Proposition 54K2488

Projet de loi portant des dispositions financières et fiscales diverses et portant des mesures en matière de contrats de concession.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

June 13, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

fiscal policy central bank financial policy credit institution public institution

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo LE DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Vooruit PS | SP ∉ PP VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Stéphanie Thoron (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 ¶

July 20, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Deseyn and Mr Laaouej, rapporteurs, refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, it can be said that the opposition has been ⁇ conciliatory in accepting that this point be dealt with, despite the difficulties mentioned earlier.

It must be said that the Finance Committee has not lacked work in recent weeks, as evidenced by the bottleneck of files, the explanation of which can be found in the delays taken by the government in their filing and their presentation to Parliament. I think in particular of the bill that aims to reform the prevention of laundering, for which we only had a few days to devote to the analysis of hundreds of pages. I would like to remind you of the context in which we work.

This bill containing various provisions on tax matters contains several aspects, on which I will not extend or, in any case, on which I will not return.

That said, one point ⁇ disturbs us: it is that of the confirmation of royal decrees that organize a non-indexation of tax reductions related to replacement income, in particular pensions. This mechanism was wanted by the government and is planned for four years. Its economic justification is hardly obvious, since the salary index jump, which was decided by the government, was – in government rhetoric – aimed at improving wage competitiveness. I do not see that this argument can be repeated for replacement income.

The only explanation is budgetary. In this case, we lack numerical data on what this brings to the budget in terms of savings. Then I went back to the tax expenditure inventory. I found that, as a whole, the tax reductions related to replacement income reached in 2014 four and a half billion, according to the latest available figures published on the website of the SPF Budget. This means that a non-indexation of these tax expenditure would theoretically yield ninety million euros – but, if Mr. Minister has other figures, I am quite prepared to hear it. In other words, it would be an annual savings of ninety million euros. This is the third year, and there is still 2018. We can see what this means for the federal budget.

This economy is obviously not neutral for pensioners and other allocators, as I said last time. For the basic tax reduction – you know that pensioners benefit from different tax reductions (base or increased) – which is in the order of two thousand euros, a non-indexation represents an annual loss of forty euros. In the last three years, this is one hundred and twenty euros. At the end of the legislature, as long as it lasts four years or the government does not go beyond, this means one hundred and sixty euros. It is nothing!

This also means that out of the total €90 million, this must be deducted from the so-called measures you are taking to improve the ordinary life of pensioners, and in particular of those who only benefit from a small pension.

I would like to again appeal to the government and to the majority, so that this provision is not ⁇ ined in the bill, and that the pensioners are paid back what you took from them. I say this especially because pensioners are subject to a whole series of other decisions made by the government. I think of the increase in VAT on electricity, which is not compensated by the tax shift or tax reductions, since the tax reductions provided by the tax shift do not concern substitute income, and therefore do not concern pensioners.

On the other hand, this non-indexation of the tax reduction, which is ⁇ unfair, strikes all pensioners. This is completely unacceptable, and it goes a bit unnoticed. In fact, this is not one of the newspapers, and we talk very little about it. But this is one of the most brutal measures taken by the government towards people who are known to have difficult ends of months, to speak prosaically. I am only repeating what I have already said. I invite the government, and my colleagues from CD&V, to review it.I imagine that the latter may have a particular sensitivity to retirees, because these people are experiencing situations that can hold their attention in one way or another.

This government says it is in favor of tax cuts and claims to improve household incomes. It must be understood that this measure affects the available income of some households, especially those who benefit from replacement income, such as pensioners.

This is what I wanted to do, Mr. Speaker, during our discussions. It is a purely budgetary measure, inexplicable from an economic point of view, and ⁇ unfair, because it affects a large part of this population known to be, in its vast majority, precarious.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the members of the opposition because this draft can still be discussed in the plenary session. My thanks for that.

This draft includes a number of items that need to be approved with retroactive effect.

Mr. Laaouej, this is about ratification of existing royal decrees. We know your views on the index jump, also in connection with the social benefits. However, this is a simple logical consequence of a policy that the government has been pursuing for two years. You are now bringing this back up. The minister has made it clear that this measure is not new and that it is only about the ratification of a royal decree that came into force in 2015. Importantly, non-indexing has been globally important for the competitiveness of our economy. We can turn it or turn it as we want, it has been one of the elements of the restoration of competitiveness.

In part, non-indexing is also a budgetary measure. We must say it as it is: through non-indexing, some savings have been realized. However, with the wealth envelope, the government has ensured that the lowest pensions have been raised. There is a missing element in your reasoning. It is not a blind non-indexing, one has clearly taken a step at the bottom of pensions with a real increase in pensions. In the last few months, additional work has been done on this. I am not in the Social Affairs Committee, but I think that one of the last weeks has been dealt with a draft on this subject. This has not led to an impoverishment of the people with very low pensions. This is absolutely not true, on the contrary.

Mr. President, Mr. Van Rompuy, I do not understand what competitiveness is about in our exchange. You have justified the index jump on wages by competitiveness, but here it is not about employees, but about pensioners.

Pensioners first suffered an index jump. They suffered increases in consumption tax – I spoke of electricity VAT – not compensated by the reduction in the personal tax since the tax shift did not target them.

Add to this, for purely budgetary reasons, a non-indexation of tax reductions which, in fact, corresponds to an increase in tax. In other words, these royal decrees, which are confirmed by law, result in increased taxes on pensioners. Concretely, you contribute pensioners and other allocators for purely budgetary purposes. There is something that you do not assume.

You tell me that these are royal arrests. Let us take advantage of this law to get the government to remove or reform the latter! No matter what legislative or regulatory arrangements must be adopted to end this anti-social and brutal policy towards pensioners.

In commission, I spoke of a kind of anti-pensioners obsession in the head of government. And you return, every time, with the same arguments, and you invoke the budget envelope.

I just explained to you that what you spend with the budget envelope is already redundant, in any case, according to my calculations. If I am wrong, so much better. You have to tell me! But I referred to the tax expenditure inventory because I found no trace of any numbers in the budget documents that were delivered to us. I consider that you are taking at least €90 million from pensioners, which means that your welfare package for pensioners is already cut by €90 million.

You are claiming a number of improvements that are immediately neutralized, annihilated – if I can say – by measures taken at the fiscal level. Here is the pass pass. There is an alleged façade policy of revaluing the lowest pensions, etc. In reality, it hides anti-social measures that are hidden in royal rulings of tax scope. It’s this pass-through that I denounce.

The only possibility for me to do so is in Parliament, because the royal decrees are taken at the government level. They are the subject of a publication; I do not disagree with it. But the only time we can have a parliamentary debate is at the time of examining the bills of confirmation. So you will not bother me, Mr. Van Rompuy, to denounce here this way of doing, because it is in this place that it must be denounced.

Mr. Speaker, I will extend to my colleague Mr. Van Rompuy, chairman of the Finance Committee, to point out that in the index jump, a correction was planned for the lowest allowances and pensions. Furthermore, the welfare envelope has well offset this effect, contrary to what Mr Laaouej said.

Mr. Laaouej tries to drown the fish by comparing a monthly amount and a VAT correction that only occurs on an annual expense. It is confusing us, but corrections were made during the index jump to preserve the lowest pensions and the lowest benefits. And the welfare envelope has never been as high as during this legislature to compensate, precisely for the benefit of pensioners. To say we are obsessed with pensions is a mistake.

Mr. Pietro, you are confusing yourself. The confusion is so much on your side that you do this by royal stops. It is your choice. And then you find yourself stuck when this happens in Parliament.

The non-indexation of tax reductions, of which I just talked, does not make the difference between small pensions and large pensions, so long as there are large pensions. It targets everyone. If you want to be consistent, bring us social corrections of this tax measure. This non-indexation covers all pensions, whether low, medium or high. This is where your reasoning is inconsistent.

I have no difficulty hearing you and having a debate on how you can correct the index jump and neutralize it for the lowest income, especially replacement income. The fact is that, on this precise measure, you do not make a difference depending on the level of pension.

Compared to the amounts indicated by Mr. Laaouej, 348 million were devoted to the lowest pensions.

The intellectual environment.

Citizens should be entitled to both their indexation and their welfare envelope. With the index jump, you take them a portion of their income that you only imperfectly compensate with the wellness envelope. So stop it!

For the rest, I have never compared annual and monthly amounts! I spoke here of a loss of 40 euros for pensioners due to the non-indexation of tax reductions. I spoke of the numberable loss of 300 euros for an average electricity consumption due to the increase in electricity VAT to which the index jump must be added. I do not compare annual and monthly amounts. I make an annual comparison. I do not fully understand the reasoning of this point of view.

To confirm what my excellent colleague said, I was one of those and those who negotiated the well-being envelope and its very existence. There was an indexation as for workers and to be, in some way, in line with the salary increases made on the occasion of the interprofessional agreements, this welfare envelope had been created, otherwise a much too large deviation between the level of wages and that of social benefits was proven and that is what you no longer respect.

And what did the welfare envelope do during this legislature? It has only increased!

Do not lose sight, Mr. Piedboeuf, that the index jump has a cumulative effect! And this fact, you lose it from sight constantly. Never lose this from sight!

I will not repeat the arguments of Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Piedbœuf with which I agree. Mr. Laaouej, you talk about 90 million, but the figure of Mr. Piedbœuf is also accurate. Repairs were made for 340 million. There is a difference between these two amounts.

Do you realize, Mr. Minister, that the index jump, only on wages, represents 2 to 2.5 billion per year cumulatively? At the end of the legislature, you will be almost 10 billion points on the salary mass. The amounts you quote – I’m actually talking about wages and we can make the same reasoning on the overall mass of pensions – it will never compensate for what you took from people through the index jump. So, you compensate with the reductions in natural persons tax but on the other hand, you have increased the taxes on consumption. In general, people do not get there, Mr. Minister. I want to make the calculations with you.

In addition, I proposed to you in the Finance Committee that we have a table of + and of - both at the fiscal and social level. When I say the social domain, it is all that it encompasses, including the increase in the price of medicines, etc. Make a real scoreboard of the increase in the available income in a nuanced way. I do not want to resume the debate on the available income. This has been discussed enough. We do not know today what constitutes the income of labour and the income of capital.

On the other hand – and there I address Mr. Van Rompuy because it is always the same argument – it is not because you have a proportional increase in the available income that it gives you an indication of the distribution of this increase in the available income, according to the income tranches! Indeed, this is where the debate lies: whether inequalities have progressed or been reduced under your government. This can only be achieved through a rigorous comparison. We do not have this debate!

Yes, Mr. Laaouej, but we should not always talk about non-indexation, it is actually about tax cuts. and yes! The taxes have been reduced. This does not call for discussion. This increases the available income. It was not indexed, of course, because in the context of government sanitation, it was this path that it preferred, but the final result was an increase in the real available income.

I have seen the latest figures. The National Bank’s spring forecasts predict that the real available income, the family income, will increase by 2% in 2018 and 2019. That is giant. The modal pensioner will also experience a real increase.

We are talking about tax reductions. We will not repeat the discussion, but the tax shift is mainly focused on the low wages and on the retirees. Three-quarters go to low wages.

Your reasoning is not correct. You are an excellent colleague. I do not dispute that, Ms. Onkelinx: Mr. Laaouej is one of the best economists in this Parliament. But in this regard, he does not have the correct numbers.

You can, of course, challenge the figures of the National Bank, and also the calculations about the effect of the tax shift on the different levels of wages, but here you are unfortunately wrong enough.

I would like to reiterate the excellence of my colleague.

I attribute to fatigue the fact that it begins by criticizing our “obsession of weakening pensions” to end up talking about the overall effect of the index jump on employees. Mix everything in a soup. Since I think he is tired, I will not go further.

Mr. Speaker, there are two elements.

First, the majority invokes the available income all the time. Mr. Van Rompuy has done it. But the available income encompasses different types of income: income that goes to work and income that goes to capital. We have to tell you that, you are constantly repeating “available income, available income, available income”. There is no need to repeat that you are right.

The reality is that on the whole of the national income, the part of the income of capital has increased sharply and the part of the income of labour has decreased. During this legislature, 5% of GDP went from the pockets of workers to the corporate cash. Income from labour decreased relative to produced wealth and total income. These 5 percent of GDP are billions of euros that have passed from labor income to capital income. It is one thing.

Second, on this non-indexation of tax reductions for pensioners, you make a tax shift. You say, “This is the tax shift. You will pay more taxes, more VAT, more excise duties, but on the other hand, you will pay less tax on individuals." Except that pensioners pay much more VAT and more excise duties, but they do not benefit from a reduction in the IPP. The majority ⁇ ins that, since they are not assets, they do not have a right to it. They are retired, they have worked all their lives, but since they are no longer active, they are no longer entitled to it. That is your logic. The pensioners are hurt by your policy. There is no other conclusion to be drawn from this measure.

Mr. Piedboeuf, it is not the fatigue that has led me to talk about employees. This is because it is your majority colleagues who, themselves, have evoked the tax shift to try to drown the fish. But even when you act this way, you manage to confuse your approximations and your inconsistencies.

Mijnheer Van Rompuy, on the available income, first consider inflation. Then, the macroeconomic increase in available income tells you nothing about the distribution of the increase in available income between income classes. That is the real problem! This is where we must try to figure out whether inequalities have grown or not, in particular by mobilizing the Gini coefficient and other indicators. These indicators exist. You could ask the National Bank or the Plan Bureau to refine the figures.

To remain in the problem of pensioners, what we say is that the reduction of income tax, which you refer to as being a good thing, concerned most of the assets. This means that pensioners do not withdraw what you claim from the income tax reform but, on the other hand, they undergo non-indexation of replacement income tax reductions. I have never said anything else. I only talked about that! This represents a mass on the replacement income of 4.5 billion. In other words, the basis for calculating the non-indexation of tax reductions is 4.5 billion. You can imagine!

I would say even more: it would be necessary to see the distribution of the lack to earn in the head of the pensioners, taking into account also different levels of pensions, depending on whether they are low, medium or larger. I am convinced that this non-indexation of tax cuts creates inequalities even among pensioners. This is what you do not want to hear!

Now you are trying to defend yourself as you can but I tell you that this measure is only justified for budgetary reasons and I call on the government to take a blow. I don’t understand why it should be kept in your budget cleansing. Find the money elsewhere.

I would like to ask everyone for reason to return to the draft number. 2488 on various financial and fiscal provisions. Why Why ? Because 80% of what is said here has nothing to do with what is stated in this law.

It is a continuation of a royal decree. The decisions and discussions on this subject have already been conducted several years ago. It is not about something new. It is about the perpetuation of a particular royal decree.

I have no problem with the fact that each group makes its point, but I would like to ask my colleagues to keep talking about this proposed draft. We do not resolve this discussion today. We only maintain a royal decree. The discussion on this has already been fully carried out in the past.

I would like to come to the correctness of the discussion in this semiconductor. Let us return to the essence of the matter. This does not affect the fact that everyone makes their point. Mr. Laaouej will always defend the pensioners. He does that in a brilliant way, but that has nothing to do with this point.

I was only talking about the form. The government takes many tax measures by royal decrees, for example when it ergotes on reduced VAT rates or non-indexing tax reductions.

The only time we can talk about it is when there is a law of confirmation. If we are prevented from having a debate when there is a confirmation law, when will we be able to talk about it?

I challenge Mr. Van Biesen to find me a committee report where we could talk about it before the confirmation bills arrive. This was not even included in the budget cleaning, it came later.

Mr. Laaouej, I think no one, including Mr. Van Biesen, prevents the discussion. It is about the ratification of royal decisions.

Mr. Laauouej, we have discussed this issue many times. It is of course not good for your party that the families under the current government see the available family income increase by 2%. CD&V was also part of the government-Di Rupo, but in 2013 the real available income in our country decreased by at least 0.2%, while in 2018 and 2019 it increases by 2%. For the decline in 2013 we take responsibility, but you must admit that the available income is increasing. Employment is also rising, but you are also disputing that.

I have always stated that the tax shift is not financed and I have my opinion about the budget shift. However, when it comes to the available income and the rising employment, you simply cannot admit that the current situation is much better than it was four to five years ago. Thankfully, employment and purchasing power are increasing. Now you acknowledge that.

The purchasing power?

Mrs. Temmerman, you always dispute that, but these are the facts.

Mr. Van Rompuy, when the Di Rupo government took office – your party and MR were part of the team – we had to deal with the consequences of the Lehman Brothers financial crisis and subprimes. This has led our country to have growth rates of 0%, as does the entire euro area.

There is a basic principle on increasing the available income: there is an elasticity between the available income and the growth rate. It is very simple to understand. There is economic growth, there is a remuneration of production factors, including the labour factor, and the available income increases mechanically.

Today, there is still some growth – less than the euro area average and this is one of your government’s failures – and therefore there is a mechanical increase in the available income.

The argument of the distribution of capital income/labour income must lead to nuance your excess enthusiasm. Moreover, you can’t tell us what the distribution between income classes is.

In addition, you need to take into account the fact that once people have their income, they are faced with expenses. Among these expenses, there are social expenses whose cost has been increased due to your government policy. Everything must be taken into account!

So far, we have not had this debate in the Finance Committee.

I will not epilogue. This is a royal arrest. Mr. Flahaux and Piedboeuf are pleased but I am not convinced by your arguments.

Mr. Speaker, I will keep it very brief.

Mr Van Rompuy, with the government-Di Rupo we were on average always above the European average, both in terms of growth and job creation. For everything, we were on average. We are now on average below the European average. How does it come? I do not deny the numbers mentioned at all. These figures, however, as many economists say, are due to the current general economic flourishing. That has nothing to do with this government, on the contrary, some things could be much better. There is indeed a job growth, but it is there despite and not thanks to this government.