Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-10-25-Speech-2-648-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111025.32.2-648-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, tax evasion, fraud and lack of transparency cost the EU and its Member States many millions of euro in lost tax revenue every year. I therefore welcome this debate. It is important to discuss how we can enhance the EU’s regulations in order to prevent tax evasion and ‘double non-taxation’.
As has been pointed out, it is particularly important right now in view of the economic and financial crisis and the huge increase in public debt in Europe. Comprehensive and lasting budgetary consolidation is needed, because the debt crisis is also a tax crisis. The lack of coordination of tax policy is contributing to a deepening of the debt crisis. The necessary, but painful, reduction of debt requires expenditure restraints, increased cuts in public spending and, in many cases, also tax rises. Taxes are necessary to enable us to finance the common welfare system, but taxes must also be viewed as legitimate and used effectively.
In the European Parliament, there is obviously broad support for the need to tackle tax evasion, double taxation and non-taxation. I have tabled a few proposals in this area myself in the European Parliament’s Annual Tax Report, for which I am rapporteur, and which will be debated in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in November and then afterwards in plenary.
I am particularly concerned about the exploitation of loopholes in European legislation, whereby international companies operating within the EU attempt to avoid paying tax within the Union, a matter that Mr Giegold also addresses. The aim must be for every euro in tax that is intentionally withheld from the state through clever tax arrangements in future to be paid to the tax authorities.
I therefore understand the amendments that Mr Giegold has tabled with regard to parent companies and subsidiaries, which we are debating today. It is a question of tackling tax evasion and double taxation, even though the Treaty limits the EU’s decision-making ability, as pointed out by Commissioner Šemeta.
However, Mr Giegold goes further than this, and this is where I have a slight problem. In his text, he recommends the introduction of a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) for all companies in the EU and wants a common minimum tax rate to be levied. I believe that, in the current situation, companies should sign up to the system voluntarily. The aim, of course, is to create a competitive tax system that benefits cross-border operations. It is also important to permit and encourage institutional competition. Forcing a European system onto small and medium-sized enterprises that only do business nationally runs the risk of causing considerable costs for these enterprises. I believe that the Member States must continue to set their own tax rates. That is important from a budgetary perspective. Different tax rates could potentially promote healthy tax competition and lead to increased European competitiveness.
With regard to the bilateral tax agreements that Germany and the United Kingdom have concluded with Switzerland, I welcome the debate. We have to admit that it has not been an easy task to reach an agreement with Switzerland, at least not for some countries until recently.
As we know, there are conflicting aims within tax policy and we always have to find a balance between the different objectives. That is not the easiest thing to do, and it is that debate that clearly needs to continue. I would like to conclude by congratulating Mr Giegold."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples