Eternity RPC Board
11-28-2016, 02:17 AM
Marcus Lipton - New Centrist List
Before to address any criticism or suggestions heard today in the Assembly about the proposed reform, I will explain briefly why my parliamentary group has decided to support this bill.
It was been a decade since the so-called Harrow Taxation Reform. I will not deny that reform had some positive aspects, such as the simplification of the tax code, but it is not unfair to describe that reform as a populist act which did not address the needs and problems of our country. While it exempted many from taxation, the greatest beneficiaries of the reform were the upper classes, billonaires who saw their income tax reduced to almost twenty points. At the same time, it increased the corporate tax, making harder the life for thousands and thousands of business. Therefore, the reform punished productive citizens, did not contribute to the long-term sustainability of our welfare system.
The federal government has increased social spending in the last three years, improving education and healthcare, investing in infraestructures, starting and funding new federal programs which aim to increase the welfare of the citizens of our country, specially those in more need of help. As the Secretary of Treasury declared yesterday, the federal government has the task and duty to keep a balanced bugdet, so the federal state does not increase state debt unnecessarily. I am glad that even Mr. Kohout admits this, when he mentions that the government is operation under a surplus budget. It is reasonable to say that some of the merit of that falls to the work of the federal government. As the federal government remains compromised to keep a balanced budget, as most of the members of this Assembly I am convinced that they agree, the only way to continue to increase social spending can be through a new, more fair and rational fiscal system. That is what I am proposing here.
Our tax reform is fair and balanced, and more progressive than Harrow reform because we believe than those who are blessed with the greatest wealth have the duty to contribute more in order to give a chance to that people who were not that lucky, very often only because the social class their parents belonged, and to contribute to the general good. We don't believe that we should demand a contribution too much harsh and at the expense of the happiness of themselves, their families, and the very often creativity, talent and hard work. That is why we reject the absurd and self-defeating proposals of the NMP. Our proposal, on the contrary, is rational and balanced. It is true that middle classes will have to do a contribution to the budget under our reform, but it is the only way we can continue increasing social spending in welfare, education, and research. We believe they are mature voters and they understand this perfectly, as they understand that they will be greatly benefited for that social spending. They will contribute a little but they will receive much more.
Unfortunately, Mr. Kohout does not touch the truth when he falls in his predictable rhetoric about the "champions of the people, the burden of the economy, and to tax the poor to starvation". Maybe Mr. Kohout ignores that poverty rate has been consistently reduced during the last two years, partly because the federal government increase in social spending and cooperation with other social programs existing in the different states. We must keep working in that path, and this reform will be a right step in that direction. Our reform is progressive, and those who will have their contribution to their federal government increased will be the upper classes, while business will breath and flourish with a reduction of the corporate tax. Harrow Reform have punished companies, the main driving force of our economy, and it is time to change that with a lower corporate taxation. Unlike the reform of the income tax, the corporate tax is thought to be introduced gradually in order to help SME to adapt to the new rate.
The changes in the corporate tax and the VAT have a secondary aim to increase a more simple and less arbitrary fiscal system. I believe our reform achieves that. It will solve some flaws of the Harrow Reform, such as including luxury goods inside the VAT reduced rates. We believe that culture should be promoted, but I don't think it is controversial to say that is the same a millonaire bidding for a 12th-century painting than a working class mother buying textbooks for her daughter. Our reform solves as well this absurd equivalence. As usual, our group will be open to constructive suggestion of other parliamentary groups, but I believe I was successful enough to explain why our reform is more balanced, rational, fair and progressive than the existing one.
Thank you for your time, members of the Assembly.
Before to address any criticism or suggestions heard today in the Assembly about the proposed reform, I will explain briefly why my parliamentary group has decided to support this bill.
It was been a decade since the so-called Harrow Taxation Reform. I will not deny that reform had some positive aspects, such as the simplification of the tax code, but it is not unfair to describe that reform as a populist act which did not address the needs and problems of our country. While it exempted many from taxation, the greatest beneficiaries of the reform were the upper classes, billonaires who saw their income tax reduced to almost twenty points. At the same time, it increased the corporate tax, making harder the life for thousands and thousands of business. Therefore, the reform punished productive citizens, did not contribute to the long-term sustainability of our welfare system.
The federal government has increased social spending in the last three years, improving education and healthcare, investing in infraestructures, starting and funding new federal programs which aim to increase the welfare of the citizens of our country, specially those in more need of help. As the Secretary of Treasury declared yesterday, the federal government has the task and duty to keep a balanced bugdet, so the federal state does not increase state debt unnecessarily. I am glad that even Mr. Kohout admits this, when he mentions that the government is operation under a surplus budget. It is reasonable to say that some of the merit of that falls to the work of the federal government. As the federal government remains compromised to keep a balanced budget, as most of the members of this Assembly I am convinced that they agree, the only way to continue to increase social spending can be through a new, more fair and rational fiscal system. That is what I am proposing here.
Our tax reform is fair and balanced, and more progressive than Harrow reform because we believe than those who are blessed with the greatest wealth have the duty to contribute more in order to give a chance to that people who were not that lucky, very often only because the social class their parents belonged, and to contribute to the general good. We don't believe that we should demand a contribution too much harsh and at the expense of the happiness of themselves, their families, and the very often creativity, talent and hard work. That is why we reject the absurd and self-defeating proposals of the NMP. Our proposal, on the contrary, is rational and balanced. It is true that middle classes will have to do a contribution to the budget under our reform, but it is the only way we can continue increasing social spending in welfare, education, and research. We believe they are mature voters and they understand this perfectly, as they understand that they will be greatly benefited for that social spending. They will contribute a little but they will receive much more.
Unfortunately, Mr. Kohout does not touch the truth when he falls in his predictable rhetoric about the "champions of the people, the burden of the economy, and to tax the poor to starvation". Maybe Mr. Kohout ignores that poverty rate has been consistently reduced during the last two years, partly because the federal government increase in social spending and cooperation with other social programs existing in the different states. We must keep working in that path, and this reform will be a right step in that direction. Our reform is progressive, and those who will have their contribution to their federal government increased will be the upper classes, while business will breath and flourish with a reduction of the corporate tax. Harrow Reform have punished companies, the main driving force of our economy, and it is time to change that with a lower corporate taxation. Unlike the reform of the income tax, the corporate tax is thought to be introduced gradually in order to help SME to adapt to the new rate.
The changes in the corporate tax and the VAT have a secondary aim to increase a more simple and less arbitrary fiscal system. I believe our reform achieves that. It will solve some flaws of the Harrow Reform, such as including luxury goods inside the VAT reduced rates. We believe that culture should be promoted, but I don't think it is controversial to say that is the same a millonaire bidding for a 12th-century painting than a working class mother buying textbooks for her daughter. Our reform solves as well this absurd equivalence. As usual, our group will be open to constructive suggestion of other parliamentary groups, but I believe I was successful enough to explain why our reform is more balanced, rational, fair and progressive than the existing one.
Thank you for your time, members of the Assembly.
