Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-04-Speech-1-091"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060904.18.1-091"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I have a very specific comment to make on this report.
Amendment 18, which refers to Article 4, calls for a graduated progressive tax. However, Amendment 19 – creating a new paragraph 1a in Article 4 – seeks to introduce the notion of direct proportion. This notion was also included in the amendments by Mr Langen, although he has now withdrawn them. So what would such a notion mean? It would mean that the tax on a car with emission levels of 200 g/km could only be EUR 200 and that on a car of 160 g/km, EUR 160. As a result, the desired outcome – namely to effect a major shift in what the consumer decides when he buys a car – would not be achieved, since, if there is only a difference of EUR 80 between a car with 120 g/km emission and a car with 200 g/km emissions, then the market will remain unaffected. We must therefore vote against this direct proportionality and stick to the text on the graduated progressive tax.
The Commission published a very interesting document last week on the efficiency of cars in Europe. On page 32 of the working document, there is a graph showing which category most cars fall into. You will see that almost 70% of the cars in Europe are between 140 and 200 g/km, and only 25% are below 140 g/km. So what we can achieve with this instrument is to levy an over-proportional tax on those between 140 and 200 g/km, so that we can effect a major shift to categories below 140, which is the target of the European Union. So, we have a contradiction in our text, and if we want to be effective we have to remedy this."@en1
|
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples