understood that this army must be able, when needed, to fulfill a number of missions, not counting the international commitments that might be its own. This is why there is also a matter for revision of your budget.

On development cooperation, we do not see how the minister will be able to reach the goal of 0.7% of GDP. It can be seen that he makes a number of ad effects in his general policy note. My colleagues who follow the subject are unanimous in saying that it will not succeed, that it will not succeed in meeting its goals. There is also dust in the eyes. What is the use of sending ministers to defend a general policy note if the means do not follow?

As for health, I will not say that it is the most serious because everything is serious. But there nevertheless, the 3 billion that you will look for on health in your trajectory, we can see clearly that they will allow you to finance part of the tax reform after all the antisocial measures that have already been taken: the increase of moderator tickets in some specialists, the reduction of the duration of the stay in maternity, the fact of having postponed the application of the third paying obligatory for beneficiaries of the increased intervention that you refused to extend to chronic patients, the fact also of having renounced, under the pressure of the employer, to extend to two months the period of guaranteed salary in case of disability to work. These are just a few examples.

What ultimately best translates what I just told you is the evolution of the growth standard of health care: 3% in 2014, 1.5% in 2015 and, finally, 0.75%, reality of the budget that you finally set for 2016. This is a reduction of half every time. You are dropping the financing of our social protection. This illustrates how your policy serves nothing but to conceal in reality the fact that you are rushing to give gifts to the employers you are funding by depriving our fellow citizens of a number of basic needs, whether public services or social protection.

Here are a few words that I have to say about the 2016 budget. It is like your government: chaotic and unreliable. Uncertain revenue adds to a deficit of more than 3 billion in 2019, which is expected to result in a minimum deficit of 5 billion. You are plumbing future generations to save your short-term communication. You continue the austerity on the side of public spending. You damage the social security budget by deliberate underfinancing, which is aggravated by reductions in employer social contributions.

But your budget mostly reflects your ideological choices. To make people believe that they are lowering their taxes to actually tax them more, depriving them of quality services and a high level of social protection, that is the essence of your budgetary and fiscal policy.

The conclusion is that your real goal is not to return purchasing power to households. Otherwise, why the index jump? Otherwise, why the increase in consumption taxes? I repeat it, and this must be martelled to this tribune, your real goal is to give the employer what he asks. It was read again this morning in the press: the employers are delighted with the government policy. What does the employer want? It is very simple: lower social contributions and wage cuts. The employer’s bank is happy, he gets everything he wanted. But for this, you had to pass the pill, you had to tell a story to the people, a Christmas tale. This Christmas story is the tax shift. But not all stories end well. When one abuses the population, when one abuses households, workers, one must be able to assume the fact of being confronted with the realities.

Your tax reduction promises masquerade – and that’s the tragic Christmas tale! Increases in consumption taxes and cuts in social security and public services. You abuse the population for a while, but you will not always abuse it. In any case, you will not abuse this Parliament. We will take care of telling you the reality, the reality that you hide.

In conclusion, let me tell you a simple thing, which can be summarized in one sentence: your fiscal and fiscal policy is neither fair nor responsible!

Mijnheer de voorzitter, best colleagues, voor ik mijn uiteenzetting begin, wil ik alle partijen en niet het minst de oppositionpartijen danken voor de constructive samenwerking in de Conferentie van voorzitters. We are erin geslaagd om de grenzen van meerderheid in opposition te overstijgen en om deze werkweek behoorlijk te organiseren. Which for thanks.

I would like to congratulate you on what you have just said. See and report how much his honesty contrasts with the statements of some members of the government who indicated that everything was in order, that the work on the tax shift had been done on time, and that everything had been resolved in July. However, it was indeed the opposition, in a very constructive attitude, that helped save the mise in extremis.

Thank you, Mrs Fonck.

The 2016 budget is a historical budget, the budget of the tax shift. All international organizations – the OECD, the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund – have been calling for a tax shift for years. We can only state that the government-Michel is realizing the tax shift. This is a historical merit. Even in the report of the International Monetary Fund, released yesterday, it is said that the measures of the Michel government, namely wage moderation, pension reform and tax shift, are important for job creation. I would also like to admit that it has not been an easy birth, but it has become a beautiful baby, with supporting the competitiveness of enterprises, removing the unemployment drop, saniting public finances, reducing the level of debt — for the first time since the banking crisis of 2008 — and improving the structural balance by 0.8 % of GDP.

I will divide my argument into two parts. In the first part, I will look at what the Court of Auditors has said and in the second part on a number of comments made during the committee meetings.

The Court of Auditors, under the auspices of counselor Rudi Moens, gave positive points to the budget. He congratulated the government on the fact that there is a multiannual budget until 2020, so far after the Stability Pact. He stressed that the return effects were estimated conservatively. He also stated that in the past the underuse targets were generally met and that the amount of 873 million planned for 2016 is feasible. Finally, he also said that the estimates of health taxes are reliable.

Obviously, he has also formulated a number of critical concerns, including about the kaaimantaks and other matters for which there are no historical parameters. The Kaimantak is registered for 460 million. However, this is not an arbitrary figure. According to a National Bank estimate, there are €57 billion of assets overseas, even without taking into account the United States, Switzerland and Luxembourg. However, caution is required with regard to the Kaimanantaks. The model comes overwhelmingly from the Netherlands, which has been working on for several years.

When the State Secretary for Finance, Mr. Weekers of the VVD, in 2013 evaluated the Dutch version of the transit tax, that evaluation was positive. The number of isolated private assets or APVs, as called in the Netherlands, decreased and some structures were dismantled. These are ⁇ positive aspects. However, that evaluation also found that some separate assets are hidden behind other concealment structures, such as overlapping foundations. This is a task for our Minister of Finance. He must also be warned of this, because likely such things will happen to us too. If abuses arise, they will need to be addressed; that is quite obvious. The kaaimantaks should, in my opinion, be a typical example of an evolutionary tax, which regularly, ⁇ even annually, closes some escape doors. I have said it here many times, but I will emphasize it again, the kaaimantaks is a fair tax. After all, those who hide their assets behind structures abroad should also contribute.

A second point on which counselor Rudi Moens was somewhat critical is the permanent tax regularization, which is registered for 250 million. A historical retrospective teaches us that regularisations undergo great fluctuations ranging from 25 million to 300 million. Well, 300 million is still more than the 250 million registered by us. The predetermined 250 million must therefore not necessarily be seen as illusory or unachievable.

The Court of Auditors also points out the consultation with the regions. It is then the now notorious Article 3, § 3 of the Coordinated Laws on the Council of State. With regard to that article, almost everyone in this meeting has butter on their heads, except for the N-VA. This time the opposition asked for it, and we allowed it. Let me remind you of a few precedents. In the plenary session of 18 December 2003, two Members of the Chamber called for the strict application of Article 3, § 3, namely Pieter De Crem and Geert Bourgeois, the latter at the time as the only Member of Parliament for the N-VA. Well, the application of Article 3, § 3 was refused to them by the purple-green majority.

In the Finance Committee of 27 June 2013, the N-VA again requested, by the mouth of Veerle Wouters, the strict application of Article 3, § 3 of the Coordinated Laws to the State Council. That was laughed at and voted out by the then majority of Elio Di Rupo. We act logically. We have requested the application of Article 3 up to twice but have captured bone up to twice. We act logically, and this time through a majority resolution, we have ensured that Article 3 is applied. This may also be the power of change.

Another comment from Councillor Moens is about the beef, 250 million. He says the modalities still need to be determined. That is true and these modalities will be effectively established.

As regards the speculative tax, the Court of Auditors notes that the yield is difficult to predict. That is true, there is nothing against it. However, there will probably — hopefully — still be a return, but that of course all depends on the stock market. That is the fate of such a tax.

I now come to the second part, a few comments made in the Committee on Finance. I regret somewhat that Mr. Vande Lanotte is absent. He always likes to quote Eurostat, apparently he has a special connection with it. He says that according to the calculations of Eurostat, the Belgian GDP in the third quarter of this year will only increase by 0.2%. In the second quarter, this was 0.5%. Those numbers beat. Belgian growth is then effectively below that of the euro area, where the average is 0.3%, and below the average of the European Union, where it is 0.4%. How does that come? This is because the necessary structural measures are now being taken; savings are now being made. In the past, they did not do so, they were so-called old recipes. The current sanctions and savings will undoubtedly lead to sustainable economic growth in the medium term and not to the creation of ghost or phantom jobs paid by the government. The IMF also noted this in its report.

I hear mr. Look with great interest. I have already heard in the committee this form of magical thought that realising linear economies in the state apparatus would be the best way to create tomorrow an economic system that works, closing the eyes on the consequences that it can have on essential tasks, including the royal security and redistribution missions.

You point here, Mr. Vuye, to the jobs subsidized by the state. With your tax shift and the cuts in social contributions that employers will benefit, what else do you do than create new subsidized jobs? And what is the cost per job created by this measure, since you have not targeted it on low and average wages and since you have not conditioned these cuts in contributions?

To say that linearly decreasing the state’s resources will automatically generate activity, and to deny that here you give a blank check to employers is a lie!

Mr. Gilkinet, I think that we have profoundly different opinions on this point; you have already asked me this question in other circumstances. I think that private jobs, jobs created by entrepreneurs, are not subsidized jobs. I think you cannot compare the two things.

That this does not happen automatically, I would like to admit. I think you have heard from my mouth several times that we will pay the employers for this. Mr Timmermans of the VBO has already called on the members of his organization to ensure that wage moderation goes to job creation. For my party, this is a very important point.

That this is a blanco cheque, I doubt.

Mr. Vuye, this statement by Mr. Is Timmermans enough? So you think that automatically, corporate profits generate investments and jobs. You still think like in the 1970s, in fact. You have forgotten the financial crisis of the 1990s, the financialization of the economy and the explosion of dividends.

What commitment has your majority obtained? Will this enormous effort made by the state budget, by the social security budget, be transformed into jobs? This is the question that we have been asking you for weeks and to which your only answer is: "Mr. Timmermans said, “It’s a bit short!

Mr. Gilkinet, I think we are ideologically different on this point.

When one moves to a moderation of wages and removes the disability of wage costs with overseas, we are convinced that this will lead to job creation. You do not believe in that. With you, it is really a point of faith.

I can agree that this is part of the answer. But then, concentrate the reductions of social contributions towards the low and middle wages, those who actually experience the competition. Now, this is not what you are doing: you are taking a linear measure that benefits equally the highest wages that, they, are not in competition with neighboring economies. There is a waste of public money. That’s why the expected effects in terms of job creation are so low compared to the resources put on the table. We will obviously re-discuss this as part of the discussion on the tax shift on Friday and we will submit amendments to, with the same amount, have a leverage effect on job creation much more efficiently.

Mr. Gilkinet, we received the report from the National Bank and the Office of the Plan concerning, in particular, the effects on employment.

We have taken measures that play on demand and job offer. Contrary to what you say – this is in the conclusion of the National Bank – it is rather low-paying jobs that will benefit from these measures. This is explained by the fact that you play on both axes, namely demand and supply, offer that you completely forget in your argumentation.

I honestly believe that by forgetting the effect relating to the job offer in the context of the discussion on the effects of the tax shift, you are omitting a very important element.

Mr. Minister of Finance, let me refer to Study Note 97 of the Office of the Plan which explains that by focusing resources on the lowest wages, one is much more efficient. I also refer to the study of the IRES (Catholic University of Louvain) in October, which explains that with the same funds as those you devote to tax shift, job creation could be four times higher. This is not the preferred option as you remove contributions reduction plans and apply an absolutely linear measure.

Moreover, the creation of jobs, the competitiveness of our economy are not merely the question of labor costs. We must also take into account the cost of energy, the specialization of our economy, the economic project that is ours, social cohesion and the ability of the most vulnerable of us to consume, which you completely put aside in terms of economic and social consequences.

Mr. Gilkinet, during the discussion we had in the Committee on Finance, I have already said that I totally agree with you to say that in terms of competitiveness, we must also take into account the cost of energy, the cost of mobility and not just consider the cost of labor. That said, this does not mean that the latter is not important or more important. In any case, it is very important and the government is acting at this level.

Regarding your first comment, I am prepared, as was the case in the committee, to enter into a debate on the characteristics of the models of the Plan Bureau and the National Bank.

This is usually recognized. External experts point out that the economic model of the National Bank is much more developed in terms of micro-economic effects, hence the effects on changes that will occur in the behavior of economic agents, as it is said in the language of economic models.

From these elements follows the fact that the effect on low wages is much more pronounced, ⁇ in the creation of jobs. It should also be added that the problem of employment is of general order. It will attract companies that need to employ people with different characteristics, different salaries. The problem of wage costs concerns each level. If one tries to focus only on the lowest wages, it is possible that nothing changes at the level of investments because necessarily, companies must resort to a plethora of job categories. Measures must therefore have an impact on all levels.

Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat what the Minister of Finance, more than rightly, has noted and his references to the Plan Bureau and the National Bank.

Colleague Gilkinet, you doubt some statements from representatives of employer organisations. The projections made by the National Bank and the Plan Bureau are of course future projections. We have confidence in that. The past has proved that some of those projections become reality. You seem to have less confidence in it, but you may have confidence in the real figures of the past year, which I have already mentioned during the debate on the State of the Union.

The reduction of wages did not start on 1 January 2015. We put them in place and we will strengthen them in the coming years, including thanks to the tax shift, but we also implemented wage cuts in 2013 and 2014. We have also implemented a wage policy in the past few years. I refer to the figures of the RSZPPO and the RSZ. These are figures on jobs in the private sector. We have created jobs this century, but very many of them in the public sector. They cost a lot of money, but they had and still have a social relevance. In the private sector – I compare the figures of the third quarter of 2013 with those of the third quarter of 2014, the last available figures at the time – there was a growth of 18 000 jobs, coincidentally at a time when we were engaged in a wage policy, a freeze of wages and a reduction of wage burdens, which we now go through. The figures will improve in this way. History shows it and the future will prove it, colleague Gilkinet.

Mrs. Temmerman will be speaking, then Mr. Gilkinet and then Mr. Vuye, because of course it is not intended to disable the speaker.

Mr. Verherstraeten, what you for a moment forgot to mention – you said it between the lines and you referred to the report on job creation – is that the jobs that are currently there have been created thanks to the measures of the government-Di Rupo, of which you, by the way, were also a part. I want to put the points on the i.

Mr. Verherstraeten, Mr. Minister, Mr. Vuye, create jobs, we are all for that. That is the first thing we all want. You may deny it – you have already admitted it, Mr. Minister – but many studies show that more jobs are created by reducing wages at the lowest wages than by implementing them linearly. I’m not saying that no jobs are created by a linear reduction in wages, but you simply create more jobs by implementing a reduction in wages for the lowest wages. This is obvious, because the burden on those wages is proportionally high.

That is just mathematics. You have since acknowledged it somewhat, but this is not the subject of the discussion.

We all want more jobs. It would be better to focus on the lowest wages. You do not do it. You work for a large linear piece. (Protest by the majority)

You say that a measure has more effect on low wages, but you give a burden reduction to all wages. You will not deny that.

This is not really about me. We want as many jobs as possible. The question here is who will pay the cost reduction. That is what it is. Who will pay them? These are the ordinary families.

Look at the tax shift. There is a shortage there. What will be the result? Who will pay it again? These are ordinary families. That is what the discussion is about.

I hope we create a lot of jobs, but I hope you also have the courage to get everyone paid for it and not just the ordinary families and the ordinary working people.

by Mr. Verherstraeten, regarding our confidence in the statements of the Chairman of the FEB on the effective creation of jobs as a result of the tax shift, I would like to answer "Squared cat fears cold water"!

I remember the measure of notional interests which, today, weighs more than 3 billion euros on the state budget and which has not had an effect on the creation of jobs. The effort on the revenue of public finances does not result in job creation. The biggest players, especially multinational companies, take advantage of the system but do not bother to dismiss very widely. This requires the introduction of conditional elements.

You refer to studies on the development of employment where it is actually seen that the number of assets is increasing. This makes me think that the expected increase following the tax shift is not spectacular because the process is structural. Despite its cost, the value added of the measurement is really not spectacular.

You still say that a lot of jobs have been created in the non-market and that it costs. I repeat that measuring the tax shift here, per unit, represents a huge cost.

On the linear dimension of the cuts of contributions, what the Minister of Finance said is very important. Whatever it says in the CD&V ranks, it has just admitted that it applies to all salaries, including the highest ones. But it is not those who have a problematic competitiveness differential, but rather the low and middle wages. This is the best of levers. This will affect the less skilled people, young workers, those who need opportunities on the job market.

I think that this has already taken up much of Ecolo’s speech time. You may be able to subtract it from your speech time later.

We talked about the old and new recipes. It was not about job creation or target group politics at all, Mr. Gilkinet. I hadn’t talked about that at all. I was talking about something, but not the topic you addressed in your interruption. You just do.

Again, I talked about the old and the new recipes. The new recipes that are now being applied ensure that economic growth is pushed back in the short term. This is what I was talking about, not the target group policy. In the long run, this will lead to the creation of private jobs.

There is evidence that the ECB’s prescriptions work. According to Eurostat, countries that followed the ECB’s prescriptions saw strong increases: Slovakia +0.9%, Spain +0.8%. Countries that manifestly refuse to apply the ECB prescriptions will also bear the consequences of: Greece – 0.5 %.

I come to a second point.

Before giving the floor, I ask Mr Van Hees and all the others, that there be a response to the speaker and that there is no discussion between the members. This was also agreed upon during one of the previous meetings of the Conference of Presidents, which strictly complies with the idea that one responds to the speaker and does not initiate an internal debate in the Chamber, no matter how much I welcome the interruptions in themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your comment, which probably did not address me, since I have not yet intervened.

Mr. Vuye, you say this will have a positive impact on employment in the private sector. I will take the example of a well-known private institution in this country, namely Fortis. This bank has benefited for years from all the gifts offered to it by the government, which are, above all, an abuse effect. Indeed, on the one hand, Fortis removes more than a thousand jobs - great impact on employment! On the other hand, it distributes two billion dividends. Can we not infer that these policies have a very tangible effect on dividends, while it is less clear for employment? Can you tell me if this institution is an exception?

You asked me the exact same question a few months ago, or maybe it was Mr. Hedebouw, with Coca-Cola as an example.

Mr Van Hees, you might have to ask yourself how many jobs would disappear if no action was taken.

With regard to job creation, the High Council for Employment talks about 18 000 jobs in 2015 and 94 000 by 2017. The National Bank estimates the effect of the tax shift on 64 000 new jobs by 2021 and the Federal Planning Bureau on 45 000 by 2021. These are numbers, which you can’t look at.

These are estimates, Mr. Vuye. By the way, when the same institutions make estimates on the cost of the tax shift, all of a sudden, the government claims that their calculations are incorrect. But when this is arranged by the government, it takes these estimates into account. I’m not talking about estimates, but about the removal of actual jobs. This is another thing, Mr. Vuye!

Mr Van Hees, if no measures are taken and if no measures are taken to reduce wage disability, even more jobs will be destroyed. That is inevitable. This is exactly what we are trying to prevent, namely that more jobs will be lost. Moreover, we even go for job creation.

The increase in VAT for electricity. I would like to emphasize the following.

It is always alleged that the previous government had raised that VAT rate from 21% to 6%. That is true, and that is not true. It was a temporary measure, which lasted until 31 December 2015. Some members of the former government have already acknowledged here – some other members have denied that, I can confidently acknowledge – that this is an index jump.

We know and have also noticed that the VAT reduction has broken a gap of 500 million euros in the budget. The coincidence means that several weeks ago certain authorities determined the following. I will quote two authorities, first a small authority and then a big one.

A few weeks ago, Angus Deaton, associate at Princeton University, received the Nobel Prize for his analysis of consumption, poverty and prosperity. What is the core thesis of his work and work? That is that a VAT reduction usually results in the benefit of the electricity producers.

This has also happened. Prices have risen again after the VAT reduction.

I will also call on a great authority. Ecolo-Groen criticises the VAT reduction. I therefore quote Mr. Wouter Van Besien at the moment when the VAT reduction came. He believed it was farm fraud. After all, the reduction was antisocial, expensive for the government and bad for the environment. In this way, we would not meet the environmental objectives.

Mr. Secretary of State, the problem that was raised at the time, and which I will take back recently in my speech at the press conference, is the lack of investments and assistance to citizens to reduce their energy consumption, as well as to ⁇ . The summit in Paris last weekend resulted in a consensus, which is pleasant to see. Tell me, in your budget, what prepares the encounter of those challenges that are neither more nor less than saving the planet?

What we have said about these measures is that we urgently need to help our companies consume less energy, whether from electricity or carbon, in order to create jobs, enable citizens to save money and have a better living environment. This remains our priority. This is extremely structural. This is a project that I can’t find in your budget.

I then come to a third point of criticism, in particular that the great powers are left alone. Nor is it so. A quarter of the effort, up to 2.2 billion euros, is borne by the assets.

I would like to repeat the N-VA position on this subject. Two weeks ago I had the pleasure of receiving a trade union delegation. I have noticed that they do not know the N-VA position on this subject at all.

Our position is sufficiently simple. Property tax is something different from property income tax. We already know property tax in Belgium in the form of succession rights, registration rights and real estate advance tax. In this respect, we are in the third place in Europe. This is a tax that is often paid by the middle class.

A property gain tax is something else. I have always said that we can talk about it, but under certain conditions. There should be an exemption for the small saver. This tax should not fall on the shoulders of the middle class. There needs to be a solution for the minor values. Finally, it must be an open discussion.

What we do not want as a wealth gain tax is the alternative to Ecolo-Green. I refer to one authority, Mr. Van Rompuy, which is often quoted by Kristof Calvo. I quote Mr Van Rompuy: “Through tax increases of 8.5 billion euros and a tax on assets of more than 250,000 euros, including the own home, ordinary working people and pensioners will be affected much more than the index jump.”

As you can see, I am reading your blog with great attention.

Mr. Vuye, there are other quotes from Mr. Van Rompuy that you should take on your account.

Others will follow.

Particularly in terms of the budget of the year. He has the merit, for the most part, not to handle the wooden tongue. I agree with you on some points, but not on the one you have just stated. Because what Mr. Van Rompuy knows, but what he does not mention on his blog, nor when he interrupts us at the tribune, is that from this amount, we have to deduct all the taxes that we eliminate to simplify the taxation on capital, especially everything concerning successions.

In the equation that we have had the merit to present, in our budgetary alternative, there is ⁇ a high amount in terms of contribution of capital to effort, we assume it entirely, but it must be deduced from this figure that you quote the whole series of taxes on capital that we are removing to have a simpler and more efficient system elsewhere. This is a gross number, not a net number. We have explained this many times to Mr. Van Rompuy, who is very interested in our work. I would like to reiterate that we have had the merit of producing an alternative budget.

However, you do not mention it, because it does not mention it either. There is, therefore, a fundamental element lacking in this reasoning.

Mr. Van Rompuy, I notice that your blog is very selectively read and quoted.

What we also don’t want is the millionaire tax, as the PVDA proposes. It violates a number of fundamental freedoms in which we believe. We believe in individual freedom and ⁇ are not in favour of a wealth cadastre.

Fourth, I come back to colleague Vande Lanotte, who in the Finance Committee again referred to Eurostat, as he so liked to do, and to the figures that would be bad, to conclude that the government-Di Rupo ultimately did better than the government-Michel.

The president of the National Bank of Belgium, Mr Smets, has already said that he does not think that those Eurostat cases are really reliable. These are quarterly figures based on a sample. If you want to use these numbers, you need to use a trend line. If one uses a trend range consisting of several quarters, one can see that employment in Belgium is stabilizing at 67.2%.

The 2016 budget is fine. The tax shift is achieved. That is historic. I have just referred to the question asked by Mr Van Hees about the 94,000 jobs proposed by the High Council for Employment, the 64,500 by the National Bank and the 45,000 by the Court of Auditors.

The goal is to ⁇ the balance in 2018. The IMF said in its report that reducing debt and making public spending more efficient will now be the major tasks. It can too. There are hardly any savings in social security.

The IMF is also referring to this. There are potential gains in efficiency in healthcare, a better average test can take place on social benefits, linking unemployment benefits to job searching can be better, and the IMF also recommends completely abolishing bridge pensions.

I know people laugh at that redesign, but I think big efficiency gains can be achieved from the operation of the government. Government operating expenditures are now 8% higher than at the beginning of the century. That is something that speaks for itself.

Some measures were not charged by models from the Court of Auditors or the Planning Bureau because they were sufficiently elaborated. This is the case with redesign and measures in social spending. We expect that the budget with the tax shift will provide economic growth. That’s what we need to take care of, that’s ultimately the miracle we’ll have to try to accomplish: 1% growth makes a difference of 2 billion in the budget. My group will therefore approve and fully support this budget.

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, Mr. Speaker. And stick to it. It means having a vision of the objectives. with clear objectives. A certain idea of his country, an ambition for him and his inhabitants. Governing is also giving yourself the means for your ambitions. Our government, giving up the short-term vision, determined itself with determination just over a year ago, a direction that should enable Belgium to regain the path of competitiveness, employment, growth while ensuring the maintenance of solidarity.

The 2016 budget that is presented to us today is part of the will of our majority to follow the path of reform, because our country needs it, because its inhabitants and ⁇ need it. The 2016 budget presented and supported by our Minister is a clear and ambitious budget. It is the reflection of the need to act even more for the creation of jobs, for the encouragement of the spirit of entrepreneurship, for the relief of the burdens that weigh on work. Competitiveness is also a reflection of the willingness to fight fraud, for justice and security, while taking into account the current economic context.

The Court of Auditors underlines that the multiannual outlook is a fundamental improvement in comparison with the previous situation, as it enables an objective assessment of the sustainability of the proposed measures.

The Court also points out that forecasts of revenue and expenditure are established in a structural approach by neutralizing non-permanent measures. It also meets a European requirement and helps to better understand budget results.

Furthermore, the Court notes that the government’s macroeconomic charts show that the structural balance is developing in a favorable manner. Of course, since the exercise is to issue an objective and verifiable opinion on the validity of the advanced figures, the Court has issued reservations on the performance of certain measures, but it is not because it is not able to validate certain assumptions that these are false. These assumptions result from an economic vision, strategic choices.

Similarly, the fact that it is difficult to establish the performance of certain measures, the practical and precise modalities of which have yet to be defined, is understandable, but this does not mean in any way that the performance is uncertain. It is simply impossible to measure the exact extent and it is the role of the Court of Auditors to be cautious. She gives an opinion, a advice. It does not decide and, above all, it should not take responsibility for its choices.

As one of its officials said during his hearing, “the great annual frustration of the Court of Auditors is that it is a Court of Auditors and not a Court of Budget.” She said it! You were there, Mr. Nollet!

What matters are the general conclusions. As regards the 2016 budget, which is the subject of today’s discussions, it should be noted that the Court of Auditors does not in any way question its validity.

The economic budget for September 2015 forecasts growth in our country of 1.3% of GDP, a percentage confirmed by both the IMF and the European Commission. The underlying parameters are therefore realistic. The Commission also gave a positive opinion on this budget.

To control the public finances, as a result of citizens’ taxes, is to ensure a better-managed federal state by pursuing the objective of fiscal balance by the horizon of 2018, and by, of course, ensuring that it is in line with the stability programme 2015-2018.

The Commission welcomed Belgium’s 2016 budget for being overall compliant with the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact.

Until last year, the deficit exceeded 3%, Mr. Nollet. Additional measures were therefore needed. Today, for the first time, we are able to stay below this threshold. We are making one of the most important structural improvements in the euro area. This is another sign that our majority has taken responsibility and chosen the right direction, the direction of responsible sanitation, constructive rigour, sustainable structural efficiency.

Strictness and not austerity – the words are important – because sanitation measures are neither blind nor dogmatic and they contribute to the deployment of measures to support purchasing power, employment and sustainable financing of our social model.

This 2016 budget meets the same characteristics of rigour and ambition, since it devotes one of the great achievements of the past year, namely the tax shift. The latter results from a double choice: strengthening economic development and saniting public finances in order to ensure the sustainability of our social model.

A first step was the increase of the fixed professional expenses for workers in 2015 and 2016, the extension of the social and fiscal employment bonuses, from 1 August 2015. Increases in the tax employment bonus are still planned in 2016 and 2019.

The government now proposes to take an additional step in the reduction of charges through a combination of three methods: an increase in fixed professional fees, a tax rate reform, an increase in the tax-exempt income quota. And from 2016, workers will see their net income directly increase on their payroll.

These include measures to increase the competitiveness of our companies: reduction of employer charges by 33 to 25%, specific provisions for self-employed workers and SMEs, anticipation of the exemption of the professional pre-count for night and team work, measures aimed at investments in the form of a doubling of the deduction for investment and the promotion of high-tech.

The government sustainably increases the pocket wage of citizens and reduces the burden on work, while ⁇ ining the sanitation of our public finances in order to enable the sustainability of our social security.

The National Bank and the Plan Bureau simulated the impact of the tax shift on the main macroeconomic parameters. Both conclude a significant improvement in growth, employment and household available income. In addition, the two simulations indicate significant return effects that have not been fully taken into account in the financing of the tax shift due to caution and serious concern.

The Government (and more ⁇ the Minister of Budget) is aware that if it is necessary to define sanitation measures in structural terms, it is also necessary to carry out regular monitoring in order to verify whether it is necessary to adjust the measures to ensure budgetary balance taking into account macroeconomic parameters.

by Mr. Fujimori proposes monitoring of the budget. We are applicants!

and continuous monitoring.

We are two times applicants. How could things be organized in the Finance Committee in this regard, Mr. Piedboeuf?

Sorry, you cut off my whistle.

I think the Minister of Budget will have no difficulty in making you regular reports on the state of the finances and the execution of the budget. All financiers do this way.

As for your suggestion to hear the Plan Bureau and the National Bank, I think this is a good idea. We didn’t have time to do it now, but it’s a good idea. When you see the announced prospects, which are interesting, you say that, in the end, the government has been modest in its forecasts. It is therefore interesting to see them.

I look forward to seeing the MR join us in our request to have a regular monitoring in the Finance Committee.

Of course, we have nothing to hide!

I now speak to the Chairman of the Finance Committee so that he can put this on the agenda from the end of January or even February. That would be a reasonable deadline.

He also agrees.

Remember that we must first work on fraud. It is important!

I’m not always convinced of his ambitions.

In addition to supporting this ambitious programme, the 2016 budget also sought to address major security challenges. After the November 13 attacks, the majority decided to step up efforts in the fight against terrorism and radicalism. To this end, in addition to the twelve measures announced in January, the government has announced 18 new measures to equip the services with new tools. We will continue to strengthen equipment and personnel services, while reforming legal tools to enable them to use all the necessary means, aware of the urgent need to adopt these new instruments in order to face a real threat. We must be able to repress without denying our values, which are at the basis of our democracy, but without allowing those values to be diverted to be destroyed.

We cannot sacrifice our freedoms, nor can we give up the security necessary to their exercise. This is not a budget correction, as mentioned. The new interdepartmental provision of €400 million has been added to the 2016 budget and will enable these measures to come to fruition. Thus, it adds to the amounts already mobilised during the year, including the 200 million euros of the security provision.

This €400 million provision will be allocated exclusively to spending related to the fight against radicalism and terrorism. This is a strong measure!

I would like to make a technical note, which, however, has its political importance, regarding the latest remarks of Mr. and Piedboeuf. This amendment of 400 million euros is not compensated. Is that what you just explained? So, from now on, we can afford, in terms of budgetary technique, to decide at the end of the fiscal year to increase the state deficit without compensating. Is it accepted by the majority? This is important in view of a whole series of expenses that we consider ⁇ urgent, at least as much as the one you mentioned.

Necessity makes law. These funds had to be provided. And, as with asylum, we are in negotiations on how to incorporate these sums into the budget. It is clear that these are amounts to be covered. But this is not important: this is what the budget serves, to cover sudden expenses that are necessary. This happens in all emergencies, when there are dramas, earthquakes elsewhere.

In the coming weeks, the government will analyze the requests and needs of the various departments and determine the allocation of funding, not based on an arbitrarily set allocation key, nor by disregarding the allocation of competence between federal state and federal entities.

Efficiency and proportionality will remain the main words of our strategy to combat terrorism and its front chamber, radicalism.

It will also be important that, for their part, the federal entities fully invest in prevention, which is now part of their competence, and that a good collaboration with the federal state is established.

In another aspect of our current situation, our country is facing a substantial increase in asylum applications since last May. More than 30,000 applications have already been submitted in 2015. The migration crisis is global and everyone must face their responsibilities and their sense of solidarity. The government has made every effort to cope with the crisis and ensure that no one sleeps on the street. The number of seats in the host network has thus increased from 17,000 to more than 31,000 today.

Unchanged, the government needs to create 1,000 new jobs per week. This is a big challenge. A distribution plan has been decided. It is also available for consultation today. New mandatory seats will be created, as will new seats through new public procurement. The Fedasil network is expected to have between 45,000 and 50,000 seats in the spring.

More than 334 people have been engaged in the various asylum managers to process the cases as quickly as possible. It is impossible to predict what will evolve in the coming months. But in order to stay prepared, the government has decided to reserve €350 million in interdepartmental provision to deal with the asylum situation in 2016.

Another important area, the Justice component, whose state budget, by the will of the government, allowed to recover the payment delay. We have seen in the various debates that efforts will be made to manage the costs of justice in a structural way. A "Justice Fee" plan containing no less than 32 actions is already being implemented.

In healthcare, the budget framework remains a challenge. The sector contributes to the consolidation of the budget in order to ⁇ balance in 2018. This remains essential if we want to be able to offer future generations affordable, quality and affordable care.

Today’s sanitation will enable tomorrow’s investments. The approved healthcare budget forecasts €458 million of net savings for 2016. At the same time, new initiatives are taken for an amount of EUR 164 million. In this strict budgetary framework, and as the Minister of Health often recalls, every euro spent must be spent efficiently and optimally. Accessibility to patient care should remain a priority. It is also in this spirit that we point out with satisfaction the measures taken to lower the price of medicines. These measures have been implemented in the law-program. I think of the patent cliff and the reduction of the load of the security margin. These measures will result in annual savings of €14 million for patients and more than €60 million for health insurance.

These measures aim to support the patient in their access to care because costs for the patient remain a crucial element that we must consider. With these measures, we are already realising part of the future pacte for the patient with the pharmaceutical industry.

We also target the €4.68 million for the care and care of patients with a double diagnosis, i.e. the combination of a mental disability and a mental problem. It was time to pay attention to them. Resources will be allocated to mental health care networks for children, adolescents and adults. These additional funds will enable networks to strengthen their hospitals or mobile teams.

The MR group also appreciates with satisfaction the clarifications given by the Minister of Health regarding the guard posts. The initial announcement caused a lot of excitement among general doctors. The optimal organization of a general medical care system remains one of our government’s top health priorities. The Minister of Health has re-evaluated the economics initially envisaged on the guard posts, and files already submitted to the INAMI before 12 October 2015 will be able to benefit from a total annual funding of 4.95 million euros.

Furthermore, we support the broader reform of the organization of the medical guards in the framework of collaboration agreements to be established with the hospital emergency services as well as in the framework of the development of the single call number 1733 in collaboration with the SPF Interior. Minister Jambon confirmed this with conviction in a question I asked him last week.

In the end, the MR group supports unreservedly the path of reforms that will be continued or initiated in 2016: reform of hospital financing, reform of mental health care, reform of integrated health care chronic diseases, the updated "Roadmap e-Health", the follow-up of the future pact, the multi-annual path of mutualities, the reform of Royal Decree No. 78 and the nomenclature. Of course, the process of consultation with service providers and patients must be central to these reforms.

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, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. She said what she was going to do and she did what she said. The 2016 budget is in line with its objectives. Together, we will continue the reforms, we will continue with tenacity and application to take and support the decisions necessary for employment, growth, modernization of our country by revaluing this fundamental value that is work, by installing in the long term the structural financing of social security and pensions.

The 2016 budget, Mrs. Minister, remains on track and our government respects its European commitments, ensures the credibility of our country and continues its sanitation efforts while giving air to sectors in need. The MR Group will therefore support this 2016 budget with enthusiasm and conviction.

Can I ask your opinion on our work? I would like to inform you that a Conference of Presidents is planned. It will be preceded by a meeting of the Bureau that will begin at noon. We can suspend the session at noon but it is possible to continue with my colleague André Frédéric until 13 h. We need a one-hour suspension so that members of our assembly can recover.

With your agreement, we will continue until 13:00. I ask the group leaders and members of the Bureau to join me in room number 1 at noon.

In the last few weeks, we have had good, constructive and valuable budget discussions in the committees. I would therefore like to express my thanks to the Chairman of the Committee on Finance for the time he has devoted to the budget discussions. These are indeed the most important discussions of the parliamentary year, in which Parliament effectively indicates the direction and spreads the beacons for government policy. They are useful and necessary.

The government is working on important structural socio-economic reforms. This was her main task according to the government declaration of Prime Minister Michel in October 2014. The government is working on a substantial reduction of burden and moderation of wages, a pension reform, longer and workable careers, the competitiveness of our economy and our labour market, growth and job creation, a sustainable government restructuring and a fiscal reform, in particular the tax shift.

Working on competitiveness in the present circumstances is indeed a correct choice of this government, as well as of the previous government. As my group leader just said, the previous government has started with the Competitiveness Pact. It introduced a first set of burden reductions. This government goes a lot further on that policy, with further burden reductions, to which the tax shift is now effectively added.

Until the summer of this year, there were many doubts about the realization of the tax shift. I remember the July debate. Then it was said by the opposition that that tax shift is a lot of blabla, but that he would not come there. Just before the recession, however, the tax shift agreement came within the government. The government added the act to the word.

Collega Vuye has just mentioned this, in the past there has been a lot of confusion with reports from the OECD, the European Union, the IMF and the like, in order to introduce burden reductions and a tax shift. Well, we are now at the point that there is a tax shift agreement. This has also been discussed in the committee. It will be discussed in the plenary session on Friday. We are pleased that €7.2 billion of measures are being taken to strengthen competitiveness, but there are also important purchasing power measures and measures for fiscal fairness.

Collega Gilkinet subsequently asked a question about the reduction of burden and the increase in purchasing power, but I see that he has disappeared in the meantime. Colleague Temmerman also asked. In that burden reduction and purchasing power increase, there is effectively a particular focus on the low wages, so that the maximum is invested in job creation. In the meantime, I reviewed the report of the Federal Planning Bureau, and it is stated on page 2, colleague Temmerman and colleagues from Ecolo-Groen, that 20% of the reductions in employer contributions end up with the low payers. Specifically, there will also be a target group discount for the construction sector and the non-profit sector, as well as for night and team work. Regarding those reductions that benefit the non-profit sector, the Federal Planning Office says in its report that 55% of that budget for the non-profit sector goes to low wages. If that’s not a particular focus on low wages, I don’t know either. It is black on white on page 2 of the Federal Planning Bureau report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Smaers, I did not dispute those figures, you have just not listened properly. I’ve just said that all studies show that one would create a lot more jobs if one focuses the amount that one wants to spend on the reduction of wages, integrally on the lowest wages. This government doesn’t do that, it’s targeting everyone. It would be unfortunate that the lowest wages would not benefit from it! You are talking about 20%, that is, 80%, not.

I just referred to studies, Ms. Smaers, which say that with an integral focus on the lowest wages, most jobs are created. That is just mathematics. Again, if you look at that percentage, you see that the lowest wages have the highest wage loans in percentage. That is obvious, that is not a certain political choice, that is just mathematics.

With our criticism, we emphasize that as many jobs as possible should be created by reserving the money that the government wants to spend in this regard in its entirety for the lowest wages.

Mr. Speaker, we were interrogated by Ms. Smaers.

It is just.

And I thank him. Two versions circulate in the ranks of the majority. On the one hand, the CD&V tries to convince itself that this measure is progressive and will promote low wages. This was stated by the Minister of Finance about ten minutes ago. She said it assumed that the highest salaries were also targeted.

In the debate we will have on the tax shift on Friday, I will, if necessary, provide you with tables showing that this progressivity is absolutely insufficient and that with the same amount, one could focus more on low wages.

The problem, which is somewhat technical, comes from the decision made by the majority to remove from 2019 the fee deduction plan for workers. This is the only way to target the lowest wages. You have opted for a linear measure of reducing contributions. This is a free gift, i.e. a white cheque.

Colleagues, concerning the social character of the tax shift, the question of whether it is center-left or center-right and whether it is social or not, you must still acknowledge — the figures are the figures — that for example someone with the minimum wage up to 130 euros per month gets extra. For example, someone who earns 5 000 euros per month, a nice salary that we all have here, gets 40 euros per month extra. So there is a clear shift to the left, to the social side. This is what this reform is aiming at.

This is in contrast to the tax reform of purple greens. I say the same about Mr. Gilkinet: that was another cake. In the tax reform of purple greens, huge amounts have gone to...

I am not saying that I was against it. Just intellectual-analytically, I would like to note that. You are here going full-blown against a tax reform, while your tax reform, the tax reform of purple green, in the early 2000s, which was different. Then huge amounts went to the abolition of the highest disk of 55%. But now you come here to criticize.

I mentioned the amounts in absolute numbers. Expressed in percentage of the gross salary, it is a ratio of five to one. That means that the lowest wages expressed in percentages get five times more with this tax shift than the high wages. Please be a little serious.

I would like the debate to continue because it is extremely democratic. However, I would also like the commitments made to be respected and that everyone can speak on behalf of their group without being interrupted at any point. This leads to a lack of coherence and debate between us. This is very interesting, I do not disagree with it, but it costs a bit of the intervention. I hope to be able to give the floor to Ms Smaers. Van Rompuy and Mr. to Laoui.

Mr. Speaker, I will give a round table to Mr. Gilkinet and to all members. It contains the actual percentages of employer contributions and the reductions shown by wage category. You will find that for the monthly gross minimum wage of 1 500 euros, the reduction was already reduced to 17.3%. That was already a very low percentage. That drops to 10.9 percent. For the average salary it drops from 26.7 % to 25 % and for the higher salary from 27 % to 25 %. The minimum wage will reach 10.9 % in 2019 and 25 % for higher wages. As a result of the tax shift, the minimum wage is expected to be -6.4% and for higher wages +2%. This makes the actual employer contribution for the minimum wage 10.9 % and for the higher wages 25 %.

Mr. Calvo always asks for numbers. Well, I’ll let those numerical data, which completely disprove what you say, round up. The Social Affairs Committee clearly stated that this measure is intended precisely for the lowest wages. You will also get that table, Mrs. Fonck.

I would just like to tell Mr. He makes a mistake of appreciation. I refer to the analysis that the Plan Bureau made at the end of 2001 about the tax reform of 2001. The budgetary cost of the abolition of the rates of 55% and 52,5% was marginal in the overall cost of the 2001 IPP reform. It is in the order of 200/250 million euros on a reform that, at the time, had cost 4 billion euros. This sounds strange, but the budget cost was really marginal. I can give you the note from the Plan Bureau, this may sound surprising, but the IPP is concentrated in the middle middle classes, you need to know. It is the middle middle classes that ensure the essential income from the tax on natural persons. You are wrong on a technical point. This is not serious in itself, but I tell you it anyway.

On the other hand, when you plan to reduce taxes on low wages to strengthen progressivity, you fail to say that the increase in VAT will have a regressive effect. It is heavily influenced by low and middle incomes. In other words, by increasing VAT on electricity, by increasing excise taxes, you neutralize the possible positive effects on the progressivity of the tax reductions provided in the tax shift. Here are two mistakes of approach that I think is important to point out!

I repeat my call. I still have three requests. The debate takes an internal turn. I hope that every speaker at the tribune can be respected.

Mr. Van Rompuy, since it is on the agenda on Friday, as part of the debate on the tax shift, we will take this back at the beginning of the tables. I will then defend amendments using precise tables, curves, evolutions, because there is a way to do much better with the same sum.

I recall an element that I have already cited in my first replica to Ms. Smaers: from 2017, you are removing the social contributions deduction plan, which has an effect of flattening the progression curve. We believe that it is necessary to target up to the median wage and not to grant a reduction in contributions for wages beyond the median wage, this will be much more effective.

As for mr. Bogert, I hold two elements of the tax reform of the rainbow government. First, it neutralized family choices as part of the calculation of the tax, which, in terms of taking into account the evolution of the family nucleus, was essential. We might not have been able to do this with you.

Second, it envisaged tax cuts for energy-saving investments. We had planned, under the rainbow government, measures in favor of the environment, in favor of reductions in energy consumption, in favor of the portfolio of citizens, for the planet. Unfortunately, all this has disappeared since then and does not appear again in the budget you present today.

Mr. Van Rompuy, I know this picture very well. This is the picture of the government. We talked about low wages. In this table, it is very interesting to see – it is funny that you never talked about it – that the high wages benefit from a major reduction in contributions than the average wage. You never say it, and yet it is very clear. A reduction of 2% for 7 000 euro gross; a reduction of only 1.7% for 3 300 euro gross. This is the choice of your government.

I would also like to comment on Mr. Van Rompuy and his painting. I will speak of the table I submitted to the Social Affairs Committee on Monday, which highlights the impact of reductions based on the measures of the competitiveness pact of the previous government and the additional impact of the new measures. For low wages, there are 90 euros for the measures of the Competitiveness Pact and 3 euros for the new measures. If I take the highest income (5,000 euros per month), the competitiveness pact of Mr. Di Rupo, it was 13 euros, the additional measures, 105 euros. Therefore, we can see the difference between the effort that is put on the high wages (105 euros) and the low wages (3 euros). It is clearly high incomes that are prioritised as part of the additional measures, without taking into account the recycling of previous measures.

In any case, the reactions from the opposition and from the banks show that the discussion is ongoing and that the figures of the Federal Planning Bureau are not believed. That is your right. However, I would like to point out that in both the report of the National Bank of Belgium and in the report of the Federal Planning Bureau it is stated black on white that a special focus is placed on low wages, with the greatest job or job creation resulting.

Furthermore, I note that some reports indicate that one should not focus solely or not solely on low wages, in order not to end up in a promotion case. Of course, that is not the intention. When we want to make work rewarding, we must, of course, also ensure that growing at work is also rewarding. That should not be hampered by a measure, which is very well intended, to get the greatest job creation with the low wages. Of course, work should be rewarding for everyone. Therefore, there is that significant burden reduction, with a particular focus on the lowest wages.

Furthermore, after the explanation of the tax shift and the major socio-economic reforms, I did not want to focus only on job creation. The two reports I referred to have effectively established that 100 000 additional jobs will be created in the coming years. The National Bank of Belgium is talking about 64,000 jobs due to the tax shift. As a result of the index jump and other salary measures, a job creation had already been anticipated. For the years 2015 to 2017, the National Bank of Belgium confirms that more than 114,000 additional jobs will be created. A large part of these jobs will be created in the private sector. As the leader of the group noted later, that was our intention with this tax shift and these measures.

Mrs. Temmerman, I would like to return to a comment that you subsequently made. You noticed that the tax shift and the competitiveness measures through a burden reduction are fully paid by the families. Everything would end up in the heads of the families. It would be the families who are going down. However, I refer again to the figures from the report of the Federal Planning Office and the National Bank of Belgium. It shows that as a result of the current government’s purchasing power measures, coupled with the burden reduction, the families will progress in terms of real available income. This is not true of the theory of the opposition. On the last page of the report of the Federal Planning Office there is a table clearly showing that by 2021, over a five-year period, the real disposable income of the households will increase by 2%.

It is not just about competitiveness, but also about purchasing power. Families will progress effectively.

Mrs Smaers, other calculations give different figures and take into account all additional costs, thus also the burdens that the Flemish government imposes on families, for example. For a family, it does not matter whether something comes from the federal, Flemish, provincial or municipal government. If one calculates all these costs, the purchasing power of the households does not advance at all, ⁇ not at the lowest incomes. I’ll give you the table, which I don’t have at the moment.

Mr. Vuye just recalled all sorts of positive points about the IMF, but forgot to mention that the IMF also made it clear that something needs to be done with regard to the assets. If we want to make things fairer in Belgium, we must also look at the wealth and not only put the burden on the lower wages.

Madame Smaers, what is important is not just to see the increase in the available income but to see the distribution of the available income. What is important is to see whether your reforms absorb, decrease or not, income inequality. The available income increases by 2% is one thing, seeing who benefits from this increase is another.

Furthermore, an increase in the available income will not necessarily result in a support for domestic demand. People may decide to save part of their available income. You must be able to link the statistical figures of the National Bank and the Plan Bureau with the set of other measures you decide to know who pays what and who supports what.

If I understand correctly, the index jump was put in place to strengthen wage competitiveness. So why does the index jump also affect pensioners? Why did the CD&V vote for an index jump on pensions? The pensioners are out of the issue of competitiveness. I never understood why CD&V had accepted this.

Mrs. Temmerman, I think it is very important to clarify what the IMF said yesterday.

The IMF said the government is doing well. The government has the debt under control. With the tax shift, the government will bring an incredible economic recovery and create jobs. I agree with you, Mrs. Temmerman, when you say that it is now delivery time for our companies. We have now created the environmental factors to ultimately enable economic growth, but companies now have to fill it up with new jobs.

The IMF says, secondly, that the reforms that have been implemented, for example in the field of pensions, are structural. We need to continue such reforms in 2016, including in terms of labour market policy.

The IMF says, in the third place, given the fact that interest rates and oil prices are currently extremely low, that the time has come to work on reducing the high government debt as well. There are two things we need to do, the IMF said. First, we need to further cut spending. Secondly, we need to look at where we may still be able to raise resources through tax optimizations. Furthermore, this must be done in that order.

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I think we all agree that the analysis of the National Bank and the Plan Bureau is reliable. There is an increase in the real disposable income by 2 to 2,5 %.

What do we see as a result of the measures we take in the context of the tax shift? In this regard, I agree with what Mr. Bogert has just said. For those with a minimum wage of 1,500 euros per month, 146 euros will be added net by 2019. For those who have a salary of 5,500 euros per month, a higher salary, 74 euros net is added; that is half. So I think that we can agree that the real available income effectively grows, otherwise we must contradict the National Bank and the Plan Bureau in this. The additional figures indicate that there is indeed a redistributive effect to the lowest incomes.

Ladies and gentlemen, after my remarks on the salary cuts, I address the pension reform, another such important milestone of the government. The government is pushing for longer careers to cover the cost of ageing. It already pays off. The Committee for the Study of Ageing states that the budgetary costs of aging have been halved as a result of a number of measures, including pension reform. In 2014, the budgetary costs of ageing were estimated at as much as 4.2% for the period 2013-2060. In 2015, one year later, the cost of aging, taking into account the pension reform, is estimated at 2.1 % for the period 2014-2060, or half. Therefore, we must definitely continue on the set path.

If we talk about longer careers, then for many people, working is no longer just an obligation to earn income. Working is also a way to be meaningful for a long time. For these reasons, employability and job security as well as the flexibility of the organisation of work should remain high on the agenda in the coming years.

It requires courage to carry out structural reforms. Saving also requires courage. Seeking new revenues to develop new policies – think of the Kaiman tax and the speculative tax – also requires courage. Leaving the matter on its way and shifting the bill to the next generations requires much less courage. Therefore, continued recovery efforts and a clear budget path are also needed. For now, we are acting in accordance with the stability programme agreed with Europe. We flirt with the 3% Maastricht border. In 2015, we had a nominal deficit of 2.9%. The National Bank expects the same deficit in 2016.

The National Bank – this has been said repeatedly in the committee – is very concerned about the public finances. The Court of Auditors also expressed concerns. A balanced budget is needed to pay the cost of ageing. In the long run, the recovery of public finances is not in conflict with growth. We must strive for both socio-economic reforms and pension reforms for growth, job creation and labor burden reduction. In addition, we must strive for a balanced budget and a sustainable recovery path.

We note – this was also emphasized – that the departmental appropriations will rise from 51.336 billion to 52.385 billion. That means about 1 billion extra. If we add inflation there, we get about 0.5 billion extra. This is not a nominal freeze.

There remain budgetary challenges in terms of financing, not only from the budget and tax shift after 2019, but there are also questions regarding other spending. I think only of the Defence plan to make additional spending and a growth path towards 2018-2019 a reality. We know that there are still many challenges.

Also on the Wallish and Flemish side we see budgets in red in the coming years. Clear agreements, not only with Europe, but also with the provinces and local authorities, will be needed. These must be monitored and followed up, so that no burden is transferred to the next generations.

Working on the state debt will remain, as the Minister of Budget has confirmed in the committee, for her a goal of the government agreement. The Minister of Finance has also mentioned this several times. We also believe that the government needs to engage in the reduction of state debt.

In connection with the additional expenditure for the refugee crisis, which was indeed unpredictable last year, Europe has been asked whether they can be mobilised as amounts for which flexible budgetary interpretation can be applied. We find it good that this is discussed with Europe, because it is indeed an unexpected expenditure, expenditure we make as a European Member State to be able to realize what Europe expects of us in regard to the reception of refugees.

As regards the other observations of the Court of Auditors, I refer to the government’s challenge of effectively achieving the predetermined savings in regards to the redesign of the government. This has been mentioned several times today. Next year it is expected to generate 100 million euros, and by 2020 750 million. This will also be a challenge. We ask that the government quickly clarify the redesign. How will it be realized?

Like all savings and expenditure, the new income resulting from the tax shift must also be clearly controlled, because the entire agreement on the tax shift and on the budget must be implemented for us in all facets. The distribution key applies to the savings and also to the new income.

Colleagues, France and our country have been thoroughly shaken since 13 November. The barbaric acts of that day have rightly resulted in immediate effective security measures, including by our government. Security and Justice deserve more resources and above all a digital shock. There are many ways to make an organization more efficient. This will also be needed. We do not just want to pump more resources in security, but also to deal differently with our security services. We want to adapt them to what future crime and future terrorism will require.

Our security services will therefore need to become more flexible and agile. We fully support the government’s amendment to the budget, which will provide an additional €400 million for security.

Finally, last week, December 12, two hundred countries committed in Paris to end the rise in greenhouse gas emissions. Not only for ecological and health reasons, we need to make efforts worldwide, and therefore also in our country, to be able to ⁇ the ambitious climate targets, also for the reduction of additional global refugee flows, the work on the climate targets is necessary. Indeed, the global impact of climate change means additional spending of 1 to 3.3 % by 2060. That is more than the additional expenditure resulting from the challenges of aging in Belgium. The climate agreement and the achievement of the objectives requires special attention from us, in particular from the government, to continue to focus in the coming years on both budgetary measures to ⁇ the objectives, as well as on reforms.

Per ⁇ – and this is a suggestion from my group – the climate agreement and its objectives for the coming years will be an incentive – I am not attached to this legislature alone – for a third tax shift, but then a tax shift in order to change behavior, sustainability and even more justice, to come to a real greening of fiscality. We have had this goal in the past tax shift; we do not give up and we want to come to a third tax shift in the future, with even more attention to the greening of taxation.

Our government is doing what is right. There are structural socio-economic reforms in the service of growth, job creation and social progress. Security is invested because it is necessary and necessary. The Court of Auditors confirms that the work is budget-technically structural and over several years. However, the budgetary challenges remain huge and we will need to be vigilant over the coming years to ensure that we ⁇ a balance.

We strongly encourage the government and the new Minister of Budget to strengthen all these ambitions and goals.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Ministers, Mr. President of the European Parliament, Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament, Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament, Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament, Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament, Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament, Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament, Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament, Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament, Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament, Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament, Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament, Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament, Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament and Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament, Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament, Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament and Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament, Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament and Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament and Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament, Mr. Speaker of the European Parliament and

Mr. Borsus, it’s an ideal world where everyone respects deadlines, but that wasn’t that easy this year. However, know that hurry and hurry are rarely good. I think it is important that Parliament has the time and resources to do its work in an elegant and thorough manner.

I urge the government to immediately release a lot, because there are unforeseeable, mitigating circumstances. Mr. Minister of Finance, your government has introduced an unprecedented tax shift in recent weeks and months. The legislation has already been drafted as well. Who would have thought that all this would succeed? We were able to approve this yesterday and also be able to celebrate with a "duvetch" from a well-known brewery.

I think this has achieved an incredible achievement. In addition to the tax shift, the Wetstraat was of course also very busy with the terror threat, which did not wait for itself and also required a lot of attention.

On behalf of the Open Vld Group – and I think so from the bottom of my heart – I would like to thank all my colleagues for their flexibility and constructive attitude that has ensured, as colleague Vuye rightly noted, that we, the majority and the opposition, have been able to complete our work. If you doubt, this is in the interest of the country, of our economy, but above all of our citizens. The IMF report reiterated this yesterday by stressing that the structural reforms and the implementation of the tax shift put Belgium back on the table.

I will not repeat everything. On behalf of my group, I would only like to put a few points and most importantly show that this government is making a difference in this way.

I think the world economy is still recovering today from the banking crisis – unfortunately, I was an expert at the time – which we received in 2008. Flanders received a beautiful Christmas gift from KBC, which we then earned under fairly stringent conditions. The memory is short. This banking crisis is still a ghost in our economy, and we should not underestimate its consequences. It is therefore good that Europe shifts to a higher acceleration, that the European Union more than ever, through crisis management, puts aside and resolutely chooses a growth strategy. The money presses in Frankfurt are running at full speed, Juncker’s investment fund is in the hills and rarely oil prices have been so low. This should enable the European Union and all its Member States to re-connect with economic growth, which in turn gives breathing space to address structural issues such as state reform.

A prerequisite is, of course, that everyone does their homework. It is easy to point the finger to countries like Greece, but let us still wipe out our own door here in Belgium. In politics, a little honesty can never hurt. It is important to acknowledge that the previous government undoubtedly inserted a sanction with a solid sanction effort of 6 billion, which it has carried out in a good two-year period. This government continues on this path, with the ambition to do even better. With this budget, we force the deficit permanently below the European three-percent norm. We do this primarily, as I also stressed in the committee, with structural efforts, which allow us to improve our structural balance by 0.6% or 3 billion euros for the second year in a row. In this way, let it be said, we are back among the better pupils of the eurozone.

We are keeping the Stability Pact as agreed. That is the merit of this government. Let us be clear, we are absolutely not there yet. A sustained and especially structural effort remains needed to ultimately reach a sustainable budgetary balance within a few years, with the emphasis on sustainable. That is important for our international credibility, especially not to be underestimated in these times, and also for our reliability as a country. Above all, it is important for our economy and our future. Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, it is easily forgotten, but a balanced budget is a relief measure in itself. Such a budget no longer imposes a burden on future generations. I have often stated in Flanders in another role of speaker that I wanted to save my children that they should only talk about saving when their time has come. I’ve been here since 1988 and I find that 27 years later I’m still talking about saving and about an unacceptable government debt. So let’s work on it.

A balanced budget is important, but never a goal in itself. Mrs. and Mr. Minister, I often use the boutade that the Ministers of Finance and Budget are not accountants who turn the buttons here and there to maintain the balance. A budget is, in my opinion, an indispensable instrument, a powerful lever, for the implementation of the desired political policy. In other words, a budget is a means to drive the economy forward as a goal, to give impulse and to secure the financing of our social security. It was my good friend Dirk Sterckx who always said that you must bake the cake first before you can share it. So simple is wisdom. If we make the cake larger, then there will be more to smell.

I think this government understood it better than anyone. From day one, jobs, jobs and more jobs. They use the budget to ⁇ that. Every measure that this government takes fits into a growth strategy. The time here and there for a few keys to dampen budget gaps is fortunately behind us. In this way, we are first and foremost saving on ourselves, on the functioning of the government. Primary public spending is falling for the first time, falling from 52% to 50,5%, representing a net decline of ⁇ €7.5 billion. To be clear, that money no longer comes out of the pockets of ⁇ and citizens, and ultimately it no longer needs to be collected in order to be able to insure own services.

At the same time, this does not prevent the government from investing in its fundamental core tasks, such as ensuring our security, ⁇ in these times. Griet Smaers rightly said that we are pumping 400 million extra in Justice, police and intelligence services. Unfortunately, these investments are very needed, which have been shown in recent weeks and months.

The government is also pursuing the reforms. This is very important, because these reforms are crucial to making the economy and the budget fundamentally sound in the long run. In this regard, I think first of all about finalising the pension reform. This already means that the cost of pensions is seriously reduced. We all work a little longer than colleagues, but thus we guarantee that everyone can count on a decent pension. To ⁇ this, we make early departure less attractive and encourage everyone to stay at work longer. It is also important to note that pensioners can earn unlimited income. According to the Federal Plan Office, these pension reforms already save us 8 billion euros annually, or almost 1.9% of GDP. We will have to continue these reforms in a thoughtful and cautious manner.

We also make structural efforts in social security and healthcare. The whole world envy, rightly, our top health care system. No one among us who thinks of damaging quality, not even this government, on the contrary. However, we must dare to acknowledge that efficiency gains are possible, that the operation of, for example, health funds can be more efficient, that cooperation between hospitals must also be possible and that, unfortunately, there is still misuse of public funds. The recent news about the misuse of CT scans is the proof of this.

Minister De Block takes up the gloves and reduces where possible, but also invests where appropriate. In 2016, it saved ⁇ half a billion while reducing patient bills and introducing a new policy to further improve the quality of care.

The government not only reforms, but also addresses abuses, fraud and tax evasion. There is only a support for taxes if everyone contributes fairly and respects the rules, but especially also if taxes are accepted as fair, the famous fiscal compliance. Therefore, we strengthen the BBI and close the network around foreign constructions. It is also important that we increasingly pay attention to respecting the rights of taxpayers. We should not throw away the child with the bath water.

Our group fully supports the initiatives of Secretary of State Tommelein in the fight against social fraud and therefore looks forward to the parallel and cooperation with you, Minister Van Overtveldt, in order in turn to strictly address the tax fraudsters.

Colleagues, in addition to these reforms, the government is also using a secret weapon, an accelerator to strengthen the economy, job creation and purchasing power. The tax shift is a true revolutionary tax reform, which is the exponent of this government’s growth strategy.

The tax shift we are realizing is unseen and for two reasons.

First, she is invisible because of the size. We move a total of 7.2 billion euros between 2015 and 2018.

Second, it is not just a very large tax shift. Also important is the context in which and the time when we carry out the tax shift. It is unseen that such a major reform and shift is put on foot at a time of low economic growth. These are measures that can usually be expected with a very high economic growth of 3 to 4%.

Mr. Minister, Mrs. Minister, therefore I dare to say that this is the proof of what I call an anti-cycle policy, a proof of sense of responsibility, of vision, of courage but also of faith in the future. In the committee, I gave the example of the return effect.

Mr. Dewael, you and I were shaken by the Court of Auditors, when we were accused in the reform of registration fees, the introduction of portability and the reform of donation rights that we would make a hole in the greenhouse. However, the money has never entered so smoothly as after the introduction of those measures.

Is that always the case? and no. Do we have a glass ball? and no. Nevertheless, the belief in the future and in volume effects is very important in order to be able to tax such fiscal measures on their recovery power. Colleague, it is about breaking the famous Laffer Curve.

Through the tax shift, we realize two key goals that are essential to give our economy the so necessary boost. After all, who doubts that the measure is necessary and that we must nurture, stimulate, but also give confidence to the economy?

First, we reduce the burden on companies, in particular to stimulate job creation and enable new investments. That measure can in turn strengthen the competitive position of our companies, as we have done through the index jump.

Second, we reduce the burden for people who work so that work becomes more attractive. Purchasing power increases and the difference between working and not working changes substantially. This is indeed the purpose of this measure. Less gross wage costs and more net in the pocket, how simple can it be? In other words, it is simple, but it is also especially efficient. This is the volume effect we want to ⁇ .

What do we do for employers? The measures are known. I will therefore not mention all of them, but I think of continuing the financing of the Competitiveness Pact, EUR 960 million for a linear reduction of the burden on companies, the reduction of employer contributions from 33 to 25 %. Who would have thought we would see that again, Patrick? That is 620 million next year. There is the wage moderation with the index jump, equivalent to 2.7 billion, which will strengthen the competitive position of our companies, but also their health, and we support night and team work. Those who have some knowledge of the functioning and competitive position of our automotive sector and our petrochemical sector know that these are crucial measures to be able to say tomorrow from Antwerp in Ludwigshafen that we are competitive with our German friends.

Mr. Van Mechelen, I hear that you welcome all the measures taken by the government. You briefly mentioned the fight against tax fraud.

Can you tell me if the Open Vld group agrees with the content of Mr. Mr. General Policy Note? Is Van Overtveldt in the fight against tax fraud? Does your group agree with all the ambitious points developed, in its note, by the Minister of Finance?

Mr. Laaouej, if you had listened carefully, you would have heard that I have just addressed one major pain point in that note, namely the importance my group attaches to the position of taxpayers. It is a story of rights and duties. How far can one go to ⁇ certain things? The same question arises today with the intelligence services. Who can be listened to? At home searches, that question also comes back today. Were we really eight minutes late because we couldn’t be there sooner and therefore missed the bird?

I would say that the policy letter of the minister has the merit to be at least very clear. The counterweight we would like to offer in the discussion, as colleague Carina Van Cauter has already done in the committee, is that we also pay attention to the legal status of the taxable persons, who have rights and who should not be treated as if they were approached by the prosecutor's office or as if an investigative judge ordered an interrogation. In this regard, let’s use the just balance, the checks and balances to ⁇ results. That is the answer.

Colleagues, it is a special pleasure for our party that in the measures of the government there is also special attention to our SMEs and self-employed people. I think that we may not recognize the measure yet, but the fact that they will no longer pay employer contributions to the first employee, making the first employee a golden boy or golden girl, and that there is a reduction in the burden for the second to the sixth hiring, I still think will have a huge effect, especially for middle-level workers who today can walk on their gums of work and use a stool. This is the purpose of the fiscal incentive. It is also important that we are talking about almost 4.5 billion euros in burden reductions over a year. Very well taken, I would say. Thus we close an important hole in the wage gap we had created with our neighbors. I have often talked to people like Wouter De Geest of BASF. If he was called on the match in Ludwigshafen, then the figures were ahead. Let us therefore hope that with this measure we will find a balance in our competitive position. At that point, our productivity can make the difference to attract back investment in our country.

In short, it is indeed a historical reform, especially because it means a trend break. I recently held a debate on the effects of measures for lowest wages or linear measures. I found myself again in the discussion twenty years ago with Professor Paul De Grauwe, who explained to me that labor elasticity is of course the greatest when one works on the small group of low-income. However, there is nothing better than reducing the overall burden, strengthening the competitive position, creating new jobs and purchasing power, and restarting the economic engine. Of course, it costs a lot more money. That is the 7.2 billion that is being put on the table today. With its measures, the government has managed to create a sustainable climate to attract new investments and additional workforce and to stimulate growth and the job engine.

I agree with other groups that the delivery time is also for our companies. One cannot continue to mourn that it is impossible to work and undertake in our country. Reduce the patronal burden, reduce the burden on labor, increase the purchasing power. We try to evolve towards flexible working mechanisms. It is now up to them to fill it and not repeat that it can be even better. It can always be better, but the framework to start working has been created.

It is also important, colleagues, that, in addition to measures for our entrepreneurs and SMEs, the workers also actually participate in the measures for the first time. The figures have been mentioned several times in the replies of the Minister. We invest 450 million euros in the deduction of fixed professional expenses, we remove the 30% discount in the personal tax, which means 850 million euros in the future, we expand the discount of 40%, we strengthen the fiscal and social labour bonus, we improve the purchasing power of the self-employed and carry out social corrections through the full distribution of the wealth envelope, which has affected 1.2 billion.

With all these purchasing power measures, amounting to $2.7 billion, we can ultimately ensure that net wages get higher and people keep more money in their pockets. In the end, an economic recovery is possible.

Colleagues, the figures show by their size and exceptionality that this is an important moment in our political and economic history. 2016 will be the grand cru-year for our economy and ⁇ . It is a huge injection of oxygen for companies but also for employees.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. As I have already said in the committee, I will share this story for a piece. It will always be so. I said it right, none of us has a glass ball. The saying is always the same, the glass can be half full or half empty. To what extent do we stand behind the measures, to what extent do we have that faith in the future, to what extent can we move forward?

I think the latest reports coming out are promising. Yesterday we received good points from the IMF for what is on the table today. They speak of a rejection, a change and ultimately a breakthrough in addressing our problems. This is about pensions, but it is the same with this tax reform. I believe more than anyone else that this can work as an accelerator.

The growth of our economy is predicted to be between 1.3% and 1.7%. That remains modest, it is not growth rates of 3 percent or 4 percent. However, when I say that those figures have not yet taken into account the effective application of the index jump and the results of the second tax shift, this suggests that that growth could still be higher than what we anticipate today. Well, let us then ⁇ agree that that additional growth can be used primarily to partially relieve our public debt.

Domestic consumption is also rising, in the meantime by 1.9%. That trust is indeed present. The available family income will increase by 1.1 per cent this year and by another 0.5 per cent next year. I think these are very hopeful figures.

If one then finds that exports also increase by 4.6% and business investments by 4%, then I think that the National Bank’s forecast that this tax shift and the policy being implemented today will create new jobs is very important. The tax shift creates 64 000 new jobs and, in the case of natural growth, it increases to a total of 115 000.

Importantly, this is about jobs in the private sector, not in the government. It is also important that companies already indicate in surveys that they actually plan to recruit. The news that Nike wants to create 500 additional jobs in Ham is therefore hopeful.

I walk around slowly. Is the work now done? It is almost Christmas 2015. Can we, by way of speech, let things go on from now on? I am afraid of not. The tax shift and the other fiscal and pension reforms will strengthen our economy, but we are far from reaching the promised budget balance. There is still a lot of work to be done. It is therefore very important, as stated by several colleagues and as can be agreed in the committee, that in the end we can closely monitor the realization of this budget objective, Mrs. Minister. Everyone’s job, I’ve learned: the monitoring committee works for the government.

However, I think that we should check at what times you may, based on data from the monitoring committee and forecasts from the National Bank and the Plan Bureau, inform the committee whether we are on schedule. The worst thing that could happen to us is that we would eventually have to solve the budget path and that may not be the intention.

What Mr. Mr. Van Mechelen just told the tribune is not a surprise, he has already said in the Finance Committee.

After the MR, the Open Vld is also requesting a monitoring of estimates of tax revenues, the evolution of certain spending items and the evolution of macroeconomic parameters. It might be time to see if, on the side of the government, we agree to go in this direction. I have the impression that the Chairman of the Finance Committee is not ⁇ opposed to this. Can we agree on a regular meeting in the Finance Committee for this monitoring that the MR and the Open Vld, as well as the PS group, call their wishes.

I would like to answer this very clearly and quickly. A budget is budgeted, a budget is windows, a budget is forecasting forecasts to see if the goals are achieved. A account is ultimately the result of the execution of that budget. We have here in the House and in the federal government a system in which a fairly long period lies between one and the other. I think so. Therefore, I would like to propose to look at in a working formula how, for example, after six months, at the beginning of September in a committee meeting, how the first six months of the year were, whether we have reached the numbers, whether we are on the right track or that we need to update. The worst thing that can happen to us is that we leave the thing on its way and have to find out too late that there are problems. Mr. Minister and Mr. Minister, I assume there are no problems in this regard.

Colleagues, we have already talked a lot about numbers and I think it is important that the government continues its reform agenda for the coming years and months. Important work has been done, but the work is not entirely finished. Yes, we have addressed the excessive wage costs. Yes, we make sure everyone stays working longer. But I think, colleagues, that there are still a lot of buildings that the government must urgently cut, with the emphasis on urgently.

In particular, my group thinks about reforms in the labour market. I have the impression that we are a little trapped on the spot, we are somewhat surplacing. We had a very exciting Chamber Debate here on the role of everyone in social consultation on Thursday, but we are slowly coming to the point that results are desired from all that consultation.

Yesterday, the IMF once again gave a clear fingerprint and said that our country still has a much too rigid labour market. We must have the courage to read everything in that report. In other words, work becomes too much complicated. Furthermore, the same report states that this just makes it very difficult for people with low education or with different backgrounds to enter our labour market. That we can create opportunities there by intervening does not mean that we must put our achievements in the wind.

For example, if I see that there is no breakthrough in facilitating e-commerce in our country, then I ask you, colleagues, where do we get the courage to give 8 000 jobs and more than a billion sales gifts to our northern neighbors. Mr Dewael lives in Tongeren, near Maastricht. I live in Kapellen, on the border with Woensdrecht, Breda and Bergen-op-Zoom. Well, the e-commerce companies are now just across our border and there is no day or weekend past or the Dutch post runs through my neighborhood to ask for generous packages. Where do we get the courage that we do not want to fill these kinds of jobs ourselves, but give gifts to our friendly northern neighbors?

In other words, colleagues, there is still much work to be done. I think a measure like the flexi-jobs in the hospitality industry is very important. This needs to be evaluated, but we must also be open to it and consider whether that measure can potentially be extended to other sectors without distorting the market.

I also think of the modernization of working hours and labour law, the review of opening hours, the fight against discrimination in the labour market, systems to enable workable work, lifelong learning. In short, there is still a lot to do. Per ⁇ 2016 could be the year of labour market reforms in our country.

I think this is not just important for our companies. I believe that greater flexibility is also sought by citizens of the 21st century to better align work and family, as well as their needs and rhythm. In other words, flexibility is not a magic tool, but it is a means of providing more opportunities for companies and employees. It is therefore not a coincidence that the IMF today states that it is precisely the vulnerable groups that today fall out of the boat that need to be integrated into the labour market.

I am going around, Mr. President. The budget and the tax shift, which are here on the table, are entirely in the sign of the economic relief and the stimulation of job creation and purchasing power through a reduction in burden. Therefore, it will not surprise you that our liberal group can only welcome that policy.

We will follow the budget. We will ensure that we can measure how our economy responds to the measures. It will not surprise you, Mrs. and Mr. Minister, that our whole group will pass the budget with great enthusiasm.

Dear colleagues, as agreed, we interrupt our work, which will resume at 14:15 with the intervention of Ms. Temmerman.