Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-03-Speech-4-080"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030703.5.4-080"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Up to now, public budgets have been drawn up on an administrative basis, with the credits being shared out between ministers. There are also, however, methods which show budgets according to major function, according to programme or broken down in economic terms.
Since 1995, in the interests of seeking to achieve equality between men and women, it has been proposed that budgets should be drawn up on a sexual basis. This is known as gender budgeting, or budgeting according to sex, which is intended to respond to two questions. The first question is how the budget expenditure should be shared between women and men, in other words who gets the money, and the second question is who should pay, in other words who shoulders the tax burden.
This brave vision must be expanded to include even more justice. We need generational budgeting. Which generations pay the taxes? Is it young people, retired people, working people or old people? Which generations gain the most advantage from public expenditure? Above all, however, we must have class budgeting, or category budgeting. Which social categories shoulder the tax burden? Is it the wage earners, or the holders of movable capital incomes?
Finally we come to the great taboo, the question of who profits from the budget credits. Is it the rich or the poor? Is it the middle classes, old people, small farmers, the small man or the big man? This is a question about justice. It is a social question rather than a hormonal one."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples