Grondwettelijk Hof vernietigt Turteltaks
deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/politiek/1.3007847
deredactie.bePosted Jun 22, 2017, 9:26 AM UTC
61150
deredactie.beVoor 2016 en 2017 blijft de heffing wel behouden, om rechtsonzekerheid en administratieve moeilijkheden te vermijden. Geld terugvorderen gaat dus niet.
Dangit.
29
Does that surprise you? At all?
12
It does actually, it creates more legal uncertainty as before. This opens the door for damage claims for 2016 and 2017. Thats a potential 4 billion € claim.
17
Yeah, I'm going to sue somebody for fraud or theft if I'm not getting anything back.
They took money out of our hands and the law said they weren't allowed to.
We should def get it back
14
good luck with that rofl
5
There isn't really any basis for a damage claim. If the Constitutional Court, one of the three highest courts in this country, says the law will be upheld for 2016 and 2017, then that's a final verdict and unappealable.
8
In the current arrest. This gives legal ammunition to specifically fight that part of the arrest in any court.
1
Ye. The law is illigal. But we'll uphold it.
Wut???
0
Exactly, how fucked up is it to say that it's illegal to add this tax. But that the illegal tax that was taken in 2016-2017 can't be gotten back by those who were paying something they didn't have to pay?
2
Of course not, but "hoop doet leven".
3
Hoop is a necromancer?!
2
And whistleblower
1
Yes, we illegally took your money. We're not giving it back though.
9
Let's try the other way around and see what gives.
3
I'm pretty confident they'll have another ridiculous construct like this within the month.
2
Seems par for the course.
1
administratieve moeilijkheden
They can see how didn't pay it, so they can see who payed it and how much and turn it around. I don't see the issue.
4
The issue is €€€. And you wont see it.
1
Ofcourse they won't. This year they'll invent a different trick to round up 100 euros from every Belgian citizen, then cancel it and pat themselves on the back.
Fucking pieces of human trash.
4
We could simply withdraw all our money from the banks.
System will collapse. Next chapter. No violence required
1
for 2016, maybe not. for 2017 I definitely want it back
2
This should work retroactive, I want my money back !
16
They obtained it illegally, so theoretically, you should get your money back. Maybe have testaankoop do something about it.
2
Well this should be the logical next step however I know for sure that they'll come up with a clever answer why it won't be happening.
1
Yet another diabolical scheme by PTB/PVDA to fuck over the country /s
12
Seize the turtels of production
6
Now remains fact that it was extremely incompetent to levy a tax that was unconstitutional. Even more incompetent to not rescind it when the opposition points out it's unconstitutional.
10
[deleted]
1
I think KjarDol refers to the fact that the government knew that this tax was illegal (they were informed multiple times by the opposition) but that they didn't remove it on their own until being forced to by the constitutional court.
1
Okay, i deleted my comment then.
Well the Council of State already pointed it out in their advise. You could say it was an attempt from the government to expand the competences of Flanders in taxation. But yeah there defense would have been pretty weak to say the least.
I'm 100% sure they didn't need the opposition to inform them. It's a very basic rule for the competence of taxation of a regional government in Belgium.
They didn't rule on the discrimination claim that Pvda made. (that it was more profitable for companies). You can differentiatie under the law, it's only banned to discriminate on the basis of the reasons mentioned in article 10 of the constitution. The rule is that you treat equal situation in an equal manner and non-equal situations in a .. So well here i think that they can legally make a different rule for companies and consumers.
Although this isn't the first time that regional/community governments try to do things that are certainly unconstitutional. Like the French community trying to fund frenchspeaking organisations in Flanders, Wallonia trying to tax water flowing into Flanders (illegal we are a monetary union, we can't have custom duties), Flanders trying to pull something similar with the 'meststoffendecreet'...
So it would be difficult to argue that they are less incompetent than other governments before them. And it's very likely that they knew what they were doing.
1
It's a very basic rule for the competence of taxation of a regional government in Belgium.
Well, the argument from the regional government was that they weren't taxing electricity use, they were taxing the connection to the power distribution network (even if no electricity was being used).
If it was just "everyone pays 100 and companies pay 1000", it would have been legal. It is only because there were several tiers of the tax that were based on energy use, in an effort to make it more equitable, that it was considered double taxation.
I strongly doubt that they issued an intentionally unconstitutional tax and were daring the constitutional court to void it. That would make no political sense.
1
Keep enforcing it as law untill court breaks it down.
Replace law with another illegal tax.
Repeat.
-1
Voor 2016 en 2017 blijft de heffing wel behouden. Geld terugvorderen gaat dus niet.
Apparently to avoid legal uncertainty and excess paperwork. Seems to me this creates more legal uncertainty than anything, pretty odd reasoning. Its either legally sound or its not and the money collected has to be returned.
We're now also looking at a hole of almost 2 billion in the budget, so that'll be a fun excercise to fill up. One of the last options thats now on the table is the direct taxation of solar panels. Its no coincidence all owners were forced to register their panels and has paid for satellite images to track unregistered solar panels. Another option is a fixed sum of money for any connection point regardless of energy usage.
9
One of the last options thats now on the table is the direct taxation of solar panels. Its no coincidence all owners were forced to register their panels and has paid for satellite images to track unregistered solar panels.
Welp, time to order camo netting.
2
Thats not how solar panels work ;-)
2
Shame... thought I finally had an excuse to buy some netting :p
2
I bought some netting a while back, now I can't find it anymore, it's camouflaged :(
3
Me too, that and a ghillie suit. But why would I ever need those
1
[deleted]
0
Sounds like an honest solution to me 😇
2
Tesla solar roof perhaps
2
When in doubt, more taxes for tobacco.
2
Nope, thats not possible either, thats a federal matter.
2
Prosumententarief is already a thing.
1
Thats different, the prosumententarrif is a reduced rate to cover for transport and distribution costs of electricity. The energieheffing is to pay for the green energy subsidies given to solar panels for example.
2
But explain the possible taxation of solar panels. A tax combined with the prosumententarief, my solar panels would be a financial loss
2
At this point the government just needs to recoup the money invested and has to find legally sound ways to do so. Thats either going to be a flat tax or an attempt to make the tax more "honest". The solar panels will be a financial loss for either the entire society or the people that bought them.
2
well, sucks that I won't get 2 years of turteltaks back, i hope those fucks with solar panels enjoy my euros.
7
Those "fucks with solar panels" got baited into getting solar panels so many years ago with groene stroomcertificaten. No-one could predict this.
2†
Try adding /s
2
Why should I when I'm serious.
1
i hope those fucks with solar panels enjoy my euros
Fuck them for not polluting as much as the rest, right?
2†
Are you assuming any of that money is going to consumers? It's not. Companies like Katoennatie are the ones who have filled their buildings with solar panels and are making a profit of something that makes no real difference to their actual polution.
3
Are you assuming any of that money is going to consumers?
Over half of the certificates are going to small consumers. The other half goes to schools, public services and companies. The installed capacity of Katoen Natie for example is 24MW on a total of 2953MW.
2
How much "turteltaks" did they pay? :)
1
Ye. They get money from my pocket to pay for a solar panel that i get refused access to.
Its theft. Plain and simple. I'd like to save up for solar panels to. If i did not had to sponser the panels of those who got them anyway.
And now in your logic i am somehow less intrested? No fuck you bro. I want solar panels. And if i pay for em i'd like to benefit from them to! This is theft and nothing more. A reverse robin hood.
2
wait, what?
1
Because that's why people put them on their roofs right.
1
This probably means they're going to jack up electricity distribution prices.
7
Mfw when the news announcer on Nostalgie accidentally called it "Turkentaks" and managed to keep going without a break in her voice.
6
So what's preventing them from pulling the same stunt next year? We're not getting our money back so despite the legal status they still got our money. What's preventing them from creating a new illegal tax and having it around until the next verdict of the grondwettelijk hof?
4
Exactly, this seems to be what the journalist is implying in the video. We're probably not going to pay 100 euro less taxes next year, by the end of 2017 they will have come up with a new (il)legal tax and the game goes on. Pretty shallow victory if you look at it from this point of view.
2
What's preventing them from creating a new illegal tax and having it around until the next verdict of the grondwettelijk hof?
Vote this government of highway robbers and economic apprentice sorcerers out of existence the next election.
1
[deleted]
1
That is what the people did. They voted nva. "De kracht van verandering".
Well.. here you have it.
My advise? Piratpartit!
1
De heffing kreeg al snel de Turteltaks
I do wonder how two professional journalists can manage leaving a blatant writing error in a half page long article.
2
Because news agencies are in a competition to push this kind news as fast as possible to people via notifications on their phone etc. The original "article" was 2 phrases long. Its literally being written while people are reading it.
12
I've noticed this with the HLN feed about the Brussels Central bombing attempt.
Suddenly an empty line, half a minute later text appears and than fiddling around for punctuation and spelling errors for a minute or two. :/
2
Good riddance. :D
2
[...] introduced to wipe out a hefty bill from the past, when the Flemish government had promised citizens installing solar panels (too high) compensations.
So the VAT is gone, but the debts remain. We're going to pay for it one way or another, with or without the Turteltaks.
1
Prety sure they'll collect another way.
1
Everyone made these arguments when the tax was announced.
God fucking damn our politicians are idiots and play the people for fools.
1
Our politicians are very smart. They get rich fast.
It is the people who is very stupid. For accepting this.
1
Man, I really love TestAankoop
1
See the first paragraph in chapter 2 right under the graph. Your original argument was that most of the money goes to companies. While less than half goes to schools, organisations and companies combined.
As for the honesty of the tax, sure bigger users pay less. A large industrial user pays about 35€/MWh while mid sized companies pay 100€/MWh and consumers around 350€/MWh. The effect of an equally distributed tax based on usage would be 10x larger on a company than on a consumer. The Turteltax is about 30€/MWh for a normal user. Do the same for companies and it literally doubles their energy bill. They wouldn't be able to continue operating in Belgium.
1
So, what about the debt?
No matter what, we will need a solution. And the current one may have been poorly thought out and communication, but the end result will be the same.
This just means that the existing way to pay the bill will be replaced. We will still pay for it. The only question is how.
Let's just take a moment to remember what this is all about. The government created a generous subsidy without knowing how to pay for it.
That's the lesson for next time. Nothing is free. The more generous the government is, the more you'll end up paying later.
1
Het is raar dat ze dit de turteltaks blijven noemen. Turtelboom kreeg een gigantisch deficiet op haar bord dankzij de incompetentie van VDB. Ze moest de rommel van een ander opkuisen en kreeg er nog de schuld voor ook van deredactie ea kameraden die het bleven pushen dat het 'in de volksmond de turteltaks heet'.
Raar vonnis ook: ongrondwettelijk maar enkel vanaf 2018??
-10
Het is raar dat mensen nog steeds denken dat de put door VDB gemaakt is.
De steun aan zonnepanelenn is in de regering Dewael tot leven gekomen met Stevaert als minister van energie.
Ze is exponentieel toegenomen onder Kris Peeters in de regering Somers (van 150 naar 450 €).
Éénmaal gedaald onder Hilde Crevits in de regering Peeters
Drie keer gedaald tot en met de stopzeting door Van Den Bossche in de regering Peeters II.
Dus het is echt niet de incompetentie van VDB. Elke partij heeft er bijna mee te maken want door die jaren zijn er 2 minister-presidenten geweest van Open VLD, 2 ministers van Energie van CD&V, 2 ministers van energie van SP.a en 5 jaar regeringsdeelname van N-VA zonder dat dit ter sprake kwam.
En de reden dat het Turteltaks noemt is omdat Turtelboom met een absurd slecht en nu dus officieel ongrondwettelijk idee kwam om dit op te lossen.
18
Shhh, don't disrupt the eternal 'SCHULD VAN DE SOSSEN' circle jerk ;)
4
well he has the right username for it.
4
And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for your Sherlock level acuity!
2
Who says it was Turtelboom's own idea? To be fair to her she was minister and supposed to carry out the coalition agreement. Might've just been an idea of someone else on the negotiation table during one of the budgetary meetings.
1
That doesn't matter. It was her department. she was minister when this was carried out and she voted for it. She even defended it.
That's her responsability, no matter who came up with original idea
3
Ministers are expected to defend the government even when they personally disagree.
Also I merely pointed out she did not "came up" with the idea herself per se sont it has no impact on any other judgement you make.
-1
That's the responsablilty you carry as a minister.
1
It is. They get nice salaries for it .
1
Hmm how much of that money went to solar and how much to large projects like bio mass and those huge wind farms in the sea.
1
Conveniently ignoring that one of the major drivers was PVDA/PTB doing excellent work here...
No they are evil toothbrush stealing commies, not allowed in media.
This is a media disgrace.
Watch the video, the analyst points out the role of pvda: coining the term Turteltaks, starting the case voor het Grondwettelijk Hof together with Testaankoop and Peter Mertens even gets air time for an interview. How is pvda being ignored here? And then there's all these circlejerkers on your comment victim playing for pvda smh.
Thanks for the correction. I didn't watch the video, I was referring to the written article which doesn't mention their involvement.
Let's be nice and assume this is yet another case of the media trying to be fast.
To be fair, some media are beginning to catch up.
Now it's just HLN and deredactie who are forgetful.
Isnt deredactie state owned?
Conveniently not providing any proof for that claim.
I don't think this is hard to google...
http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20160511_02283777 <-- Here
Are we going to link any statement we make from now on?
The sky is blue, here is proof
That may have been photoshopped though.
What a wonderful world that would be though.
[CITATION NEEDED]
It's from a source of the wrong side of the political spectrum!
This is not exactly some obscure secret...
You have to give it to the PVDA. They did a good job with this. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.