Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-12-Speech-3-273"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-04-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Financial services and complementary pensions2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000412.10.3-273"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-04-12-Speech-3-2742
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij - Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond - Reformatorisch Politieke Federatie (1999-07-20--2002-03-17)3 co-chair; EDD (1999-07-20--2001-01-29)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; ECON (2000-02-02--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the European Commission’s Green Paper has caused many to reach for their pens, so much so that in the motion for a resolution, the objective of the Green Paper has been lost almost completely. Similarly, the intention of the rapporteur, Mr Kuckelkorn, who has carried out a vast amount of work, for which I would like to thank him, is not expressed very well in the motion for a resolution. It is now up to us to see that an acceptable document is produced tomorrow during the vote. The principal aim is for workers, when they move to another Member State, to be able to transfer their supplementary pension schemes and continue to pay into them without forfeiting their pension rights and with a guarantee that their accumulated pension rights will retain their value. Unfortunately, the Commission has not really made any headway towards fulfilling this wish. We have a long way to go before the compulsory transfer of value between Member States will be a reality. The first obstacle we need to negotiate is the mutual recognition of supervisory rules. It is then important that an adequate distinction is drawn between pension funds and commercial insurance companies. A pension fund has an obligation to be generally acceptable. A full-value pension scheme covers biometric risks. Insurance companies do offer their participants a choice, and their products do not cover biometric risks. Since the risks covered are not identical, government inspection will also vary for pension funds and insurance companies. On account of this supervision, complete freedom of investment is justified in both cases. This leads on average to higher returns. We need to avoid creating a situation where the individual is forced, on account of significantly lower returns on pension funds, to enter the wild investment woods in search of their supplementary pension schemes, where the big bad wolf is after their money. The second obstacle is the levying of taxes within the Member States. Taking into account the fast approaching ageing of the population, it is desirable for fiscal systems to promote the development of supplementary pensions. The EET model, where premium payments are tax-free and the retirement payout is taxed, meets this requirement and is also common in most Member States. I hope that Parliament and the Commission will make the internal market for supplementary pension schemes a reality along these lines."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph