Proposition 54K2261

Projet de loi modifiant l'arrêté royal n° 20 du 20 juillet 1970 fixant les taux de la taxe sur la valeur ajoutée et déterminant la répartition des biens et des services selon ces taux en ce qui concerne le taux de TVA applicable à la fourniture de plantes et de fleurs destinées à l'aménagement et à l'entretien de jardins.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Roel Deseyn, Leen Dierick, Nathalie Muylle, Jef Van den Bergh
MR David Clarinval, Benoît Piedboeuf
N-VA Rita Gantois, Sarah Smeyers
Open Vld Luk Van Biesen, Carina Van Cauter

Submission date

Jan. 16, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

VAT VAT rate floriculture competition kitchen garden horticulture

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Ecolo LE Open Vld N-VA MR PP VB

Voted to reject

Vooruit

Abstained from voting

PS | SP DéFI ∉ PVDA | PTB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Feb. 14, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Roel Deseyn, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, on 28 January last year, the Belgian Federation of Green Providers blogged on its Facebook page: "We do not let go of the VAT file." One day later there was: "We have succeeded."

It is indeed historical. After all, the case of the VAT anomaly, which has been perceived as problematic in the sector for years, has been in the House for a long time. Nevertheless, this sector accounts for approximately eight thousand companies, nine thousand employees and an estimated turnover of 1.5 billion euros. It is, therefore, with conviction and with a great sense of satisfaction that I can speak here today. We also did not release the file.

What is it about? With the bill, we are raising the VAT rate for the sale of plantings by gardeners from 21% to 6%. I would like to give some explanation. When a gardener buys plantations in a garden center, he pays 6% VAT. He must then charge 21 % VAT to his client, but if that owner of the garden buys his plantings himself, he pays 6 %. It is not difficult to imagine which doors the system opened. In practice, we saw the customer buying the planting itself, which he had picked up and planted by the gardener. Logically, a black circuit developed here next to the official one. After all, it is difficult to bill the planting of unofficially purchased plants. Those hours were performed in black. Companies that worked properly were thus pushed out of the market.

Socially, the bill also plays an important role. The sector offers a lot of work to risk groups such as young or low-skilled workforce. In practice, official gardeners pay more attention to safety standards and deal more carefully with, among other things, mileage fees and reduction of working hours. In addition, the bill can provide a positive boost to the greening of our society.

Of course, that has a cost, but it is our sincere belief that the reduction of the VAT rate will improve the sector and the state treasury in the long run. Now the treasury is undoubtedly missing income: VAT, RSZ contributions, income taxes.

Our proposal is a step forward in the fight against fraud and in the renewal of the sector.

Past attempts to correct the problems have failed. Well, today we are correcting the disrupted situation and meeting an urgent demand and concern of the sector.

I am very pleased to be able to vote on this text today. I would like to thank everyone who has benevolently contributed to this, not least Minister Johan Van Overtveldt and his cabinet. I would also like to thank all the colleagues from the other groups. It took time, but the support and willingness to bring the dossier together to a good end grew, with today as the endpoint the adoption of a text on the subject.

I just want to confirm what my colleague has just said. When my colleagues came to me explaining that it was about fixing a VAT rate problem, as I was a tax advisor, I immediately understood that there was indeed a problem. It was a good idea to solve it. Therefore, together with my colleague Clarinval, on behalf of the MR group, we supported this proposal that allows to combat practices that distort competition by aligning the VAT rate of plants, purchased in stores or implemented by a professional.

It is true that this correction has a cost, but there will undoubtedly be a return effect as it will combat practices that are not official.

Mr. Chairman, colleagues, colleague Gantois has well outlined the importance of the bill we are discussing now and that is submitted to vote later.

I would like to speak in the name of my late colleague Paul Tant, who was the initiator in 1999 to bring the VAT regime for the jewelry to 6%. With that law, in 1999, the discrimination was actually created for gardening. Now, twenty years later, we have finally succeeded in removing that discriminatory measure.

Last weekend I spoke to a lot of people from the industry. It currently employs more than 16,000 people and more than 7,000 low-skilled workers, including in the social economy. The VAT reduction now proposed provides future prospects for these workers. After all, as the colleague already mentioned, the measure was very fraud sensitive. We also saw more and more that customers bought their plants themselves from wholesalers and that the garden contractors were only allowed to deliver the work. With the measure we vote on today, we can once again give a future to this beautiful sector in Flanders.

We must not forget that this sector is also very vulnerable. I have met companies that now export more than 50% to England. These companies have a lot of questions about the future. This measure, I think, is therefore an important step forward for this sector.

My proposal dates from 2006. I would like to thank my colleagues who have been my companions through all those years. Specifically, I refer to colleague Van Biesen.

I am therefore pleased that today there is a very large support for the adoption of that measure.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the path of suffering in the Parliament, which Ms. Muylle beautifully outlined and which began in 1999, has lasted twenty years. Indeed, all honour goes to Mr. Tant as well as Mr. Denys, who together carried out and issued the relevant bill in 1999 and who tried to persuade the Chamber members. Only twenty years later was it understood that this was not an ideological choice or a broad vision of VAT as such, but a fundamental anomaly in the legislation.

When someone buys a plant on the market, he or she pays 6% VAT. When that man or woman asks someone else to plant a plant in his or her garden, he or she must suddenly pay 21% VAT.

Especially for the urbanized and outdated neighborhoods, where all the front gardens were once filled with beautiful plants and herbs, with this proposal we want to take a step in the right direction, so that the gardens, front gardens and folk gardens, which we have seen vanish because they have become too expensive and because many people have become too old to be able to maintain them themselves, can be restored to their old glory. They can now rely on a professional gardener at the same price as if they would buy the plants themselves.

That is the essence of the story. The proposal removes an anomaly.

I would like to thank everyone who has worked for this over the past few years. I would like to thank in particular Mrs. Muylle, with whom we submitted the proposal in 2006. I am also grateful to Ms. Gantois, who has really put the proposal here as a priority legislative proposal.

During the discussion in the Chamber Committee we received a lot of support from the Greens, who suddenly realized that plants were also part of their business. All the madness on a stick, they have fully supported us, even during the decision-making process.

In other words, I thank everyone because it is happening now and because the anomaly is being removed. Let us all now make our Flanders, Belgium, Brussels and Wallonia more beautiful.

Mr. Speaker, we confirm to the Assembly that we have supported and will continue to support this measure because it is a sector with a high labour rate and that it is about greening our lands, planting trees and plants, which is essential for biodiversity.

We can hope for a fight against some form of VAT fraud and support for a sector with a high labour rate. Of course, this has a cost! We can expect a return effect. I note, for the report, that the colleagues at this end of the legislature, are ⁇ generous.

As environmentalists, we will remain attentive to the balance of public finances. I have no doubt that Mr. Van Biesen and his colleagues will be attentive with us to tax justice and the effective fight against fraud.

I would like to thank them for supporting our next proposals. Long live the sector in question as it plays an important role in embellishing our living environments and capturing CO2 by planting trees!

Mr. Speaker, a debate on VAT is always an opportunity to recall the principles that govern the fixing of rates. When we look back to the history of the sixth VAT Directive, which organizes the common system of VAT for all the member countries of the European Union, we see, in the reasons for the application of a reduced VAT rate, the criterion of whether it is a good, a provision of services, a product of first necessity.

Among the criteria is that of considering the character of first necessity of a product or not, not only but ⁇ . This is why water or food benefits from a reduced VAT rate at European level.

The same Sixth Directive, which has evolved and has become a full-fledged Directive, provides for the possibility for States also to apply a reduced VAT rate on electricity and precisely because of its first necessity. That is why, wanting to be consistent with what motivated the fixing of a reduced VAT rate, we are submitting an amendment that proposes to the Parliament to reduce the VAT rate from 21% to 6% on electricity.

If we demand a reduced VAT rate on electricity to 6%, it is because it is a product of first necessity. That is the only reason. It is not a luxury to be illuminated, just as it is not a luxury to be heated with gas. I don’t understand that today, some consider that a 6% VAT rate can be applied to plants and flowers or, more generally, to gardening – I can conceive it and understand the reasons – while refusing to lower the VAT on electricity from 21 to 6%.

I see there something that is not justifiable and for which you do not have any arguments. Reduction of electricity VAT is necessary for considerations of social justice. People don’t have to pay a 21% tax on electricity, a product of first necessity.

I would like to comment on two aspects. I would like to point out that it was my colleague Dispa who spoke in the committee on this subject.

We will support this project. This is St. Valentine. I do not know if this reduction in VAT on flowers today is intentional. Mr. Van Rompuy told me that is the case. This is a beautiful story! They are men who can talk to women.

Let’s be a little more serious. As much as we are in favour of a reduction in the energy bill – especially for the households that need it most – the honesty commands us to remind that the difficulty of a reduction in VAT to 6%, as you have conceived in your proposal and in your amendment, is that it leads to a wage impact. Indexes will slow down. This option is problematic.

We are in favor of a mechanism that can either reduce VAT to 6%, but without a negative impact on income – as you have elaborated it – or lighten the weight of the energy bill.

Furthermore, we absolutely want to link it to everything related to insulation to avoid a vicious circle consisting of consuming more while the goal must be to consume less and better.

I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues. A few years ago, we submitted a bill to reduce VAT on glasses and lenses. Visual acuity problems are a real disability for both children and adults with both learning difficulties, driving difficulties and professional difficulties. Glasses and lenses are everything but a luxury. They are essential to see and therefore to live on a daily basis.

I have not yet been able to vote this bill in the Health Committee. So I take the opportunity to bring this matter through an amendment aimed at reducing VAT on glasses and lenses. This is an important issue. I interviewed the Minister yesterday. You were present, Mr. Van Rompuy. I’ve seen some colleagues of the majority knocking their heads telling me I was right. So, my colleagues, we have to move on to the act.

I would like to add another detail, not without importance. The European Directive fully enables the adoption of this bill. In addition, if you consider the Member States of the European Union, we are among the last countries to apply such a high VAT rate on glasses and lenses. Some countries apply a 4% VAT rate on devices that correct visual acuity deficits. We are one of the member states of the European Union where the cost of lenses and glasses is one of the highest. This 15% reduction with the shift of VAT from 21% to 6% is a major challenge for patients. Wearing glasses is essential for some people. Whether it is for younger or older people, it is truly a product of first necessity.

Dear colleagues, I thank you, you who will have the courage in this period of ordinary business, to think more about the interests of patients than about government orders.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to brief what colleague Laaouej said about the amendment he is submitting.

Mr Laaouej, I would like to remind you that we rejected this amendment in the Committee on Finance by a large majority. It is unfortunate that he has been rejecting this bill, that it is a bill that removes an anomaly and is not the subject of an ideological discussion.

Mrs Fonck, it is a pity that we have not discussed this so far in the Committee on Finance. This bill may be pending in the Committee on Public Health, but when it comes to a reduction in VAT on glasses and lenses, it is something that should be discussed in principle in the Committee on Finance.

Ms. Fonck asked this question yesterday in the Committee on Finance. I am convinced that in our committee there is a willingness to exchange views on this issue, not only on the VAT reduction, but also on the tax deductibility of glasses, which is yet a necessary instrument.

I would like to remind you for a moment that the tax authority today, in principle, rejects any purchase of glasses for employees or business executives from the accounting of any business executives.

In normal circumstances, being able to work with the possibilities that one has, whether or not using glasses or lenses, is something that can ⁇ be the subject of a conversation within the Finance Committee, and then I am talking not only about VAT, but also about the tax deductibility.

I am not surprised by Mr. Van Biesen’s intervention. He spoke in the committee. He does not understand that electricity is a good of first necessity and that, for this reason of principle, there is no reason for the state to collect 21% of taxes. Yes, Mr. Van Biesen, that’s the difference between you and us. We think of households who have trouble with their electricity bills, all those who benefit from the social tariff, who see their bills increase by 22%, the increase in the price of electricity due in particular to supply problems. In short, you do not understand that today it is necessary to come to help households and reduce their energy bills.

It is a matter of principle: electricity is a product of first necessity and it is out of question to keep the VAT rate at 21%. It should be reduced to 6%. This is our position.

Ms Fonck, on the other hand, explains that she fears that there will be an increase in wages through automatic indexation, on the grounds that reducing VAT from 21% to 6% – which is exactly the opposite in reality – would prevent an automatic indexation of wages and lead to a loss of wages.

Is Ms Fonck not afraid that her own argument for the amendment she proposes for the reduction of VAT on glasses will be opposed to her? This can also lead to lower inflation and therefore to a delay in the automatic indexation of wages. I support your amendment, but I am very afraid that others will oppose you as well.

I remove you an argument immediately: glasses account for 0.9 percent of the expenses in the housewife’s basket; electricity is 4 percent. But when it comes to inflation, we are sometimes beyond the virgule. This can be 0.9 percent. The argument you mobilize against electricity may be opposed to you regarding the reduction of VAT on glasses.

I will conclude by saying that this argument of automatic indexing is absurd. We can see this well with the Plan Bureau that has just announced a postponement of exceeding the pivot index to December 2019, with effect in February 2020. This proves that the increase in VAT that you have decided has no decisive effect on the evolution of inflation, the housewife basket and, consequently, on the automatic indexation of wages.

Your argument is absurd for a second reason, namely that the goal of good public and economic policy is to fight inflation and avoid an increase in cost of living. By acting on the cost of life, you obviously allow this repair mechanism of automatic indexation not to intervene, because it is a repair mechanism and the first fight is to fight against the precious life. But that, apparently, you don’t want to hear it and you bow on an argument that is completely absurd.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fonck’s amendment comes from the draft resolution that was discussed and then voted back in the Committee on Public Health. We of the N-VA explained our position at that time and that has not changed. Through the mandatory supplementary health insurance, the health funds already provide a refund for glasses and lenses of 40 to 50 euros per year. The people who are attached to the Hulpkas do not get it. However, this group enjoys a lower annual membership allowance.

The N-VA would rather see that this is not arranged through the compulsory supplementary insurance. However, a tax reduction is not the solution. We would rather remove the mandatory supplementary insurance and replace it with a system in which the benefits that are useful and evidence-based are reimbursed by the RIZIV. In this way, all benefits apply to everyone, including those who are connected to the Hulpkas.

You don’t buy glasses every day. Electricity is needed every day.

We are told that the reduction of VAT on glasses will have the same impact on the decline of wage increase through indexation as the reduction of VAT on electricity I am no longer you at all. Correct your text and we will support it. In the absence of correction of the text, we will abstain from your amendment.

Regarding glasses and lenses, my text is still waiting for a vote in the Health Committee. We have to play on both sides. In adults, for example, we only have health insurance support when there is a loss of visual acuity beyond 8.25. It means that we see nothing. We must play both on the refund and on the reduction of VAT, as have done almost all EU Member States. It’s like taking a medicine or having a device to accompany a disability: VAT is 6%.

Mr. Van Biesen, today you could make a stone twice. With glasses, you can see the flowers better! Instead of postponing it, I suggest you vote today for this VAT reduction on glasses and lenses.