Proposition 54K2837

Projet de loi instaurant une taxe sur les comptes-titres.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Dec. 11, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax reform tax law tax system tax on capital

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Vooruit LE ∉ PP VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo PS | SP PVDA | PTB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Luk Van Biesen (Open Vld) 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. 1, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I would like to refer to the written report.

The floor is yielded to Mr. Laououej.

Mr. Speaker, as the latter person registered, I will give the floor to my colleagues registered before me.

Mr Deseyn, you have the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, allow me to begin with a general consideration. The government and also my party, CD&V, have always made justice a theme, including in terms of taxation.

It is true that the current government has asked for additional efforts from various groups in society, such as the retirees, the people at the end of their career or the workers at the beginning of their career. Now, through the present bill, we demand an effort of the more wealthy part of the population – I can ⁇ say that and I even think that it is still a understatement – so that everyone can contribute his stone and take his responsibility, in order to bring more harmony into our society.

The government does not just ask everyone to contribute. She ⁇ also makes the necessary efforts to support people, especially the weaker in society.

Everything is connected to everything. This design cannot therefore be separated from the great project of the tax shift, which is a tax shift from labour to other sources of income, which, by the way, has already produced a lot for the people. Those who, also this month, look at their salary letter, notice an increase in the net salary, up to 40 euros per month.

The scarce resources were handled very selectively and prioritized the lowest wages. As with the adjustment of pensions, the oldest and lowest pensions were also used. We continue on that momentum and work out the tax shift in all its forms, appearances and segments. It is precisely in that large shipyard of the tax shift that this design can also be framed. We will continue on that momentum with the summer agreement. What’s in a name? Today is February 1, but the summer agreement will be seized here this afternoon. This agreement also includes the tax on the securities account.

For the tax to be levied on the securities account of natural persons, let us take a look at the threshold of 500 000 euros. For a couple, that is 2 x 500 000 euros or 1 million euros. There are few taxes that one is happy to pay, but whoever is invited to make a contribution at the level of the tax on his securities account has not made a bad job.

The principle is that the declaration, withholding and payment are made by the intermediaries, that it is an automatic withholding. I know that it is not obvious for the sector, however, to implement all this, the taxpayer can organize this too. The good thing about the design is that many automates are already built-in. And it does not only apply to the Belgians. Of course, this applies to the residents of the country, but also to the non-residents who have a securities account with a Belgian financial institution.

They wondered if this is not too intimate and if it is not about a very limited niche. However, if one looks at the number of financial instruments covered by that draft — whether or not listed shares, bonds and funds — we have a wide and defensive scope here. We have clearly excluded life insurance and pension savings, because we obviously do not want to touch them.

Mr. Laaouej, I come to your concrete question, or rather your remarque preliminary.

During the discussion in the Finance Committee, the question of who can be awarded this trophy was stopped. Is it for CD&V or not? This turns out to be a very important question. Our chairman gave the answer in the committee, when he congratulated the group leader. That was his most personal response. Per ⁇ we should ask a dromedarian. In any case, this form of media symbolic cult completely outweighs the efforts that this government has made to strengthen and advance the economy and society. For me, therefore, it does not matter who can put the plum on his hat. This is a joint work of the full majority.

Colleague Gilkinet, I understand why you say “ha!” It is of course true that, as with the speculative tax, the equity tax is also partly in the extension of the wishes of my party. However, it is not because these taxes are in the extension of our desires that they were also initially our desires. I also pointed out to you in the committee the authorship of a number of proposed initiatives, such as the speculation tax. Colleagues, you know very well what our party’s initial commitment was, but here it is a measure that is supported by all government parties and that is also in line with what we have put forward as the strength lines of the tax shift.

I would like to answer your question, Mr. Kitir.

What was that? I would like to refresh your memory, but I think your question is mostly rhetorical. We have proposed a value-added tax without harm to SMEs or small investors. However, we have also always said that the income, the acquisition, should be taxed rather than the possessions.

Mr. Kitir, where are we now? That may seem a little strange to you, hence ⁇ the fascination. The Prime Minister and his entire team have gone much further in this regard. After all, he proposed us a tax on the securities accounts, a real property tax. You may find that all too far-reaching, colleague Kitir, and have never dared to dream that so much courage would be displayed.

We are pleased with what has happened. Why Why ? With the proposal on value added tax that we had put forward, we talked about a size order of 80 million euros for the first year. Then there was a certain growth path. However, the proposal that is now on the table and which we will vote on later would have to raise 254 million euros. At that point, we can only say that this is the way forward. If you have to choose between 80 million euros or 254 million euros, then that choice has been made quickly. If we can reach a more balanced fiscal policy, then this is worthy of all praise.

There is one point that has not yet been addressed in the interventions of the colleagues.

There have been talks about many external elements, about the lacquer, the trophy, or what has been brought inside, but not yet about a number of substantial things when it comes to back doors and escape routes. If you look at the built-in anti-abuse provisions, I think that the administration will be able to fight those who cross the borders well. One is, of course, always very creative and sure when it comes to fiscal high-tech, the legislator usually hangs somewhat behind.

It is also important that we can emphasize the added value of the longer discussion here today in this hemisphere; the President of the Commission will undoubtedly bear that.

Sometimes it is good for a file that there is some controversy around. If each group can calmly review and review the impact of some of the proposed measures, serious improvements can be made. Specifically, the certificates were not included in the first proposal of the government. They did not fall within the perimeter of the bill. Now it is the case.

The committee has been very insightful and has been able to complete a number of matters in a rapid pace even before the end of the year. This part comes in January, but it is a broadened and improved bill. Important adjustments have been made.

I have spoken about the certificates, but also for the non-listed financial instruments, which were initially not intended, was chosen for the way forward.

I can conclude my speech, Mr. Speaker, with the obvious conclusion that our group will very much support the government’s bill.

The enthusiasm of the colleagues touches me, Mr. President.

As I said in the committee – I am honest in this – our party is a cool lover of this step. Given the fiscal efforts we are making with this government, this step in its globality is ⁇ reasonable and correct. In recent years, this government has succeeded in reducing the total tax burden by at least 2%. It is therefore logical that we simultaneously introduce a number of checks-and-balances and use a number of mechanisms to enable the financing of the ongoing tax reduction.

Colleague Van de Velde, on the one hand, you say that you are a cool lover of this measure, on the other hand, you call it correct and responsible. I know that, since the community’s downturn, you have no longer been awake of the billions of euros of transfers that run in this country from north to south and are growing every year. However, I wonder if you are aware of who will pay this value tax primarily. You are entering a transfer tax.

I would like to hear from you or you have any idea of how many people per Region will be affected proportionally by this new tax? I have figures based on a well-founded estimate. I will give it later, but I wonder if you have any idea of it yourself. Either you simply do not know it, or you do not draw anything from it by calling this tax correct and responsible.

I wonder what is the worst of both options.

Mrs. Pas, I think that the discussion, which you wish to force up, will at least turn to your disadvantage. The various interventions made by this government in both the personal and corporate tax, come in the mass much faster and better to Flanders than to Wallonia. It has to do with the masses.

The tax reductions, the tax shift and the reduction on the advance duties are of such nature that they benefit Flanders much more than Wallonia. At that level, every tax intervention weighs more on the masses. The tax cuts in recent years are greater than what we do here now.

In my speech, I came to the global picture. This government is dealing with taxation in an economically stimulating way. As a result, we have effectively created jobs and growth, and there are additional investments. All this will only benefit our global economy.

I realize that this is a unicum and that with a direct property tax we put a door on a wire that I would rather have left closed. We have already accepted this in the global package of measures.

I only think that in view of the future we should be careful to see this as a kind of striking new track. In my opinion, this is not the case. I am pleased with the discussion with the opposition. According to the opposition, all this is not enough, but at the same time the opposition assumes that behavioral changes will occur, so apparently it is enough to change behavior, which means that the tax will effectively have an impact.

In this regard, I must inform the opposition that there are three reasons for taxation: a redistributive effect, the financing of public spending and the determination of behavior. Like any other tax, this tax will also be behavioral. People will therefore adjust their behavior, just like with other taxation. The fact that it is behavioral, of course, also means that it is impactful.

As Mr. Van de Velde has just explained, by announcing a measure on 26 July and making it adopted on 1 February while announcing to potential concerned the rules that would be applied to this tax on securities, indeed, a large number of those and those who would be affected by this tax on securities read what the government announced. They have been advised by major tax offices and will ultimately not pay the tax.

This is what Mr. Van de Velde has just explained. On the other hand, the amount of new revenues estimated by the government has not changed since the beginning: 254 million euros. Despite all the escapes that have been identified and the late nature of the vote on this text, on which I will give my opinion just now, it is considered that the recipe still amounts to 254 million euros. Let me tell you the credibility of the figure.

On the other hand, I would have wanted, at the time I asked for the word, to ask Mr Piedboeuf’s opinion on Mr Van de Velde’s remarks on the interest for the Regions of the various fiscal measures that have been taken. I had the impression that we were here, in the Federal Parliament, looking for positive solutions for all our fellow citizens for state financing and I regret the turn that the discussion and the exhibition of Mr. Van de Velde take. I see the silence of the French-speaking partner of the majority following these words.

The [...]

But I’m just asking you to talk, Mr. Thiery!

He will be on the doorstep in a few moments, Mr. Gilkinet.

Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to tell Mr. Gilkinet that Mr. Piedboeuf did not remain silent; he applauded then that Mr. Van de Velde had just explained that tax reforms, in particular the corporate tax reform, benefited the north of the country rather than the south. This is exactly what we demonstrated and what the UCM denounced by explaining that the corporate tax reform would harm small and medium-sized enterprises in the south of the country, Wallonia and Brussels.

It is the socio-economic fabric that is not taken into account, which is not properly defended by the French-speaking partner of this government. This was what Mr. Van de Velde said, and that was what earned him the applause of Mr. Piedboeuf.

Without wanting to underestimate the intellectual capacities of Mr. Piedboeuf, for he will soon give a splendor of an answer, I would like to nuance a little what I said.

I have said that any fiscal intervention by its mass in Flanders is more sensible than in Wallonia. Both the pluses and the minuses. That’s what I said, and that’s just right. There is no match between them. It has nothing to do with the community!

If my back neighbors here try to argue that this is an extra transfer, I say: no, that’s not right. Over the past few years, the tax burden has been proportionally distributed across the mass. If you look at the total figures, you can see that pressure has fallen more in Flanders than in Wallonia, but that has purely to do with the mass. This has nothing to do with the benefit of one or the other region.

I understand that it is a bit more difficult for my neighbors here, but that kind of thinking is completely different in taxation than when you look at the spending.

The problem lies in the fact that one compensates in the expenditure, because the real transfers are the expenditure transfers, Mrs. Pas, The problem lies not in the fiscality, because it works in proportionally faster with the large mass than with the small mass.

This should be explained by someone who really knows it.

Mr. Speaker, let us say things as they are, this is a new missed opportunity on the part of the government to finally be able to bring us a true taxation project that takes into account parameters related to the imperative of tax justice. In other words, the stated goal of contributing more capital or capital revenues is not confirmed when we examine the texts and the handwriting retained in the device that is now on the table.

This is a missed opportunity because it must be acknowledged that you have contributed, to a very large extent since the beginning of the legislature, workers, pensioners, allocators through measures such as the index jump or the increase of VAT on electricity. You have also damaged a number of social security positions, especially health care. It would have been time to develop an approach that could go towards a fairer taxation in favour of labour income in the broad sense of the term – including replacement income – and by contributing more to capital or capital income.

I would like to say to the CD&V, who wins a trophy here – or who claims to winning a trophy – that he should be careful of appearances. The Minister of Finance, at the time this project was being discussed, made great statements. He said in particular to pay attention to the threshold effect or even that the project risked not to cross the direction of the Constitutional Court, under the principle of equality before the law. On the other hand, I hear Mr. Van de Velde say he will vote for him without really agreeing. There is therefore ⁇ , in the arrangement that we are about to vote today, one or the other trap that could lead to the result of a previous measure – which, however, was one of your acquisitions – the famous surplus-value tax. This tax disappeared quite quickly – a biodegradable tax! – and had been qualified as a hilarious tax by a certain website operating in international finance.

On the bottom, let’s say that one cannot, of course, deny that this is an interesting step. Let things be clear, the principle...

The [...]

Mr. Verherstraeten, the principle is interesting in itself. However, you set a threshold: 500 000 euros. This means that someone who arranges to have 499 999 euros will not be subject to the contribution, while another who has deposited 500 001 euros will be. From the point of view of the constitutionality of the measure, this is an aspect that will interest those and those who would want to challenge your bill which, tomorrow, will become a law – because there is no doubt about this. By the way, as I recalled, the Minister of Finance himself warned against this threshold.

I now come to the feasibility of the arrangement and the possibility for the intermediaries responsible for collecting this tax to ⁇ this materially and operatively. Here again, it is worth recalling the interventions of several professionals in the sector and also – at some point, I think – of the Minister of Finance himself, having questioned the feasibility of the said measure.

Mr Laaouej, Mr Van Rompuy wishes to interrupt you.

Mr Laaouej, at the beginning there were comments and objections about that threshold of 500 000 euros, but the State Council has not stopped them. The State Council has expressed criticism on other points and the government has taken this into account afterwards.

You constantly notice that you do not pay anything up to 499 000 euros. It is paid from the first euro. It is about amounts from 0 to 500 000 euros if one is above it, but it is not that one pays that tax only from a certain threshold. It is not a certain threshold or 0. It ranges from 0 to 500 000 euros and 1 million euros. You must acknowledge that the State Council has not objected to this. You start with that objection, but that was not stopped by the Council of State.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Van Rompuy, this is just one of many observations that I will develop soon; it is not the main observation.

Setting a threshold is always arbitrary. In our work, I have expressed the fact that thresholds are regularly established in the field of taxation. Recently, the issue of exempt quotas was addressed. In the case of a bonus for exempt quotas, it was based on the average taxable income, objectively established statistical data. There is then a justification that is to take the average income (it could have been the median income, etc.).

In this case, reliable data were lacking as to the reason for the threshold of 500 000 euros. You told us that, according to some studies, this was roughly equivalent to the average portfolio. I refer you to the studies carried out by the National Bank on the average financial asset of the Belgians. This study is also very interesting because it specifies, at the same time, the average financial asset according to the nature of the financial assets. The study is very detailed. In this case, you opt for the threshold of 500,000 euros.

You are talking about the State Council. I look forward to hearing you finally appreciate the opinion of the State Council! This does not happen every day! I would even say that the tendency of this government that you support, Mr. Van Rompuy, is to rely on the opinions of the State Council, even when it comes to ⁇ serious issues. You cannot invoke the opinion of the State Council when it suits you and not follow it when it does not. I can draw up a list of a whole series of opinions of the State Council on which you have sat!

For the rest, Mr. Van Rompuy, the State Council decides on legality and not on opportunity. I speak to you here of opportunity by telling you that beyond the threshold, we are taxed and we are not. There is something that does not seem to me to match the idea that I am making of a fair taxation. You do not have to share my opinion. Your feelings may be different because a feeling does not prove anything. However, you will not stop me from saying that this is annoying, it challenges a certain concept of tax justice from the moment such arbitrary thresholds are set when it comes to property taxation.

Mr Laouej, I have followed your reasoning on the threshold of 500,000 euros. The problem you describe comes up with any threshold. In fact, you advocate applying this type of tax from the first euro, thus including for people who have 1,000 euros, 10,000 or 500,000 on an account. Did I understand your reasoning?

You understand it partially. This is an advance. Take professional income. They are taxed from the first euro. This is the basic rule. Then, a tax reduction applies to a portion of this income. This is the exempt quota. This is sometimes increased for very specific reasons such as, for example, the presence of dependent children. You also have tax reductions related to the nature of income. Replacement income benefits. In other words, social reasons can intervene.

Mr. Minister, you could have done differently. As the principle is that such levy exists, you could have provided for a levy justifiable in a legal arrangement for economic, social or other reasons, taking into account the principle of proportionality, respect for the principle of equality, that is, giving a justification that is proportionate to the aim pursued, in accordance with the constant case-law of the Constitutional Court.

You take another choice, it’s not mine. You are in the majority, I am in the opposition. We don’t have the same concept of taxation, that’s all. I am not telling you that the choices you make are fundamentally unacceptable: they are in line with your vision of taxation. I do not share it.

This is clear, but you still started your exhibition by saying it was a good start!

I said two phrases. Let me finish!

It is an opening. It is important.

Yes, but we will abstain. I will explain why.

I am not like some hypocrites who vote without agreeing, like Mr. Van de Velde. I do not accept that reasoning. I am more nuanced.

I say the idea is good, but the methods are not.

Mr Verherstraeten seems to agree with me. I feel like he would have wanted more but... A failed act, Mr. Verherstraeten!

What the minister says about certain thresholds does not apply only in taxation. For example, social housing is only available to those who earn a certain income. If you exceed that limit by 15 euros, you are not eligible for a social housing.

In social security, in income taxes, in corporate tax, everywhere there are thresholds that, if one exceeds them, result in the exclusion of one or another measure.

The system must be proportionate, as the Minister has pointed out. For the sake of fiscal justice, thresholds must be introduced, so that the measure is ⁇ applicable to the greater assets, the higher incomes. Of course, one can discuss the definition of a high income.

Anyway, you are constantly complaining about the threshold principle. One should rather discuss the mass to which the tax is applicable than the threshold.

Mr. Laaouej, it reassures me that you will not vote against and the tax actually finds a very good idea, which underlines the importance of the present draft.

Colleague Van Rompuy has already pointed out that thresholds are used in terms of social security and taxation as well as in all regulations for granting subsidies. We can discuss this.

In your speech you referred to studies of the National Bank on the wealth and income of the average Belgian. The threshold in the design is undoubtedly higher than the income or wealth of the average Belgian. I will not deny that. But it is the purpose of the proposed tax, which, as colleague Van de Velde stated, is also a property tax, to fully respect the modal Belgian, the middle class. That is the difference in accent that we seem to want to put on.

You are telling me that the average Belgian has 500,000 euros of financial assets. Basically, that’s what you tell me. Mr. Verherstraeten, you just said that we did not want to touch the Belgians of the middle class. The Belgian middle class does not have 500,000 euros of financial assets on an account.

The [...]

What I want to tell you is that he doesn’t have 500,000 euros and he doesn’t have 300,000 euros, Mr. Verherstraeten.

When I asked you at some point if those 500,000 euros corresponded to the average financial assets held by the Belgians, I was answered that no, that it was much less. Does your threshold correspond to something else? For what ? We still do not know.

Mr. Van Rompuy, I thank you for bringing arguments to my thesis. If we limit certain social benefits according to income, it is considered that they should only benefit people who have a medium or modest income. The contribution capacity is taken into account. This is completely in line with what I advocate. We are clearly in phase. The arguments you claim to develop in support of your thesis actually serve mine.

For the rest, you can take taxation as long as it exists. There have always been thresholds and it must be acknowledged that some thresholds are sometimes not justified. This happens. But, in many other cases, the thresholds correspond, in the explanation of the reasons, in the intention of the legislator, to an economic, social and increasingly environmental reason.

In tax parameters, socio-economic data is increasingly taken into account. This seems to be missing here. I say nothing else. You make a political choice.

Let me go to other aspects of this project. In particular, there is the problem of the so-called “anti-abuse” measure. I apologize for having to say that this is the most embarrassing aspect of the way you have legislated. Mr. Gilkinet recalled that this was the fruit of the Zomerakkoord of July. We had to wait until February to get it done. And when we told you to be careful because people are going to organize, we were answered: “No problem. It will be considered that everything that has been done since December 9 is as if it did not exist.” Do you think people have waited until December 9 to organize themselves?

In tax literature, in financial newspapers, numerous statements indicate that this measure will go beyond its target because it has given people time to restructure their financial assets.

Sorry, but I think this anti-abuse provision ...

And again, why did you choose the date of December 9? Some will say it is because December 8 is my birthday day. Those who wrote the terms of this device may have their reasons, I don’t know. I do not want to make a trial of intent.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Laaouej alludes to the fact that people are going to organize themselves. With the retroactivity of the measure, one part is covered, another part is not. One must also imagine how that would work in practice if one rewrite a number of things to place it on name. One would soon have file and administrative costs that exceed 750 euros and then the soup would not be worth the cabbage. And if one organizes itself on a particular account, it will less escape the attention of the fiscal authorities in the context of international transparency. So I don’t know if it would be such an ultimate incentive to immediately organize things differently. The advantage of a modest step forward is also that people will not react very behaviorally.

I would like to mention the following point as a response to your concern. The government has expressed its commitment to reach a certain income threshold. The Minister of Finance has explicitly pledged that, if this is not the case, adjustments will follow until the revenue has been obtained. It is important to emphasize once again that freewheels or escape will not be tolerated. Then the perimeter must be expanded or the controls strengthened. We rely heavily on the amount to be obtained.

So this is the information of the day: the CD&V expects possible changes to the law, if the budget objective is not achieved. Is that what you just said?

Colleague Laaouej, if there is a commitment to obtain certain numbers, then it is obvious that, if the measure cannot generate that, it must be redirected. Otherwise, it makes no sense to make large agreements around it. However, we do not expect major problems at this point because there have already been a lot of upgrades because anti-abuse provisions have been included. Of course, the fate of this or that measure cannot be accurately predicted. The result is very difficult to estimate because the exact level of detail of the financial information is not always available per account holder, but it is intended to make so much. We have already discussed in detail the thresholds and the doors, whether or not on a curve, but the target is clearly set towards capital, with an additional measure that this from a certain threshold must generate so much. If the measure does not impose so much, then it must be updated.

Does the Minister confirm the words of Mr. Deseyn?

Mr. Minister, do you commit, if we do not reach a revenue of 250 million, that is, if the Court of Auditors let us know, that in the end, it is not 250 million, but 100 million, to file a draft amending law to revise the scope, the modalities to reach the 250 million?

It is the government in its entirety that has committed to reach 254 million. The result obtained through these taxes will be subject to a government assessment.

This is a government commitment. In other words, there was an agreement within the government to say that if the amount of 254 million is not reached, the Securities Act will be amended. Is it that?

This is not what I said. I said that the government as a whole had committed to achieving the result of 254 million and that the outcome of these taxes would be evaluated by the government. and .

You can ask me the question a dozen times, my answer will always be the same.

Mr. Minister, you are telling me that if the government should find that the 254 million were not reached, additional measures would be taken by the government. Is that what you say?

and no! I say that the government will proceed with the evaluation of revenues.

Mr. Speaker, we have here the demonstration of the fact that what CD&V considers a commitment is, in fact, only a commitment regarding an assessment. There is no specific commitment to reach the amount in question. And I thank my colleague, Mr. Laaouej, for pushing the government to clarify this issue.

There is no need to question him anymore. The answer is clear: there is no commitment on the amount. There is a commitment to an evaluation.

We are sorry, dear colleagues of CD&V, but under these conditions we will not be able to vote in favour of this bill.

I am talking to my colleagues from CD&V. I think once again, you are getting caught up.

Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on future fiscal measures to be taken by the current and future governments. These measures should be reviewed at the moment they are in place. I only approved a budget.

One of the components of that budget is that the measure we are discussing now would raise 254 million euros. I heard the Minister of Finance here in the Chamber stating that this should be feasible. I also heard today from the Minister of Finance that the government has committed to this.

Let us approve and implement this measure. I am optimistic about the possibility of getting the predetermined amount.

Colleague Laaouej, we will evaluate the measure and adjust it in a timely manner where necessary, as we do with so many fiscal measures. For example, I think of the Kaimantaks. In the course of this legislature, we have adjusted the legislation as soon as necessary and strengthened various fiscal measures. If necessary, we will do so in the future.

Mr. Speaker, as my excellent group leader Mr. Nollet says, you really tend the other cheek! How many examples do you need to cite, since the beginning of the legislature, of laws that have not produced the new tax revenues announced?

You yourself have cited the Caiman tax, of which the Court of Auditors tells us that the recipe is impossible to evaluate, but we are really very far from the levels of revenue that Mr. Minister had announced to me in response to an oral question. There was this famous surplus-value tax, another victory of CD&V, which was never implemented. And today, there is this tax on the title accounts.

I could add to this the revenues from the fight against tax fraud but, every time, the budget results are catastrophic, diametrically opposed to the revenues announced and recorded in your budgets! And what happens in the end? There is a budget deficit and Mr. Van Overtveldt and members of his party tell us that we will still need to make savings... on social security.

You must be the guarantor of all this. And if this futile commitment of collective assessment suits you, it is that you really have to be a believer. Believing in the good faith of the N-VA. But I do not believe it!

I understand the political game played by the opposition. She tries to jenew our good colleague of the majority, of CD&V. But let us be honest and let us be objective.

This year’s tax revenues are fundamentally much higher than ever before. These income are income from labor, income from capital, and many other forms of income. Will each specific measure telkenmale be evaluated separately in this Parliament? I did not think!

The totality of the picture clearly proves that both the tax shift introduced in the personal tax and the tax shift now introduced in the corporate company has brought a fair distribution between what labour and capital as such generate tax.

In this context, we have reached an agreement to impose an effect tax. What it will bring will show the future. This is never known with a new tax measure. We did not know it at the time of Di Rupo, we did not know it at the time of Verhofstadt, we did not know it at the time of Leterme, we never knew it.

Whenever such a new measure was introduced, we never knew in advance what that measure would bring. But there is clear evidence, 2017 has proven it, that tax revenues are much higher than what was projected. These revenues come not only from labor, colleagues of the opposition, but above all from capital. Let us be honest with each other about this.

Today, weighing this measure on a scale and evaluating every so many months what it will bring is pointless. We will see. We have concluded an agreement. It is clear that we want to address the capabilities. The resources must contribute. We have reached an agreement on this with all majority political parties. We will go ahead, and we will see what this measure brings. We will not be distracted by fetishist talk that wants to weigh everything on a scale. We will see at the end of the year what the result will be. 2017 has proved that the results are there!

Mr. Speaker, I did not actually intend to speak, but I would like to talk a little about the figures.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us be honest and correct. However, if this government makes a budget, it is intended that it is fair and correct, that those estimates are fair and correct.

Then I really do not understand that all the opinions taken on this measure and given to the government and to the Parliament are simply wiped off the table. I also do not understand that CD&V today says that there is a commitment for 254 million euros, while anyone who has given a advice on that, it disputes.

The [...]

Except for the Minister of Finance, who you have already rolled out a few times. I can give you the list. Read the blogs of Van Rompuy’s colleague on it and you know what I mean. I am not going to talk about CD&V in its entirety, but the chairman of the Committee for Finance, of any political party, has repeatedly said that the estimates of this Minister of Finance are neither side nor side. I can give you the list, but I am not going to do it now.

I want to talk about the effect rate.

The National Bank estimates that at 163 million euros. The European Commission says that 175 million euros is reasonable. Febelfin speaks of between 170 and 190 million euros, assuming that there is no evasion. This government has now registered a very faint anti-abuse measure, so it is assumed that there will indeed be evasion. All these agencies indicate that it will make 60 to 90 million less.

Why are we still asking for advice to those agencies if you can do what you want, if the Minister of Finance can write what he wants and if CD&V says that the Minister has said it and that it will be true? That is what it is about!

If you are correct and honest, then you should at least follow – I ⁇ ’t believe it yet – what the National Bank says. However, you’re hiding behind it all the time, if it’s good for you. Now you are not following the National Bank. That is the wrongness and hypocrisy behind this measure!

Mr. Verherstraeten, I understand that you refer to the Caiman tax to try to brand it as a trophy. Indeed, the government majority arranged itself, in an unhonest but rather subtle way, so that we cannot know the yield of the Caiman tax. This does not appear in the tax return of those who mention it. Everyone suspects that it does not deliver the expected amount at all, but it is impossible to prove it formally.

Per ⁇ , however, have you missed the opportunity, at CD&V, to do the same with this new tax on securities accounts, and also to make it impossible to calculate its yield? I say you should have done it, but maybe you did. Per ⁇ there is a secret agreement within the majority so that the tax return on securities accounts cannot be calculated? In this way, it cannot be said that it has not achieved the yield that was expected. Are you using the same technique? I would like to know. Per ⁇ the Minister of Finance can certify us the budget yield of this tax? Mr. Van Overtveldt, is this the case? Will it be possible to calculate the tax return on securities accounts, or will it be the same as for the Cayman tax return?

Different members have asked for the word. The floor is given to Ms. Smaers. Members have the right to interrupt. When they ask for the word for an interruption, they receive it. Interruptions are limited to two minutes each.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to, among others, Mr. Vanvelthoven. It is not our duty to take a tax as a trophy.

What we are talking about is about another step in a fair taxation. I would like to hear more about this in the debate.

Colleague Vanvelthoven, you do not like to hear it, but during this legislature there has been much more work done of shifting charges and taxation, from charges on labor to capital than during the previous government periods.

This was possible thanks to a lot of movements during this legislature. I am talking not only about the tax shift, but about the effect tax, the kaaimantaks, the bank tax and the increase of the moving advance tax.

We cannot look beyond the immense shift of burdens on labour to capital and wealth this legislature. Only a few months ago, during the discussion of the budget in Parliament, we were able to reveal that those listed operations represented an additional increase in the burden on capital and assets of almost 3 billion euros.

We are not talking about a trophy of an equity tax, but about fair taxation, for which we systematically take important steps. This is what we are talking about and I would like the debate to be more focused on this.

Mr. Speaker, I can only agree with what Ms. Smaers is bringing here. However, I would like to point out to Mr Vanvelthoven the following.

It is, I think, in the long run his personal pleasure to point out to the Minister of Finance every time that he will not get his income, that he is calculating incorrectly, and so on. That accusation becomes quite ridiculous, if one takes the figures of 2017 and determines that we were well above the budget at the time with revenues.

There is more. With the Minister’s fiscal-stimulating policy, we are also on a growth path and it is even possible that we ⁇ a budget balance, all thanks to the income.

The piece that the minister does not respect the incomes is of zero and no value. It is completely in sharp contrast to reality, which shows that income even exceeds expectations.

Mr. Speaker, I was not convinced by everything I could hear about the banks of the majority with quite contradictory things.

On the other hand, I would like to address those and those who, at CD&V, believe in this measure and its budgetary scope. Make sure there is a separate code that will allow you to verify that the budget goal is well achieved! What happened to the Caiman tax? The Court of Auditors came to say that everything was mixed in the furniture pre-account and that it was therefore impossible to verify whether the budget objective had been achieved or not. Be careful not to get caught up and not to be told in a few months, by the mouth of the Court of Auditors, for example, that it is impossible to verify the budget objective because there, you will have been widely grumbled.

Possibly see if Febelfin can’t help you through internal statistics but be careful not to get you hurt! I believe that all conditions are met in order for us to find ourselves in the same scenario as the Caiman tax. I think you have no formal agreement on the fact that, in the event that it is verified that the budget objective is not achieved, there will be compensatory measures. No, you have an agreement on the evaluation. Everyone will come with their methodology and everyone will come with their numbers. Good luck in contrasting the figures that the Minister of Finance will give you!

For the rest, I repeat, the provision "anti-abuse" does not look like anything. It covers conversions of nominal securities into non-nominal securities and also covers transactions that are after 9 December. You completely miss the target and, on the other hand, you did not answer those and those who told you that, since July, some have organized transfer of ownership of assets in order to be able to split the assets and avoid taxation.

I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, because a whole series of other things have been said. I am really concerned about the reliability of the device from a legal point of view. The budget objective is not at hand. The Commission says it, Febelfin says it, the National Bank also. Mr Vanvelthoven recalled it. From then, I have the impression once again that here, we come with a sort of mascarade despite an intention to which we could have adhered.

Mr. Laaouej, I would like to comment on your last point, the income and the anti-abuse provisions.

First, the government, following the advice of the State Council, has taken a number of measures. A newspaper that is ⁇ not a supporter of the securities tax, De Tijd, published an article on Saturday, January 27, which says, among other things, that spreading the securities portfolio over multiple accounts is not a solution. Taxpayers will be required to indicate on the tax return whether they have one or more securities accounts.

Second, you can name the shares, but if they were not converted before December 9, 2017, you pay the tax for another year. Some say that the anti-abuse provisions do not apply to funds and bonds. However, this has not been proven. Now we are talking about escape routes for the value tax by naming bonds. Well, this is a very difficult track.

The Time also quotes a banker: “When it comes to 500 000 euros, you pay a tax of about 750 euros. If it is about 1 million euros, then you pay 1,500 euros.” In the newspaper I read and I hear that also from tax specialists that for people who have a securities portfolio of 1 million euros and have to pay a tax of 1 500 euros on it, the entire construction for converting into shares on the name is not worth it. That ⁇ does not get the return of simply paying the tax.

Let me read for a moment what tax lawyer Anton van Zantbeek says about this. "It is said that people with their money will go abroad to avoid the value tax. Effective moving is shooting with a cannon on a mosquito.”

First, therefore, a lot of pistes have already been closed as regards the avoidance mechanisms that were anticipated, in particular by the provisions registered by the government following the opinion of the State Council.

Second, it is not desirable, in terms of taxation, that people with securities accounts of 500 000 euros start to name shares or set up tax structures. They will then pay much more to the bank or to a fiscal advisor than the amount of the tax.

There is a lot of discussion about the yield, but let’s better wait. The forecasts are based, among other things, on figures from the National Bank and the masses provided for them. We will see what the final output will be.

It is true that I have sometimes expressed doubts about the income of certain taxes. Sometimes that was right too. When new taxes are levied, such as the Kaiman Taxes, it is not obvious to determine how much those taxes will be levied. In the case of the Kaimantaks, which would generate EUR 560 million, we were ultimately unable to verify the yield.

Mr. Laaouej, you have already said in advance that the €250 million of the current measure cannot be achieved, while you do not know how investors and banks will react. Banks are expected to do so in a correct and fair manner, including with respect to the government. The commitment made by the legislator will have to be fulfilled by the banks. Will the result be 170 million euros, 195 million euros or 235 million euros? No one can say that at the moment.

This effect tax is not what we initially wanted. We are still in favour of value added tax.

The (...)

Mr. Cheron, I look forward to the speech of a member of Ecolo-Groen, to hear how your group thinks of taxing the wealth, what income thresholds you will build, how Ecolo-Groen will apply one and the other. I have been waiting for three years for an elaborate taxation of Ecolo-Groen, because your group wants to extract 4 billion euros from the assets.

The [...]

Madame Almaci, please be concrete. You have never been concrete. I have never heard from Mr. Calvo how this will be completed. Since you now get 20% in the polls, you have also become a bit afraid of the middle class, which you do not want to ignore, as in other files. Regarding property tax, I would like to know from you what amounts you mean? We are talking about an effect tax that will generate 250 million euros. From Green I would like to hear what thresholds you set forth and how you will carry it through?

Before giving the floor to Mrs. Almaci, I would like to recall the agreement that the interruptions would be limited to two minutes.

The question was addressed to the President of Greens. The Greens will answer.

In Parliament for ten years has been a bill proposed by the Greens on the introduction of a property cadastre. CD&V can immediately approve this. This is the key to the whole debate. Open Vld and the MR would not applaud for this. The question is when CD&V will finally admit color, because that is the whole key to the asset debate. You try to swim around it every time, but if that is mapped, then we can enter our asset yield tax. This is a concrete response to the challenge. To that fundamental question about an asset cadastre – you know this very well, Mr. Van Rompuy – we do not even get a one-sided one-sided answer from CD&V. Then there is only silence.

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to Mr. Van Rompuy in his first part, where he ⁇ a number of arguments drawn from an article in De Tijd. However, sometimes you need to be careful of those who reassure you because they may have an interest in that tax addresses ⁇ high ambitions in terms of budget performance. It is a way, for them, to calm a little the political game and, above all, the ardor of those who would like to expand the scope of application. Beware, however, of those and those who say that everything is fine, that this tax will bear its fruits. They may be interested in the fact that it doesn’t work and therefore in making you believe it will work.

When I speak of split, it is not in the head of the same person. I’m talking about someone who organized to make property transfers to other people, especially within the same family. This is not a split in the head of the same taxpayer, but of several taxpayers. And you do not respond to that.

The second point is not just the transformation of nominative assets into non-nominative assets, or non-nominative assets into nominative assets. There is also the change in the nature of the financial asset. Transfer of a financial asset covered by the tax to a financial asset not covered by the tax. We have had a whole debate about hedge products that are used for speculative purposes, which today constitute the majority of financial flows, and therefore the underlying assets.

Another point that I also find very important is that the Court of Auditors – contrary to what you say, Mr. Van Rompuy – has integrated the problem of behavioral change. And precisely because the government does not take into account changes in behavior, the Court of Auditors cannot validate the budget objective.

I will continue this discussion with my colleagues.

Colleague Van Rompuy, I am also a reader of The Time.

You have just listed a number of avoidance mechanisms that are difficult according to The Time. For example, spreading the securities portfolio over multiple accounts is not a solution and also the conversion into securities by name is not as obvious, as you rightly indicate.

However, Time today indicates a number of other avoidance mechanisms that you may not have, consciously, mentioned. Usually the securities account is now on behalf of one partner, but one can easily divide that over two partners to get below the limit of 500 000 euros.

The Time today also indicates that you will pay a tax if you host those securities in a company, a legal entity, from January 1 of this year. Then one must pay the tax if the contribution has the sole purpose of evading the tax. My question then is how the tax authority will determine what or not is the only motive for such input. This will cause many discussions between the tax authorities and the taxpayers. Therefore, there are still evasion possibilities, also according to The Time.

I do not want to extend this, but it is about the substance of the case.

You are talking about a couple who wants to do tax optimization. I also read Time. It states that one must take into account that if one as a couple transfers certain amounts, for example in case of divorce or to avoid the tax, one can fall under the legislation on the donations. And a donation tax could be higher than the effect tax of 0.15%.

I'm not a banker and I don't know how the transactions will all go, but the more I read what specialists write, the more I realize that all this is very complicated. A couple that separates and regulates a number of matters through donation falls under the legislation on the donation. A donation also has certain percentages, which must be calculated. Some call the figure of 0.15% ridiculously low. This is being laughed.

I can hardly imagine that someone who has 1 million euros of investments, and thus has to pay 1,500 euros, will put on a huge tax structure to avoid that tax, with the risk of being eligible to pay other taxes. The same applies to a company. If one houses his securities in a company from 1 January to avoid tax, the question is how the tax authority will determine what or not is the only motive for such a contribution.

Mr Van Rompuy, you have to finish.

Mr. Speaker, I am upset that this issue is being discussed in slogans.

If one looks at this measure, one can find that this is actually much better than you think, Mr. Vanvelthoven. The escape routes will be much more limited than you think. I think even a return of 250 million euros is ⁇ feasible.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, this bill is part of a coherent vision that presides over a number of measures aimed at stimulating employment, purchasing power and supporting ⁇ , in particular SMEs. It also aims to ensure the long-term financing of pensions and our social security, but also to strengthen social cohesion. In this sense, the draft tax on securities accounts demonstrates our government’s commitment to more tax equity. It is part of a fairer fiscal policy and reflects the concern to make everyone contribute to the collective effort. Its goal is to impose the highest assets at a moderate rate of 0.15% on an annual basis.

The threshold chosen is related to the expected budgetary performance of securities accounts whose average value of financial instruments is equal to or exceeds EUR 500 000. Taxable financial instruments are known for their relatively volatile nature, facilitating financial transactions aimed at producing enrichment more than a long-term investment. This is why nominative shares held in a stock register, rather than on a securities account, fall outside the scope of the tax. Similarly, the share held by means of a life insurance or a pension savings scheme is not concerned, having not in itself the same remuneration volatility.

From a procedural point of view, a simplified application of this tax for banks was envisaged. We welcome the anti-abuse measures, which will partly guarantee its efficiency by combating attempts to escape, and which will make the implementation of the text more effective.

It is a project that is part of a comprehensive agreement, consisting of essential and necessary reforms. The socio-economic results of the policy are tangible and demonstrate that the solutions provided by our government are relevant and aim to gradually improve the well-being of our fellow citizens.

Therefore, our group will support this project of tax fairness, whose revenues will contribute to the financing and the continuation of the necessary structural reforms.

As for the remarks of some colleagues, I note that, when Ms. Pas declares that Flanders will contribute more than Wallonia to the tax on securities, no member of the opposition is rushing. But when we know that the GDP in Flanders represents 59% of the Belgian GDP while in Wallonia it represents 23%, we can actually think that the Flemish contribution is likely to be greater than that of the Wallons.

On the other hand, when my colleague Mr. Van de Velde says that the tax reform will benefit more Flemish SMEs, then there is a toll. But when you look at the figures, 56% of SMEs are established in Flanders, compared to 27% in Wallonia. Then, of course, the 56 percent will benefit more than the 27 percent, which is purely mathematical. And I begin to understand why we want to revise the Pact of Excellence in the Wallonia-Brussels Community, because obviously, we can no longer calculate!

Mr. Speaker, today’s debate in Parliament is a true spectacle, because it’s not about who gets the plum or who gets the trophy. On the contrary, it is a fata morgana, because we are debating about something that will not actually exist. I have also said this in the committee, not because I myself am so well inspired, but because I just read what our main advisory body, the Council of State, gives us, and because I read what top tax lawyers write about it. So we are conducting a debate about something that will not be and will bring nothing. The intention may be to tax something, but in reality it will not be the case. Therefore, it makes little sense for us to take part in such a policy and approve something that we know will not happen.

I am glad that there is another Open Vld’er present, the only real, Mr. Van Biesen. Of course, it would be good for Annemie Turtelboom, who has been nominated as a member of the European Court of Auditors and also important, to give her light on the income of the tax.

In any case, colleagues of the majority, Carina Van Cauter said in the newspaper about the postponed bill surrounding the house searches, about which we just talked: "It makes little sense to propose a solution that you can suspect will sink before the Constitutional Court." This was stated by Open Vld yesterday about the bill on house searches. What Ms. Van Cauter said is very sensible.

Unfortunately, Open Vld does not use the same argument here. The State Council has ruled twice that this violates the principle of equality. He warns of destruction by the Constitutional Court.

After the first opinion of the State Council, there were some reactions from the majority, especially from the N-VA corner, that the State Council made to politics, statements that are regrettable. Well, I read those advice carefully. The Council of State does not say that the legislature may possibly treat taxable persons differently. The State Council does not say that the legislator is not allowed to make choices. Nor does the State Council say that the legislator should not conduct policy. We can all of this from the Council of State. The only thing the State Council says is that there must be due accountability if there is a difference in treatment. Even after the rewrite of the draft law, the accountability has been assessed by the Council of State as inadequate.

I do not understand why the legislation should not be improved, if you really intend to let the Securities Act pass the constitutional test and sort out real effect. Why can't the text be rewritten for a piece so that all objections disappear?

We have submitted amendments. We presented them today in the plenary session. These are not amendments to bully you. These are amendments to ensure that the Securities Act will also be effectively applied. If those amendments are simply wiped off the table, it can mean only one thing, namely that the current effect tax is designed to fail. That is my fundamental criticism. These are not blatant statements. These are comments, which I have made repeatedly.

I understand the statement of colleague Smaers of CD&V. According to her, the government has already done a lot and she wanted to talk about the essence. The essence is the effect tax, but it came with other arguments.

I can also mention other things. The first thing that CD&V got rid of for the sake of tax fairness was the value-added tax on shares. This should be done to strengthen the principle of fair taxation. That tax did not come.

The second is speculation. That was the trophy. I remember that at that time there was a lot of discussion in the majority, because actually no one of the majority wanted that tax. This has also been demonstrated in the facts, for the effect tax was reversed; it was scrapped, because it cost more money than it earned.

Now a third attempt is made to realize the fair tax, on which CD&V rightly insists. But as I just said, this tax will not come into reality.

We make a number of suggestions, which I will briefly explain, to improve the legislation on the effect tax. These are reasonable adjustments. I realize that the majority does not even consider any text of the opposition worth investigating and votes away by definition. But here we make reasonable proposals and they make for us the difference between approval of the bill, because we are convinced that the tax can really come, and rejection, because we are for now convinced that the tax will never actually come.

I would like to briefly explain the amendments.

Mr. Vanvelthoven, before you do that, there is an interruption from Mr. De Roover.

So we will now receive a series of suggestions from the sp.a-fraction, which you have discovered in a pursuit of tax fairness. We have already heard a lot about this. Bottomline means you mean that the tax system you left behind is fiscally unfair, because after all, you have had the chance to ⁇ tax fairness on previous occasions. Apparently, you expect the majority to do what the majority you were part of has never succeeded. Your ambition for government is higher than the ambition you ever had yourself when you were in the majority. This is right, and we are doing better in this area.

You said later that we should talk about the essence. We really need to make some summaries. After all, with every measure the government has taken in this regard, you have always pushed forward the little bit that it would do nothing, that it would be a shake in a bottle.

Today, however, we see that the revenues as budgeted by the government and the Minister of Finance in budgeting have been taken, contrary to what you have pushed forward here.

Furthermore, it cannot be denied that the totality of the measures taken by this Government has resulted in a rearrangement in which the asset component accounts for the income more than before.

If you add that the total tax burden decreases, a simple rule of three is sufficient to conclude that we have not only received a shift to the asset component but that we could add a reduction to the total tax burden. This is a achievement that we are extremely proud of, especially because the revenue is on track.

The numbers summed up, colleague Vanvelthoven, speak factually and demonstrably against any criticism you have pushed forward in the past.

I would like to remind all of you that an interruption may last a maximum of two minutes.

I give a short response.

First, it is not because the proceeds of another measure are slightly higher than estimated that we should not criticize the fact that other new measures sold here by the majority to Parliament as additional proceeds, in fact, do nothing or even cost us. That is what I am concerned with.

Secondly, under the previous government, we tried to get through the value-added tax on shares. It did not succeed, that is true. The liberals have deterred this, as the liberals have deterred the proposal of CD&V under this government. That is so.

You can blame us for this, but in the future the liberals will be so small that we will get the value-added tax on shares.

You can’t get everything through, colleague De Roover. I have read in recent weeks that the N-VA absolutely wanted to reverse the nuclear exit. I feel like you won’t get through that either. We will see.

Unfortunately, not everything can be done in a government. We have never been so close to an absolute majority that we have had that illusion.

In order to get something through, there is a struggle for it. If CD&V at some point in this legislature also comes up with a value-added tax on shares, we are very happy to support it. We will continue to do that too.

It is absolutely true, Mr. Vanvelthoven, that if one does not have an absolute majority, one does not get everything through it. However, I note that in the pursuit of tax fairness, we get more from it than you have ever succeeded.

Everyone sets what they want, I only know that CD&V, a key partner of you in this government, from the beginning of this legislature, considered it important that, within the framework of fiscal justice, there should be a value added tax on stocks. He did not come. Then something else had to come, now the effect tax has to come and it will not come again.

It’s not just a plea from our party or the opposition. It is a plea from CD&V that we would love to support. If CD&V asks for that, there will be a reason for it. What reason ? Something else is possible in this area, and because it is really necessary in the context of fair taxation.

Mr. Speaker, after Mr. De Roover’s presentation, I have felt that again one is not inclined to listen to suggestions for improvement, that one knows it all better, that what the opposition says is not the trouble to listen to.

(...): The CD&V is listening

CD&V listen to us or they listen to us, that’s something else.

Indeed, after the second opinion of the State Council, the government added an anti-abuse provision to the bill. This means that shares held on a securities account and converted into shares held on a securities register from 9 December will be subject to the securities tax for another year.

Mr. Van Rompuy just said that the evasion trail costs people so much money that they do not do that evasion. If that’s true, I don’t understand why this rule comes in. It is one or the other. Mr. Minister, either your story is correct that people will not escape and then the provision is not necessary, or a anti-abuse provision is needed – in our opinion it is necessary – but then I wonder why that date was fixed on 9 December 2017. Why is that date 9 December 2017?

The measure was announced on 26 July 2017. It is therefore logical that that date is taken to enable the anti-abuse provision to enter into force because from that date the persons concerned knew what would follow.

The measure was then announced in the Summer Agreement. We do not take into account that the details were not known until September 2017.

What prevents this majority from stating that everything that has occurred since the announcement – such a provision has been included in legislation in the past – is considered as evasion? The Minister now proposes in Parliament to consider something as avoidance, though not from July 2017 but from 9 December 2017.

So let us just record the date correctly, namely at the time of the announcement. That is the time when some might have been triggered to avoid taxation. So let’s move that date to July 26, 2017.

This is the first proposal we make.

A second proposal has also been cited by Ms. Pas. The second anti-abuse provision concerns the deposit of securities accounts in a legal entity. That measure shall apply only from 1 January 2018 and only if the input has the sole purpose of evading the tax.

I am reading what the State Council is presenting to us on this subject. The Council of State notes that it is not clear why it is stipulated that the sole purpose should be to avoid taxation. If the person concerned continues to establish for another reason, such as succession planning, the anti-abuse provision in question could not be applied.

Again, not me, but a tax specialist, especially Govaerts, says that it becomes very difficult for the tax authority to prove that evading the tax is the only purpose. If we are warned of this by tax specialists and by the Council of State, then I propose to amend the text. My second amendment makes the government’s anti-abuse provision more impactful.

We have submitted two other amendments, primarily to make it possible to control them.

In conclusion, I would like to say that we would like the effect tax to come true. However, today’s approval is not a guarantee for this. On the contrary, all the advice we receive about this indicates that there will be no effect tax in practice. Fiscal lawyers are ready to step to the Constitutional Court, which will destroy the text, given the opinion of the Council of State. With a few amendments, we try to update some things out of good intentions.

I would like to ask you to seriously consider our amendments and improve the law by approving our amendments. In this case, you can count on our vote. However, if you think that we are still making nonsense after statements from the State Council and tax lawyers, then you reject our amendments, but you do not have to count on our support.

The objective of tax justice deserves that I rise to the tribune. In any case, it deserves better than the text that was submitted to us by the majority. This is one of the pieces of the horror gallery currently being debated in this parliament. There are the 500 euros of occasional work taxed, which make all the interlocutors react; the cash for cars measure that is not at the height of the ambitions and needs regarding the company car and the reduction of cars on the roads; the text on home visits debated in the context of current issues; different measures in the field of pensions...

All these pieces have common characteristics: they are, in law, poorly elaborated. The State Council systematically releases it without causing reaction and correction in the lead of the majority; they are not concerted and, when the opposition manages to persuade the majority to organize hearings, too often in a hurry, one realizes that, too often, the field actors have not been concerted or listened because the majority is accustomed to being right.

If the goals are sometimes generous – one can share, Mr. Van Rompuy, the goal of making more contributions from capital revenues – it is only on paper, because they cannot be met by what appears in the texts.

The majority agreement ultimately only holds through a form of mutual and permanent blackmail within the majority: “If you do not vote for my text, I will not vote for yours.”

Everyone can be mistaken. But rather than admitting that it is possible to do better, to rely on the expertise of the field players, you prefer to press the accelerator, darken in the fog.

This text does not in any way meet the ambitions of tax justice and few people, in the majority, assume it. Mr. Deseyn has made an honorable effort and some members of CD&V persist in believing it. But the other majority parties support him from the end of the lips. Mr. Piedboeuf, it is worse in the corridors, because the word is free there.

Some have made their predictions.

The usual allusions of some members of the opposition suggest that something is going on there. Mr. Gilkinet, have you heard me say something else in the corridors than what I just said?

I wasn’t targeting you, but I was about to name a name.

In this case, you should not mention my name, Mr. Gilkinet! I assume everything I do, which is not always the case with you.

Can you explain, Mr. Piedboeuf?

I did like you: I said nothing!

Do not say anything!

I will quote a member of the majority who clearly expressed himself in the Finance Committee by predicting a decision of the Constitutional Court that would break this text as others have been before. The fairness tax was quoted and, at the time, I remember having debated with Ms. Onkelinx telling her that her trophy, like that of CD&V, is not so beautiful as that. It is not solid in law. This forecast had been formulated by Mr. Van Biesen and more than a forecast, I have the weakness to think that it was a hope.

The announced revenues of this measure are invariably EUR 254 million (magic figure fixed in the zomerakkoord and contained in government budget documents). Several instances have attempted to determine the origin of this figure: first, the Court of Auditors who advises us annually in the analysis of budgets; others have also tried to do so.

The text has evolved. Its scope was, on the one hand, restricted by the government. On the other hand, multiple fiscalists have expressed themselves, again this weekend, in De Tijd on the possibilities of evading the tax.

This is the situation on 9 December that will count in the application of the tax while the measure is known since 27 July. But the expected amount of revenue related to the measure remains invariably EUR 254 million. You really need to have faith to believe in this recipe.

The discussion on tax revenues comes back regularly here. I heard Mr. De Roover, Mr. Van Biesen speak about the effectiveness, the quality of tax receipts.

It is easy to present agglomerate figures in an international context known for low rates, where the price of oil is low, and to refuse that the assessment is possible measure by measure.

The work of a government, of a majority, of a finance minister is also assessed measure by measure. When you announce a surplus-value tax, it is normal that you can evaluate its effects. However, this will not be possible because it has been cancelled.

When we announce the Caiman tax, it is normal that we can evaluate its effect. You have decided not to allow it. The same applies to the diamond tax and the tax in question.

Let us do our work on behalf of the people! In any case, as far as we are concerned, we are not among those who believe in this amount of 254 million euros.

All the reasons I have cited and the specific technical problems, including the threshold effect, which we have also discussed, pose a problem for us. In fiscal and social policies, an amount is actually fixed, an amount that determines whether or not you are receiving aid. However, progressivity can also be applied. There could be different levels to avoid the threshold being so high. What justifies that the holding of a title account of EUR 499 999 does not give rise to payment and that it is from EUR 500 000? There were opportunities to be much more progressive and therefore more fair, as is the case in the case of personal tax. The more layers there are, the more progressivity there is, the more fair a system is. This one is not!

The ability to control raises another question. We have proposed that it is not the taxpayer who declares to hold securities accounts, but that the declaration is made directly, as is the case for labor income, by the person who pays the wage, here, in this case, by the banking institution that manages the securities accounts. There will therefore be no declaration by an external body, but simply a will to declare. As far as the pre-count on savings books is concerned, we have seen that this system did not work.

Finally, the measure is easy to bypass, by its date of entry into force. We are again submitting our amendments, which propose to take into account the date of first announcement of the measure, 26 July, in order to determine whether or not this tax on securities accounts must be paid. Many operators have offered holders of securities accounts to change the legal form of those securities accounts to avoid tax. There is a possibility of split accounts. We have submitted amendments to ensure that the announced anti-abuse measures are effective. They were rejected. This is a bad text, a hole tax, declared intentions, accompanied by a device that will not respond to the intention of fiscal justice.

If we are optimistic, we will say that this is a first step. If you are pessimistic, you will say that it doesn’t look like anything. We will be between the two and we will abstain, greeting the effort and difficult struggle led by the CD&V, but we will obviously not be able to support a text with so many weaknesses. You are very far from the goal of tax justice, which would be to consider capital income as labour income and to expand the taxable base, and then to apply a much more progressive taxation.

There will be an evaluation, Mr. Cheron, indeed, and we will return to the subject at that time. We may then be able to modify the text. We wanted a much more progressive taxation, which would improve the income of the middle class, and of the upper middle class, who have fewer resources. It would make sure that those who really have a lot of resources contribute more. It would be more efficient from an economic point of view and more fair from a social point of view.

This text is far from this ideal and we will not be able to support it.

Mr. President, for Mr. Gilkinet, the objective of tax justice justifies that one goes up to the tribune. We can understand it. But, for me, the indigence of this text does not justify so much honor. I will stay in my place and tell you what I think. Finally, in the majority too, few speakers had the courage to climb to the tribune to assume this text. Only Mr. Deseyn took this risk, the others preferring to hide behind him by attributing a supposed responsibility to him in this text.

We have talked a lot about a more equitable tax policy, which would contribute more capital than labour, which would be based on a real contributive capacity on the part of everyone. Everyone can obviously agree with these beautiful formulas, but it really takes a lot of naivety to think that this text is really part of the implementation of a fairer fiscal policy.

I prefer naivety to lucidity. And, if I had to qualify the text that is subject to our examination, I would use two words. The first thing that comes to my mind is denial, because in fact, the proposal that is on the table goes against the general principles defended by many of the majority parties. It must be said that this is not the first time that general principles are invoked to, in the end, in a somewhat miserable way, apply them in a contradictory way.

I say this by thinking especially of all those who have always advocated for a taxation of the income of capital and not of capital itself. This was the traditional position of the MR, in particular, who has always considered it a nonsense to tax capital. I said it in the committee and allow myself to repeat it here: the Prime Minister himself, in April 2015, made an interesting statement that reaffirmed the MR’s line on taxation.

He said this: "There is a difference between taxing the income from wealth and taxing wealth. I think that taxing the wealth is nonsense because it only helps to make the wealth run away and, therefore, we lose the added value for consumption. The few countries that had embarked on this have all gone backwards, except a few for ideological reasons.”

After hearing Mr. Piedboeuf say that this measure was part of a coherent policy on the part of the government, I confess that I wonder a little about the coherence of the MR, because, between what the prime minister said in 2015 and what the MR accepts in 2018, there is a complete contradiction. The tax turn is a 180-degree turn.

I do not want to target the person of the prime minister but, objectively, we asked ourselves who was the father carrying this device. It was well understood that this was not the N-VA, since Mr. Van de Velde said very clearly that he would vote against this text. This confirms, however, that we are in a complete shift compared to the starting options. I do not think the origin of the text is to be found on the side of the Open Vld. Mr. Deseyn explained well that it was not at all a trophy for CD&V. Finally, when one remembers a little of the feedback – the difficulties in which the majority found itself in 2016 to reach an agreement and the conditions under which, in 2017, the white smoke came out of the government conclave – one can only come to one conclusion: the prime minister himself put on the table a proposal that allows for consensus within his majority. This is indeed his role as the leader of the majority, but by doing so, I think he turned out to be the true “carrying father” of this proposal that contradicts what he himself said in 2015.

Mr Dispa, there is an interruption from Mr Van Rompuy.

With pleasure, Mr. President, and with a lot of interest as always.

Monsieur Dispa, vous avez ce que la N-VA va voter cela à contrecœur. and no. M. Van de Velde: “I am a cool lover.”

So he is a lover of the text, a cool lover, but still a lover. He will not vote a contrecoeur. That is why I wanted to translate it. He is a lover. I don’t know if it matters if he is a cool lover or not. If one does the mine, cold or not, one does the mine. He will approve the effect tax, and in my opinion not à contrecoeur.

Mr. Speaker, I still love the interventions of Mr. Van Rompuy, in the Finance Committee as here in the House of Representatives! He puts his finger, in fact, on this paradox that characterizes the set of majority parties that ultimately vote a text of which they do not know very well where it comes from, which they have never really defended, but which will nevertheless end up being voted at the end of the session.

If it’s a rejection – it’s the first word that comes to mind when I analyze the device – I would like to say that it’s also clearly a deception. Because in reality, and this is probably the reason why some will vote against the text, it is well known that the goal will ultimately not be achieved. The scope of this tax on securities accounts has been so reduced that the target will not be reached.

The tax targets securities accounts but does not concern nominal shares. Individuals who hold significant fortunes often through holdings are not targeted if their shares are nominative. The tax can be easily bypassed through the latter, through branch 23, through the real estate. There may also be assets on several securities accounts so as not to exceed the fateful threshold of 500,000 euros without fearing much. The tax applies to natural persons but not to companies.

Just read the press of the last few months to realize that there are really a lot of escapes. Experts succeed to explain to the taxpayer how to escape this tax. This is a fraud that will miss its target. This is what the State Council explains in its at least critical opinion: it makes it clear that while the aim is to tax citizens who have capital, the fact of excluding nominal shares from the scope of the tax is all but obvious.

It is hard to be clearer! This is both a missed goal and a text that is a source of discrimination. Not only because certain categories of shares will not be affected, but also because of the famous threshold of 500,000 euros that has already been much discussed.

There is, of course, a threshold – I have followed the debates closely. Thresholds are always required in the legislation, that is obvious. The problem is not so much the existence of this threshold but the absence of any motivation in its determination. This is where the real difficulty lies. What are the tax, economic, statistical criteria that justify the fixation of this threshold at 500,000 euros?

There is no one. There is no objective element. In the Finance Committee, the Minister of Finance has been very honest. He said the criterion was “political”. This is the term he used. I think by doing so, he said the truth. It is indeed political. This is a way of saying that it is arbitrary. In any case, this is how all those who are already preparing to bring appeals before the Constitutional Court will be able to interpret your words, because discrimination is so obvious that it fragilizes the arrangement you claim to support, Mr. Minister.

By doing this act of frankness, you eventually threw an extra pellet of land on a device that you had already buried since, even before the State Council ruled, you had exposed in the press that there was a very large risk of discrimination. It was worth it, at the time, to be reminded of the order by the Prime Minister who had indicated that this agreement must absolutely be implemented. He will indeed be. However, you have already raised doubts about the legal validity of the device. The State Council gave you the right. Somewhere, you confirmed this analysis by stating that the threshold in the text is a political threshold, and therefore arbitrary.

All this makes it possible to consider that the device will not be operational and that, on the contrary, it will die quite quickly from its beautiful death. I am not delighted with this, but one can fear that this tax on securities accounts will suffer the same fate as the tax on speculation. Some have said that CD&V will be trapped. I believe that it is not the CD&V who will be trapped, it is the citizen who will be trapped, the one who, a little naively, could consider that there was a step towards more tax justice, towards more tax equity. No, this man has been deceived. The measure that is being examined is both a denial and a false-appearance.

A word, to be in line with what colleagues have already said, on the expected budget return with this 254 million figure paradox that was announced as early as the 2017 summer arbitration and which was ⁇ ined against winds and tide. Even if you adapted the text and interpreted it differently, in fact, it is a kind of starting postulate. It costs 254 million. It is clear, listening to the representatives of the majority, that this goal will not be achieved.

This has already been stated by all the bodies that have examined this assessment. The National Bank spoke of 163 million; Febelfin, from 170 to 190 million; the European Commission also revised the expected return downwards. In short, no one, not even the majority, believes in this amount of 254 million.

This is still a little worrisome. You can ⁇ say that other revenues will compensate for the lack of gains, but I would like to recall that this sum of 254 million represents a quarter of the financing of the new measures that are included in the 2018 budget – a quarter of a return that is at least random. We will ⁇ have the opportunity to talk about it again when, in the coming months, we may have received numbers that will need to be revised down from the initial ambition.

For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, the CDH group will vote against this measure, because it considers it a game of deceit, a deceit, a false-looking. I would like to say: a catch-up. And the nigauds, it may be those who will fall into the scope, since – honestly – they have been able to have, since last July, all the information to escape this tax. If they don’t really do it, it’s that they are indifferent. The nigauds may also be those who imagine doing such a work of tax justice.

For our part, in any case, this is a simulacre in which we cannot participate and which we will not sponsor. That is why we will vote against the government text.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Belgium actually already counts a number of asset rates and asset gain taxes, such as the property taxes, the mobile advance tax, which under this government has already been increased further to 30%, the succession rights and mention only. These are all taxes paid by the masses.

In addition, the value tax is a tax that does not tax the accumulation of the asset but the core of the asset itself. It is not a property gain tax, but a property tax in addition to the higher inflation we already know in this country, which is half higher than in neighboring countries. The effect tax is actually a cloth for bleeding. This tax will not at all lead to a fairer, more transparent or simpler taxation. It is a measure of purity, just like the speculative tax that was rightly deducted. I hope that this effect will soon be the case.

Collega Van de Velde himself has already indicated that he did not like to put the door on a hole. If colleague Laaouej says that this is a good start, then I hold all my heart. This 0.15% tax on securities accounts opens the Pandora box. You effectively open the door. It will be a matter of time before the tax rate will be raised by 0.15%, the taxable base will be expanded, or the limit of 500 000 euros will be lowered. The next government can do this very easily thanks to you. If I hear my colleagues today, it may not even take until there is a next government. After all, I heard colleague Deseyn say that it must be redirected if the revenue is not obtained. There is a high probability that one of the aforementioned measures will be taken.

There has been a lot of talk about those 254 million euros. According to the European Commission, the revenue will be 175 million euros. ING aims at 150 million euros, the National Bank at 163 million euros. We will see what we will see, but you will have already understood that we are not fans of a property tax, and ⁇ not of such a false tax.

Something that was only said in the discussion by the Flemish Interest is that this is another anti-Flemish tax. It is indeed an additional cash flow from north to south, an additional transfer tax. It was a good attempt by Mr. Piedboeuf when he said that this is logical because the Flemish are with more and that they therefore contribute 59%. It was only 59%! If I allow some economists to believe, 75% to 80% of this tax will be paid by the Flamings. It will be the upper middle class of pensioners and wealthy people over fifty who will have to debit like the Flemish entrepreneur who has put money aside to later have a pension that comes close to that of the officials.

They are the ones who will have to raise for the tax that you will approve today, but not the super-rich, many of whom live in Waals-Brabant and in the rich Brussels municipalities and who have housed their moving assets in all sorts of patrimonial companies and holdings; they are just those who will escape from it.

Much has already been said today and I will not repeat that, but I have heard, Mr. Minister, that when this tax was laid on the table and an agreement was made about it, you would have said that you as an economist found the measure nonsense, but that you as a politician had to defend it. I don’t know if that’s true because what is said in the walkways isn’t always true, but what is certain is that today as a N-VA politician you choose to defend this measure.

As an economist, I also find this effect tax nonsense, and as Vlaams-Belangpolitica, I will of course not defend or support nonsense. Our group will ⁇ not support a new transfer tax. Furthermore, the Flemish Belang has always opposed a further increase in the tax pressure through new taxes and against any form of property tax. This is the Pandora box that you will open later and therefore our group will not support this bill.

Many of the participants have already put into question the legal feasibility of the tax. There are often animal metaphors to highlight the weaknesses of a tax system – we sometimes talk about tax goods. Here, I would say that the government is inventing the tax hole! Anchor is that fish that you can never really catch and when you get there, there is still not much in your plate! This summarizes the feasibility of this bill. I would gladly say that this is a bill that will make the happiness of the tax offices. The best taxpayers are already working on how to escape tax.

I confess that I am also not a big supporter of the property tax but as much as to conceive such a tax, so much to conceive it in a certain way on the legal level. Here, there will be many causes of appeals and legal uncertainty.

As others have pointed out, there will be tax optimization. It will be sufficient, for example, to divide its portfolio between several holders of natural persons from the same family to not reach the amount of 500 000 euros. This is an operation that will be easy to perform. Furthermore, nominative securities are excluded from the scope of the law by the government for reasons that are not very relevant and that rely rather on a reasoning of declaration and perception at the source. There too, it is entirely possible for taxpayers to convert their securities into investment funds or their bonds into nominative securities that are not registered in securities accounts in order to escape the payment of the tax.

The State Council said how much this distinction did not appear to be founded in terms of the purpose pursued by the bill. Although these securities are less easily negligible and, according to the government’s justification, they are often held for more active participation as a shareholder in the life of the issuing company, there is no doubt that many investors will not hesitate to use this gap in order to avoid paying taxes.

With regard to the contribution of a title account in a legal person, I agree with the opinion of the State Council. The anti-abuse provision contained in Article 4, 5°, paragraph 2 does not fully ⁇ its objective. In fact, if I resume the terms contained in this provision, taxation may only be carried out if a contribution in a legal person took place from 1 January 2018, but also for the sole and only purpose of evading the tax. Good luck to prove it!

According to the Council of State, this formulation poses questions as to the effectiveness of this anti-abuse provision and its compliance with the constitutional principle of equality and non-discrimination. It is therefore unrealistic to think that legal certainty is guaranteed with such a provision and that an action cannot result in the Constitutional Court to challenge it.

It is easy to see where the problem lies. If a contribution of a title account took place before 1 January 2018, regardless of the grounds invoked, the taxpayer will escape taxation. If a contribution in a legal entity took place after 1 January 2018, but without the intention of evading tax – for example, for reasons of succession planning – the natural person holder will also escape the payment of the tax on securities accounts.

It is for this purpose that my group submits an amendment to clarify the scope of the anti-abuse provision, specifying in particular that the date of presentation of the government’s summer agreement, July 26, 2017 – others have referred to it – should be taken into account in order to prevent taxpayers who have already taken certain measures from escaping the payment of the tax.

For this and other reasons that have been mentioned by others, related to the legal uncertainty of this project, you will understand that we will not be able to support it. If we are in favour of better taxation of capital income as well as increased tax justice and equity, we believe that this should be considered through a more comprehensive reform. It is necessary to return to the fundamental lessons of the tax reform of 1962, through a globalization of taxable income and the establishment of a revision of tax rates, in order to significantly reduce the tax pressure on the income of labor alone, while imposing more equitably the whole income, regardless of the source. Because, ultimately, it is not the nature of income that should determine the contribution to the tax, but rather the amount of income, regardless of the source, on a fair basis of progress by revised tranches and tax equality among all taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, there has been a lot of debate here about what the effect tax will bring: will we get those 254 million euros or not? We can only find that other institutions were lower: the European Commission at 175 million euros and the National Bank of Belgium at 163 million euros. It can be debated whether or not we will get it, but based on the precautionary principle, I would still include the lowest amount in the budget. When several numbers are proposed and the goal is that the budget will be successful, then I would write the lowest number, hoping that it might then yield a little more and that the numbers would be a little more positive. However, this is the choice that has been made: the value tax must raise 254 million euros.

I hear the minister say that this has been decided in the government and that the government will also look at it if the results are there. I hear from Mr. Deseyn that there will be adjustments. Mr. Minister, I did not hear you say that there will then be adjustments to that tax, because it must, of course, pass by the majority. Whether the result of 254 million euros will be achieved, we will know only in 2019. We will know the exact numbers and if I remember it correctly, then it will be elections. Not this majority will then have to answer whether this amount has been obtained or not.

Of course, there is also the effect rate. This is simply a property tax. I have heard a lot of colleagues from the majority often say: property tax, no way! It will never come. Even if it were about a property gain tax, then still a lot of colleagues were not in favour of it. Of course, anything can happen here. We’ve also seen that with the mystery calls that ⁇ ’t come: they’ve come. Now the worst form, which one absolutely did not want: a wealth tax. This is, of course, the result of a compromise à la belge: that effect tax was necessary due to the link to the corporate tax reform and the 500 euro untaxed surplus earnings from the Summer Agreement. What was it all, it was rather the agreement of the four seasons. I think it will take even longer, because the 500 euro surcharge has also been pushed on the long track.

We are now discussing an asset tax, a property tax that needs to be approved here. I am sure that some colleagues from the majority secretly hope that this tax will still be abolished by the Constitutional Court. I may not be allowed to say it, but I suspect some have done almost the legislative work in such a way that this might be the result. I feel like some people are hoping for this.

I have already heard a number of colleagues say that the Constitutional Court could sometimes repeal this law because there is no accountability for the distinction in determining the border. I heard, among other things, Mr. Vanvelthoven say this. However, such accountability would have been very simple. One would have to say nothing more than that the limit of 500,000 euros is intended to make the whole rich pay, and one is very rich if he has a securities account with 500,000 euros. However, this accountability was not given and therefore it is possible that this law will be destroyed.

When I look at the feasibility and enforceability of this law – I’m speaking especially about the feasibility for the banks – I get a déjà vu. In the previous legislature, I have seen the rich tax of 21% + 4% pass here. However, this did not work from any side, and it was then decided to tax everyone at 25%. Now I see about the same happening because the banks will have to implement this measure. The question then is whether that measure will not cost more than it can bring. I do not dare to repeat how many millions of euros the banks at the time had to raise to come up with a system to collect that wealth tax.

The banks are also wondering how they should determine this exactly. What about unlisted shares? How will we determine the exact value? There will also be a lot of discussion about this, because what is the exact value of my securities portfolio?

We have added anti-abuse provisions to that law. Inserting assets into a company was an opportunity to escape. From 1 January, you will still have to pay taxes if we can prove that the change, the introduction of assets in the company, served merely to avoid the value tax. I wish everyone good luck in proving that when someone interrupted his assets in a company, this merely served to avoid the impact tax.

We had the story of the shares by name. There is now the anti-abuse provision, in the sense that shares in name fall out of between them. Those who did this after December 9, however, will still have to pay for another year, but they will start the dance in the following years.

And then I hear now fiscalists say that the value tax will not apply to funds or bonds by name. I would like to receive confirmation or denial from you, Mr. Minister. Is it right? If that’s not the case and they can’t escape, then it might be good that you confirm now that this isn’t the case and why. If not, do we assume that they will escape the tax or escape it?

I hear colleague Van Rompuy say that such a conversion also costs a lot of money and that one should therefore check whether the soup is worth the coal. Moving abroad is not the solution.

What one has is that foreigners also have securities accounts here and that they can easily return their money to their home country. Then not only the money and those securities accounts will disappear here, but also the stock tax and VAT that these people pay here. This income could also disappear. I’m not talking about people who go abroad, but about foreigners who are here.

Then we have the choice that every investor has when he says he will no longer enter a stock account Tak 21 and Tak 23 investment products. They do not fall under either.

When I consider all this, the question arises whether it is intended that the predetermined amount is obtained. It may be hoped that the measure will disappear. It is certain – I can contribute to this, colleague Pas – that once again a measure is being taken that will not affect the rich, since they have enough money for all kinds of tax advisors. The rich have been prepared for a long time, from the moment, or possibly even before only one tip of the veil was ripped in July.

If the rich do not pay the value tax, who will, if it is eventually executed? That is the Flaming, the ordinary modal Flaming, which has saved well, because 500 000 euros is no less. It is not about a poor bastard, but about the Flaming who, as a self-employed, has put a pot in the side. Once again, a measure will be paid by the Flames, not like the increase of the moving advance fee. If you look at where the most is saved, you will find that more is saved in the north than in the south of this country. The savings index is also much higher in Flanders. Therefore, the moving advance tax mainly affects the Flamings; the proposed tax will affect more Flamings. I think that is actually dangerous.

Per ⁇ I should, together with the majority, hope that the effect tax will be destroyed even before implementation. If not, then the next majority in the equity tax can find a step-by-step to introduce a equity tax. After all, the expansion of the base and the increase of the percentages are, in my opinion, not so difficult.

It is, I think, clear: my group will vote against.

This measure has a historical aspect. In order to measure it, I will take back the excellent reference taken by my colleague Mr. Dispa of L'Echo of April 4, 2015, in which Charles Michel explains that taxing the heritage is an economic nonsense.

I do not agree with this idea and I will not demonstrate it, but I refer you to Piketty’s work on this subject. What is historical is that it specifies that taxing wealth is nonsense while the measure in question is nothing but a taxation of wealth. It is historical in the symbol. This is less in effectiveness.

This tax on securities accounts is nothing more than an advertisement for the PTB millionaire tax. All the shortcomings of this tax find their answer in the PTB millionaire tax. This is the counter-example that helps to understand why the PTB millionaire tax is so necessary and useful!

A few points of comparison: the performance. Do we need a symbolic tax for austerity or a tax with real yield? The millionaire tax amounts to €8 billion and represents an alternative to austerity. In this case, the tax on securities accounts is far from being an alternative to austerity. It is a maneuver aimed at making people believe that the rich are taxed and accepting austerity as a good option. A sum of 254 million euros is nothing at the level of return. But, as colleagues said, there is little chance that this amount will be reached. So the goal is ridiculous, and it will not be achieved.

The second comparison point: the tax base. It is quite remarkable – the State Council noted it – that this government has decided to tax wealth, but not all wealth. One thing is to be taken into account and not another. Why Why ? Just by ease. If you read the exhibition of the motifs, it is easier to proceed in this way. There is, therefore, no political justification for this discrimination between forms of inheritance. Why tax one property and not another? No explanation is given. The tax on millionaires is much more logical, much more just as well. All forms of wealth are globalized. Except for two exemptions, the entire property is taxed. That is much more logical.

Third comparison point: a single rate or progressive rates. There is a single rate for everyone. Anyone who enters the conditions pays this rate of 0.15%. The millionaire tax foresees an increase: 1% above 1 million, 2% above 2 million, 3% above 3 million. There is a progression with rates that are obviously a bit more significant than this small tax.

My fourth point of comparison concerns the threshold effect. If you have 49,000 euros, you don’t pay anything. But if you have 501,000 euros, you pay the entire amount. The way we move from nothing to everything is amazing. With the millionaire tax, one begins to pay from the million euros with the exemptions to be taken into account, and one pays nothing below 1 million euros.

Fifth comparison point that is not anecdotal: do we really touch the biggest fortunes? This is an important point. In fact, it is said that this tax is fixed for the sake of tax justice. If we touch the average fortunes, but all the big fortunes, the billionaires, escape tax, there is a problem. Unfortunately, while the millionaire tax targets the biggest fortunes and more specifically the richest 1%, the big fortunes are tax-free.

Let’s take, by chance, Belgium’s ninth wealth, which holds €1.6 billion. I don’t know if you know her. This is the Bertrand family. Luc Bertrand, who is a shareholder of Ackermans & van Haaren, will avoid this tax because his fortune is held through holdings. It does not go through titles. It is therefore completely tax-free.

I could take the examples of Albert Brother or the Spoelberch family, but I quote this one because Luc Bertrand’s daughter, who is also the administrator of Ackermans & van Haaren, probably participated in the kern discussions, given that she is the vice prime minister’s chief of cabinet. I suppose she could say, “To target the headlines, it’s very good and very wise. Soon, my family escapes taxes, but that’s not the most important thing.”

I come to my sixth point of comparison: with or without a fortune cadastre? The millionaire tax is conceived with such an instrument. This makes sense, even if the tax is declarative and there is no need to wait for the establishment of the cadastre, since it is a means of verification. In this case, the Prime Minister explicitly refused to implement it. This is one way to say to potential taxpayers owed this tax: “Fraud comfortably! In any case, we will have no way to see if you have cheated. So go there happily.”

In summary, what could have been a historical tax turns out to be a historically symbolic tax, a trophy. I’m not going to go back to the discussion of the past to see if this is another CD&V trophy that rolls into the garbage. In any case, his trophy basket should be changed for a larger model, given the number of them that fall into it.

That is why I regret to announce that we will not be able to support this project. A tax that would really affect the richest and would be a real alternative to austerity would have received our support, contrary to this symbolic tax that allows to justify austerity and that does not hit the richest.

This is an exciting debate with many arguments.

Since some technical aspects have already been thoroughly discussed in the Committee on Finance, I will be free to limit myself to four general observations.

First, when you hear the discussion among others here in parliament, you have the impression that Belgium does not have too much tax on wealth and capital. However, when you look at, for example, the ranking at the European level, you are in the fourth position.

Unfortunately, in terms of work, we remain in the first position. But the distance with others has decreased considerably. Here we are in the fourth position. And we add an important tax in that framework, namely the tax on securities accounts.

I come to my second observation.

There has been several references to the opinion of the State Council, in two parts. With regard to the first part, if one reads it carefully, it is clear that the State Council requests the Government to explain and explain the choices made regarding the distinction between, for example, natural persons and legal persons, or taxable matter and non-taxable matter. We have provided this explanation extensively in the second memorandum of explanation.

My third comment is the following.

There has also been a lot of talk about control mechanisms. They are indeed there. The administration shall at any time have the possibility to request information from the holder or from the intermediary. The possession of a securities account by the holder can thus be controlled by a request for information in all its aspects. It also provides for sanction mechanisms, with fines, both for the titularis and for the intermediaries. In addition, of course, a fine will also be imposed for every non-notification and every late or inaccurate declaration. Depending on the nature and severity of the infringement, the penalty may range from 10 % to 200 %.

My fourth observation concerns the estimates and I will discuss this in more detail.

As for estimates, the figures have already been mentioned several times: the National Bank announces 165 million; the European Commission, 175 million; Febelfin speaks of a range between 170 and 90 million. The government, on the other hand, affirms and reaffirms a revenue of 255 million.

However, if we cite the National Bank of Belgium and the European Commi!ssie, we must also have the intellectual honesty to give the entire context. The National Bank of Belgium is based on the data that the institution has on the assets of the families. The NBB says very explicitly that it is almost certain that it is a underestimation of the real situation. In other words, the amount of €165 million mentioned by the NBB is also an underestimation of what the tax could potentially bring.

The European Commission also makes it very clear in its estimate that it takes into account the fact that the taxable basis is not fully visible to it. It also makes a very conservative estimate.

Furthermore, the three estimates referred to date from before the last government intervention, with the introduction of an important anti-abuse provision, in particular with regard to name shares, which must ⁇ benefit the tax yield.

I would like to refer again to the report prepared following the discussion in the committee. During this discussion, a number of more specific, technical points were discussed more extensively.

Within the framework of the Global Summer Agreement, the tax is an important indicator in terms of estimates and expected returns. The figures are confirmed by the government, namely 254 million euros.