Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-12-Speech-3-279"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000412.10.3-279"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the crux of this evening’s debate obviously seems to be that unless clear and unmistakable distinctions are drawn between products that cover biometric risks, as the rapporteur, Mr Kuckelkorn, has proposed, there will be no single market for supplementary company pensions, or not a genuine single market at any rate. We need tax harmonisation if we are to make the single market an attractive proposition. We need taxation during the pension payout period, as proposed in the agreement, because only then will the cross-border aspect hold some appeal for potential members. After all, why should the Finance Ministers pay twice? They will have to pay once for departing from an input taxation system, and they will then have to take a decrease in tax revenue on board at a later date. At the same time, they will have to help foot the bill for any unsatisfactory products they have helped to promote which do not prevent poverty in old age, and they might even have to pay a third time because, in addition, they will have to finance poverty in old age from public coffers. These Finance Ministers may then have to pay yet again because they will have to resign their posts, as punishment for their foolish actions.
That is why the debate as presented to us in Amendment No 30, on the freedom of choice of the insured, is a pseudo discussion. I have this to say to those of you that support this argument: these are the same insured whom only a few weeks ago a majority of you undertook to allow to participate in decisions on the fund capacity, on the use of the amounts paid in, which are often a slice of people’s wages, and you gave an undertaking to these same people that those who act on your behalf would be involved in making sure that the funds in question were put to good use.
We are very much in favour of the citizens of Europe having the freedom to decide, but, that being the case, let us be quite clear about what we mean by the principle of subsidiarity. According to catholic social doctrine, subsidiarity means that we should actually enable the small units – the families and most dependent employees – to make their own provisions for old-age, and that we should concern ourselves not so much with the investment interests of individual suppliers of products as a criteria, but with how we can reduce the number of hurdles to vesting periods. We must talk about how we are to organise the codecision rights of the insured and their representatives, and we must also discuss how investment capital is to flow into spheres that will generate worthwhile new jobs."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples