Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-23-Speech-2-026"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071023.6.2-026"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this is a report that is heavily influenced by the compromise between the PPE-DE and the ALDE. I believe it is largely a balanced report. The Member States’ responsibility for taxation policies is laid down, whilst there are a number of taxes that would benefit from greater EU coordination. In the rapporteur’s original proposal, there was thorough coordination with a strong emphasis on higher levels of redistribution. That cannot be a way to make Europe grow or to create new jobs. In the globalised world in which we live, it is not higher taxes that Europe needs. Instead, I think that we who live in high-taxation countries should look at other models, such as a flatter tax. In general, taxes should be lowered on work and raised on harmful consumption. For example, specific environmental taxes should be introduced, as well as reasonable excise duties on alcohol and tobacco, for example, as the Commissioner says.
Here the EU must be able to act with greater accord. This is a politically sensitive issue – we have heard that here and I am well aware of it – but it is nonetheless necessary, in my opinion. If we are to resolve the major climate and energy challenges that we are facing, it would be irresponsible of us to rule out controlling fiscal instruments. It is possible to achieve high growth, with high environmental and energy taxes, and at the same time reduce the overall tax burden. Any doubters can look at the policy of the centre-right government in my home country, Sweden, if I can be allowed to be a little patriotic at the end of this debate."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples