Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-126"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030924.2.3-126"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The Commission has wanted to create a Community framework for the taxation of energy products for some time. This Council compromise, therefore, constitutes a significant step in that direction, since it has brought agreement on a comprehensive energy tax directive, encompassing all forms of energy. The rapporteur, however, has some piercing criticisms of the minimum tax rates agreed, the exemptions and the tax reductions provided for.
We have grave reservations about this directive. We favour lightening the tax burden on workers, but the solution does not involve so-called ‘environmental taxation’ of energy or pollution. The solution involves finding a new balance of taxation between workers and capital. What is more, this type of indirect taxation is levied, when all is said and done, on the final consumers (users). It is not sensitive to levels of income and penalises lower-income households. The effects of steep tax increases on the productive fabric, especially in the least-favoured regions, should also be assessed.
The underlying ‘polluter pays’ principle, furthermore, engenders serious reservations, as it permits those with economic clout to generate pollution. That is clear in the liberal philosophy behind emissions trading. The bottom line is that we should not pollute at all. The battle to protect the environment and stop environmental dumping must be fought with appropriate legislation and effective enforcement. This requires a high degree of state intervention and investment."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples