20 Amendments of Kira Marie PETER-HANSEN related to 2020/2263(INI)
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that simplifying VAT with the introduction of a single rate and revenue neutrality could reduce the standard rate in the EU by an average of 7%, thus bringing the; observes that a lower standard VAT rate down from 13% to 2%would benefit consumers, in particular low income households;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Takes the view that applying a multitude of reduced rates aggravates the complexity and opacity of the tax system, facilitates fraud and increases compliance costs; notes that, instead of striving for reduced rates for environmentally friendly products or services, applying a uniform standard VAT rate with mark-ups for high-polluting goods and services should be considered;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Notes with concern that some Member States do not generally exempt in kind donations from VAT, leading businesses to destroy consumer goods, notably returns, rather than donating them to charitable causes, even though such an exemption is possible under the existing VAT Directive; calls on the Commission to issue guidance to Member States, clarifying that VAT exemptions for in kind donations are compatible with the existing Union law on VAT until Council proposal 2018 (COM(2018) 20 final, Article 98.2) is adopted by Member States;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes the view that the current diversity of reduced rates imposes particularly high compliance costs on businesses; and that compliance costs are estimated to be an average of 2.5% of company turnover and vary considerably from Member State to Member State22 ; also notes that digitalisation can contribute greatly to the reduction of compliance costs for businesses; _________________ 22 Less than 1% in LU; almost 4% in PL.
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Observes that SMEs must pay proportionately higher compliance costs, as these costs are fixed and independent of company size, and that high compliance costs constitute a barrier to entry into the EU internal market; takes the view, therefore, that differentiated VAT regimes within the EU may act as a disincentive to exportscreate an unlevel playing field between large multinational companies and SMEs,however the empirical evidence on the effect of VAT systems on international trade is inconclusive;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Observes that the wide variety of rates causes price distortion in the internal market, creating incentives for cross-border purchases and giving rise to increased tax competition between Member States; notes that in particular the diversification of VAT rates creates an incentive to exploit price differences across countries by shifting consumption to Member States with lower VAT rates and distort revenue collection by governments and thus potentially lead to tax competition among Member States; recalls that companies need clear and unambiguous VAT rules to encourage cross-border business and reduce their administrative burdens;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that a well-designed VAT system is neutral and should not affect trade, but that in practice this principle is difficult to verify at global level given the application of VAT exemptions, the ineffectiveness of refund systems, the wide variety of rates – incurring higher compliance costs – and the fact that VAT has superseded income taxes with a view to encouraging trade;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Notes that empirical evidence shows that the current system of multiple VAT rates is regressive in EU Member States when measured as a percentage of disposable income, but tends to be proportional or slightly progressive in most EU Member States when measured as a percentage of expenditure; notes further that, inparticular, when measured in terms of expenditure, existing reduced and zero VAT rates thereby help to make VAT more progressive compared to single rate VAT systems; notes in addition that evidence also shows that only VAT rates which were reduced with the aim of supporting low-income households (such as reduced rates on food) make the VAT more progressive;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Observes that the application of reduced rates does not systematically give rise to permanent price reductions for the consumer; that the effectiveness of a reduced rate depends on a number of factors, such as the extent to which businesses pass it on to consumers, its duration over time, the size of the reduction and the complexity of the rate system; that the passing-on of reductions in their entirety is therefore a randomcomplex process and should not be the basis for policy- making; that it is impossible to target low- income householdundertaken without a sound impact assessment; ; notes, however, that evidence shows that reduced VAT rates with the aim of supporting low-income households (such as reduced rates on food) make the VAT more progressive; also notes that while existing reduced and zero VAT rates are of greater proportional benefit to low- income households in the EU (measured as the proportion of expenditure), they are typically of greater benefit to high-income households in absolute (cash) terms;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recalls that for it to have a leverage effect, green taxation must be inclusive, strive for social equity and not undermine businesses’ international competitiveness; observes that the effectiveness of reduced rates in promoting this type of goods and services or, in a broader sense, merit goods (e.g. culture, health, biodiversity) is chiefly a function of the extent to which they are used to promote such goods; Observes that the effectiveness of reduced VAT rates in promoting environmentally friendly goods and services is still difficult to assess due to a lack of empirical evidence, although in certain case studies and according to certain models positive impacts can be measures; urges, however, that to promote environmentally friendly consumption it is primary importance for Member Statesto phase out all zero-rates and reduced rates on harmful environmental goods and services; invites the Commission to consider the idea of increased VAT rates compared to standard VAT rate for environmentally harmful products to achieve the EU’s climate objectives enshrined in the Green Deal;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that evidence suggests that reduced VAT rates are not ana less effective way of achieving social or environmental objectives since they incur highconsiderable costs for governments owing to the size of the rate gap, reduced tax revenues, increased administrative costs, costly checks and inspections, pressure from lobby groups, compliance costs, economic distortions or even tax evasion, and the difficulty of reaching the target groups;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Takes the view that direct tax measures, such as progressive personal income tax rates and carbon taxes and incentives, such as direct grants or tax credits targeting specific consumers and producers, are more effective, flexible, visible and cost-effective tools for achieving these social and environmental objectives;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses that a uniform VAT system, combined with a direct tax incentive tool such as the income-based tax credit scheme for low-income households, together with a raft of social reforms, would be a winning strategy along with non-linear progressive personal income tax rates, together with a raft of social reforms and environmental taxes such as carbon taxes, would be a winning strategy for an economic effective social and green holistic tax system; recalls that New Zealand has a flat-rate VAT system and applies tax credit for low- income households; points out that flat-rate subsidies and information campaigns are an option for the promotion of merit goods; concludes that for redistributional purposes, the progressivity of the overall tax system is decisive, even if the VAT is highly regressive, provided the tax system as a whole is progressive, distributional goals can be reached; highlight that increasing the existing reduced rates without compensation measures would disproportionately hurt low-income households;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Recalls that VAT revenue is one of the chief sources of public revenue, accounting for some 21% of total tax revenue in the EU on average; that the VAT gap stands at 10% on average; and that VAT also constitutes an own resource for the EU budget; stresses that any reduction in the VAT base leads to less revenue for public finances; calls on national tax authorities to take initiatives to reduce the VAT gap in order to help lift Member States out of the current socio- economic crisis and to the benefit of EU own resources;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Endorses the findings of the DIW Econ study which sStresses that on average the VAT standard rate was applied to 71% of the total tax base in the Member States in 2019; points out that diversified VAT systems impose costs on businesses, particularly SMEs via increased compliance costs, create distortions in the internal market and trade, and incur costs on government through lost revenue; adds that reduced rates are an insufficient less effective means of achieving revenue-distribution or environmental objectives; notes, however, that low-income households do benefit from reduced VAT rates although the distributional effects from reduced rates are rather small;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes the difficulties in reducing the VAT gap between Member States owing to the need to maintain a number of VAT exemptions for certain goods and services and the willingness of Member States to maintain reduced rates of at least 5%; acknowledges that Member States need to conserve the flexibility to set their own VAT rates given the importance of this tax as a budgetary instrument; calls on the Commission to map all the different tax mixes between Member States to better understand the distortive nature of uncoordinated and unharmonised taxsystems;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls for a simplified VAT system with limits on exemptions and non- standard rates to be introduced with a view to promoting com; highlight that increasing the existing reduced rates without compensation measures would disproportionately hurt low-income households; rejects the idea of a ‘negative list’ as proposed by the European Commission in its 2018 proposal and rather supports the current negotiated ‘positive list’ in the Council; furthermore supports the proposal by the former Portuguese Council Presidency to phase out all zero-rates and reduced rates on environmentally harmful goods and services such as on fossil fuels, chemical pestitivenescides and chemical fertilisers at Member States level; urges Members States to conclude quickly on the proposal for a revised directive on VAT rates;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that the VAT gap is chiefly attributable to the ineffectiveness of enforcement and control measures, particularly those against tax evasion and avoidance and aggressive tax planning; notes that tax competition and low tax morale also contribute to the VAT gap; observes that low redistributive tax system contributes to a low tax morale;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls that the effectiveness of reduced rates as a policy tool must always be assessed in the specific context of other existing policy tools; adds that reduced rates are often complementary to existing social and environmental policy tools; and that direct tax incentives arepolicies such as a tax-free threshold along with progressive tax rates is an instruments that bettermore effectively targets low-income households and are, guarantees better redistribution and is generally less costly;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Stresses the need to move to a definitive VAT system based on the principle of taxation in the country of destination; callurges on the Council to adopt the proposal for a directive of 25 May 2018 and condemns those Member States blocking progress;