Proposition 54K3619

Projet de loi modifiant l'arrête royal n° 20, du 20 juillet 1970, fixant les taux de la taxe sur la valeur ajoutée et déterminant la répartition des biens et des services selon ces taux en ce qui concerne certaines publications.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Gautier Calomne, Benoît Piedboeuf
Open Vld Luk Van Biesen, Dirk Van Mechelen

Submission date

Feb. 27, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

VAT VAT rate digital technology electronic publishing tax law press

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR PVDA | PTB PP

Party dissidents ¶

• Frédéric Daerden (PS | SP) 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 ¶

April 4, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Van Peteghem and Mr Laaouej, rapporteurs, refer to the written report.

Mr Van Biesen has the word in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I think that here we are indeed removing an VAT anomaly.

I just referred to the explanation of the Chairman of our committee, Mr. Van Rompuy, in which he responded, and rightly, to a number of insinuations as though we today simply make some VAT reductions to play sinterklaas, to distribute gifts. On the contrary, we want to eliminate certain inaccuracies created by evolution in time.

It is clear that a publication by a journalist, whether in print or in digital version, should in no way have a different rate. This is the case today. The printed press has a VAT rate of 0 % and the digital publication has a VAT rate of 21 %. Europe has made comments on this, in particular that one should have a uniform rate for approximately the same performance. Therefore, we, Mr. Van Mechelen, Mr. Piedboeuf, Mr. Calomne and myself, have submitted the proposal to equalize the VAT of a digital print and a printed print. That is why we choose the lowest rate. We have not raised the tariff for printed publications to 21%. We have agreed on the suggestion to bring this to 0%.

I think that in this way, in view of evolution, we have played more concrete on the ball. We do not need to receive a notification from Europe because Europe itself makes the suggestion for a uniform rate. In addition, a number of other countries have also gone ahead of us to bring the VAT rate to the same level.

I would like to call on the FOD Finance to make a correct description of what all falls under digital publications as soon as possible. There was an open question in the committee whether Gopress and Mediargus also fall under the 0 % VAT rate. It is clear that it is up to the FOD to make this clear in a circulation letter or note to inform everyone as soon as possible of what VAT rate they can use exactly.

I think that here today we are eliminating an VAT anomaly and ⁇ not trying to play sinterklaas.

Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Van Biesen correctly points out, we are indeed working out an anomaly. After all, it is crazy that there is a reduced rate on paper publications and therefore on printed dead trees, while this is not the case for the digital versions, the ecological road. The elimination of this anomaly is therefore actually also an ecological measure.

We just spoke during the discussion on the reduction of VAT on bicycles about the difficult process to create the possibility of reducing VAT at European level. I am therefore very pleased that Minister Van Overtveldt has fully committed to opening the way in the Council of the European Union, so that the Member States may, under the VAT Directive, apply a reduced rate or even the emergency rate not only on paper but also on digital media.

The rate is also important. I want to emphasize that. This includes literary works as well as journalistic works. It is an investment in the value of our democracy and in the strengthening of democracy, which is a good thing.

I will now talk about the budgetary cost price, to serve Mr. Van Rompuy with a nice listing.

The reduced rate versus the 21% VAT rate means €164 million of discount revenue for the government. Compared to the 6% rate, it is about 47 million euros of minor income. In addition, 12 million euros will be added for the application of the reduced VAT rate and the zero rate for digital media. Thus, with the present proposal, we add another EUR 12 million, which is a very limited amount compared to the entire exercise. Nevertheless, the overall record is not wrong. Additionally, 170 million euros will be granted annually for the distribution of paper newspapers via bpost. This puts some things in perspective. In addition to the amount for the reduced VAT rate on dead trees, we also spend another 170 million euros in subsidy for the distribution of paper newspapers via bpost, which is also not wrong. Finally, there is also the favorable tax regime for copyright. The mobile premium was raised to 30 %, except for copyright. For this reason, it is limited to 15 % or 61 200 EUR, with even a fairly high fee of 50 %, so that de facto only 7.5% of the majority of taxes are paid. This is a considerable benefit for authors and for journalistic works.

These total figures make it clear that society is investing a very large amount of tax money in our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the basic position of previous speakers that the proposed text removes an anomaly. I am myself an avid reader, whether it is digital or on paper, dead trees as the colleague calls it. Let us hope that for this, not too many trees need to be destroyed and that we can continue with other methods. As far as we are concerned, at least one creates a level playing field and a logical next step, for which we have long been asking party. I am pleased with this step forward.

However, you will have noticed that we have also submitted an amendment. Sp.a’s colleagues will support it and everyone is welcome to sign it.

Using the debate, we also want to discuss the regulation for the sterilization of domestic cats. That came to us after the wrong practice – I mention that so without any negative connotation anyway – of a consultation between GAIA, the press group, and the majority by mouth of ministers Van Overtveldt, Reynders, Peeters and De Croo, who were principally in favour of the reduction of the VAT on sterilization of cats.

For those who carry responsibilities in cities and municipalities, the overpopulation of cats is a very big problem. In the regions of Brussels, Wallonia and Flanders, legislation has been passed to make obligatory sterilization of cats. This is to address the problem of overpopulation.

Our amendment aims to add an additional incentive to the justified obligation of sterilization. I don’t need to remind you that I’m not in favor of additional charges in our taxation. However, after consultation with the pressure groups, there was a principle agreement in the majority. Furthermore, we must note that the measure can ideally lead to the problem becoming much smaller soon. Thus, this crap will largely eliminate itself. It means that it is an effective measure, which we could still take before the end of this legislature.

If we want to ensure that regional sterilization laws are also complied with, then more is needed than sensitization. We must also be able to press the cost of a sterilization. Therefore, we now have a unique opportunity to realize the commitment made through our amendment. At the same time, we give our local governments an additional means to tackle overpopulation. This costs them a lot in terms of catching, dealing with and eventually euthanizing the animals.

By reducing the cost-price barrier, the federal government can enforce the approved laws and speed up progress. This seems to us to be a good option for a legally mandatory service. Such a measure seems to us to be widely carried out given the consultation and already expressed commitment. I hope that this will be supported in the plenary session.

Mr. Speaker, I will only make a small comment.

In this case, we proceeded in order, as my colleague Van Biesen recalled. Two years ago, we had filed a resolution, which had been voted, with the aim of recommending the government to intercede at European level in order to obtain this authorization to align rates between digital and paper. This initiative was followed with effect. We should have done the same for bicycles, it is true. In the end, it succeeded and we are delighted to do so. Press, reading, whether on paper or via digital, are factors of intellectual evolution and general culture. This is a very good news and we are looking forward to seeing it implemented.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, in the committee we have drawn up a balance on what measures we would present to the plenary session and which legislative proposals we could still adopt here.

We have in no way received the amendment that Ms. Almaci is presenting now. We have, of course, also been visited by GAIA, like everyone else. You know that we are in favor of his reduction of the VAT rate in this regard and that we have no problem with this being added to the agenda in a normal way, so slightly rewritten.

But let’s be honest, linking a VAT change on digital prints to the sterilization of cats, I think, goes too far. It would have been better to first review this amendment together with the various political groups to see which legislative proposal would fit it better. I find it regrettable that the colleagues unilaterally alter the agreement we reached in the Committee on Finance, in which we would discuss various legislative proposals together and ⁇ as much unanimousness as possible, in this half-year suddenly transform and bring us up with a proposal with which most parties agree, but about which we must first be able to conduct a thorough debate.

I regret the way we act here now. I believe that the President of the Commission is responsible. I regret that a number of political parties are now presenting here a proposal aiming at a VAT reduction for the sterilization of cats.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the concerns of Mrs. Almaci are justified. The concerns of GAIA in this regard are justified.

I only think that this is not the right way at the moment. We have just discussed the VAT reduction on electric bicycles. It is necessary to eliminate witch turns in order to be able at European level to decide locally on a VAT reduction. The debate is fixed.

The risks in this area are quite large. The present proposal for a VAT reduction for digital media has overcome this suffering and has taken the full course. It passes the test. I absolutely do not want to mortgage that proposal by linking something to it now that has not passed that test for a long time. The intent of the proposal is absolutely noble, but, again, it has not passed the test yet.

I do not want to mortgage this proposal. I think it is better to take a new initiative, although this can unfortunately only be dealt with in the next legislature.

I fully understand and respect the opinions of my colleagues. However, for the sake of honesty I must say that I was informed only last week of the fact that the previous majority had been discussing this issue for a long time. I was not part of the previous majority and I was not aware of that consultation, except that I could support the commitment made in that consultation or ensure timely submission. In this sense, I understand what, among other things, Mr. Van Biesen notes.

I am the first to help lead the work of the Chamber in good ways. I also wish no one to put a path into the basket. I only note that with the former majority a path was set. Now, in extremis, it is established that nothing has been done in this regard, while today is the last moment to take action in this legislature, as you have just stated yourself, Mr. Dedecker.

There is room-wide support, as the N-VA and the Open Vld also acknowledge their support. I would like to say that it is not up to us to submit an amendment. The best part was that the text could simply follow the path from the majority, which apparently was also the commitment. Now, however, no result has been achieved. Therefore, I look for a way, together with the organization that contacted us, to put this on the agenda. I feel a little sorry for receiving such reactions.

Colleagues, if you give your support and commitment, the text can be sent back to the committee and then again discussed in the plenary session.

I started by saying that this is a strange amendment on this point. We are also very affectionate on the other point, but you cannot blame us that we are also affectionate on the one point. The objective is, in part, also stool, given some mandatory laws of local governments. That is why we find it important to put this point on the agenda of this legislature in the greatest possible constructivity. It is in no way my intention to make it a welles-nietes debate or even take an oppositional position. However, last week I was asked to submit this, given the fact that today is the last chance and there is consensus about it.

We invite everyone to sign it with us. It doesn’t even have to be my amendment. If the commitment is broadly shared, I suggest doing it simply. I think we have already made similar decisions before. Koterry doesn’t enjoy my preference, but in this logic, I think it’s clear to many that the problem will largely disappear if overpopulation is effectively addressed. It is an argument that I rarely use, because it rarely applies, but here it does.

Mrs. Almaci, you can link something to any bill or bill that is discussed in the plenary session, but considering the VAT reduction on the sterilization of cats as a social priority – under pressure from GAIA, because that is what it is, after all – and linking that theme to a discussion on the reduction of the VAT rates for publications, is a pure electoral strategy of Green. This is no longer serious.

Linking a VAT reduction on publications to the sterilization of cats is laughing with us. When I heard you, I thought it was an April 1 joke. This is not a way of working. We already get a lot of criticism in a number of areas and now we would still mix or link those things together, in the name of animal welfare. Later we will talk about banking. This is work at the level. In that regard, Parliament is doing good things, but your link simply serves to be in favor of GAIA. They will already vote for you, don’t worry. You will not win a vote, but you make the Parliament ridiculous.

Mr. Van Rompuy, I find the debate, as you conduct it, unworthy of Parliament. You say it’s not a social problem, but it’s not true. In large cities, it is a major social problem. I can take you to certain places to show that it is absolutely necessary to sterilize cats, otherwise one will even go to a health disaster. So it is not just something.

As far as the merger is concerned, I am absolutely right. That link can’t really be, but I’ve been in Parliament for nine years now and I’ve learned that mostly the majority, and ⁇ the government you were in, did almost nothing else. Amendments were submitted to bills that had absolutely nothing to do with the subject. I think it’s good to say that this is an electoral stunt. It was indeed a question, but not just from GAIA. It is ⁇ also a question of a lot of large cities, which are facing this problem. People are now required to sterilize cats. We demand that the cost be reduced so that everyone can meet that obligation.

I have all my understanding for the colleagues who say it’s hard to do that. That is right. I understand it, but necessity breaks the law.

Mr Van Rompuy, I am going to make a confession: I am really a cat madam. Ever since I was a child, I was surrounded by cats. I had to get my cat out of hand because my youngest son is allergic to it. The cat is now with my neighborhood so I still have them with me, and yet not.

I know the problems of our local governments. In your last few weeks as a member of parliament, I ⁇ ’t shrink it – that would disgrace you – to one pressure group that has asked a question. I agree with colleague Temmerman in this regard. This is a problem that many asylums, veterinarians and local governments struggle with. They all look for a way to address this problem.

The obligation to sterilize has been approved in all regions. There are people with not such a large wallet or who do not deal with their pets so carefully. You can then use the stick every time or think about the root.

I started by saying that this is a strange combination. We are at the end of the legislature. There may still be a number of options – if there is no consensus on the amendment now – to deal with this yet quickly.

I just said that I am a bookworm. I do not want to undermine the other initiative in any way. That is not my intention. However, I also do not want to miss a chance. I extend my hand to the colleagues of the former majority who have expressed the same commitment to make this still possible, because then we do not have to wait until the next legislature.

There are a number of possibilities. The day is still long. Let us sit together. Before we have to vote on the amendment, there may be other things that can happen.

Mr. Speaker, I think we as a party ⁇ agree with the principle. In order to solve the problem, I propose you as a method, and I ask the colleagues to think about this, to convert the amendment into a new bill. We can consider this in the plenary session today. In this way, this problem is not linked to the digital publications and can in no way jeopardize the other because this seems to me no one’s intention. In this way, we can seek a majority.

So I propose to withdraw the amendment and submit a new bill. Then it can be checked whether a majority can be found for it so that it can possibly be treated after the Easter holiday. This seems to me to be the most precise proposal that does not contradict either of the two elements.

Then I ask the applicants – Mrs. Almaci, Mr. Gilkinet and Mrs. Temmerman – whether the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, we will stand together and withdraw the amendment when there is a new proposal. Then we can consider that. I think that seems logical.

Does the amendment still exist?

Until the other text is finished and we can submit it. If that happens, we will withdraw this amendment.

We agreed yesterday that the Finance Committee would no longer meet. I think we finished all the work we had to complete yesterday and that we will now conduct the discussions in the plenary session.

I do not intend to convene a special committee in the coming weeks to get the sterilization of cats approved before the dissolution. Mr. Van Biesen is a man of good will – I am sometimes – but sometimes you have to dare.

This issue has never been discussed in the Finance Committee. Mrs. Almaci, I do not remember any discussion about sterilization of cats. That may be a social problem, but I do not call the committee together in the Easter holiday to talk about it. That is not serious. That’s just to give the impression that you’re worried about it. This may be a social problem, but the Parliament is not responsible for it. Mr. Calvo, in a few months you are in power. The Greens have a great chance to sit in the board and have a majority. Then you have five years to settle the case of sterilization of cats in Parliament.

I do not participate in a game of convening the Finance Committee only for that purpose in the coming weeks. For this, the problems are a little too serious.

I understand that the amendment is being held and that we can close the general discussion.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Almaci would like to say something more on this point. You closed the discussion too quickly.

My apologies .

Madame Almaci, you have the word.

I do not want to push the debate to the forefront.

Mr. Van Rompuy, you know me better than the way you are trying to remove me now. I propose that we exchange ideas on the margins of this plenary session, which will continue for a long time. I have no intention of wiping out whose holidays. I have enough work in the holiday season. I have no intention of doing things to the Finance Committee that I do not want them to do. This subject is relatively simple. The day is still long. I propose that we look at what is feasible and what is not, wars of all ways to manifest in this hemisphere. I think this will be more constructive.

In the meantime, it is clear that most people here have expressed their views on the content. This is indeed an important measuremental concern. The Ministry of Animal Welfare also shares this concern.

There is the risk that we will hypothesize the bill on digital publications, as this proposal has already taken its entire path in Europe.

Therefore, I would like to make an alternative proposal.

We discussed the proposal for the reduction of VAT on bicycles. Mr. Speaker, to what extent is it possible to resume the discussion of the proposal on the reduction of the VAT on bicycles and to submit it as an amendment? The advantage is that the law on the reduction of VAT on bicycles is legalistically correct, in the sense that the law comes into force only once the European Commission has given the green light. This way your amendment can be incorporated, it is approved today and it will come into force as soon as the European Commission gives the green light. In this way, we have taken the concern to heart, we have created the possibility at the federal level, there is a solution to the issue and we can move forward without mortgaging the current proposal.

Mr Dedecker, I have to disappoint you. We cannot resume the discussion on the proposal for a reduction in the VAT on bicycles. Therefore, another path will have to be sought. I think we will hear them during the meeting.

Mr. Speaker, I do not ask the word on that point, because one feels the wisdom and the constructive atmosphere in the plenary to come to something.

I am now talking about another point. I assume that we may be quite late to bow over the list of constitutional articles declared subject to revision. I have been asking for a certain form of dialogue between Parliament and Government for a while. The Prime Minister has always stopped this for the time being.

In the meantime, however, I note that the Prime Minister is tweeting about this, while we will meet here in his absence on this topic. He announced via Twitter that he has a major problem with the list approved in Parliament.

Let me be very clear, our group is proud of that list, but we will, for example, try to remove the proposal to declare Article 1 subject to revision, because we do not find it necessary. On the contrary, it even involves a lot of risks. However, the Prime Minister attacks the Parliament’s list via Twitter, while he does not want to engage in dialogue about it. This shows very little respect.

Mr. Speaker, can you contact the Prime Minister to poll his presence during that debate? It is logical that I give you time to look at this together with the Prime Minister. If necessary, our group will submit a motion under Article 50 at the beginning of the afternoon meeting to call for the Prime Minister. I can’t accept that he doesn’t want to talk to us about this, but at the same time he is in dialogue with the rest of the world via Twitter.

So I ask you to try to take my point constructively. In the other case, if the Prime Minister does not intervene, we will submit a motion at the beginning of the meeting. You can take this into account in the arrangement of the activities. So the colleagues know that there could be a vote after the questions.

I have two answers.

First, we will contact the Prime Minister’s Cabinet to invite him. Second, I must tell you that you must submit such a motion in writing.

This motion is subject to reservation, depending on the response of the Prime Minister. After all, if he promises spontaneously, we do not need to vote on it. So I would like to give you the opportunity to settle this constructively with the Prime Minister.

Well, the necessary will happen.