38 Amendments of Iliana IVANOVA related to 2010/2105(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7
Citation 7
– having regard to the Commission staff working document on innovative financing at a global and European level (SEC(2010)0409) and the Commission Communication on the taxation of the financial sector (COM(2010)0549/5) as well as the accompanying staff working document (SEC(2010)1166),
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the spectacular rise in the volume of financial transactions in the global economy within the last decade – a volume which in 2007 reached a level 73.5 times higher than nominal world GDP, mainly owing to the boom on the derivatives market - is clearly illustrating thesuggests a growing disconnection between financial transactions and the needs of the real economy,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the financial sector is heavily reliant on trading patterns, such as high- frequency trade (HFT), which are mainly targeted on short-term profits and are exposed to excessivehigh leverage, which was one of the main causes of the financial crisis; whereas this has caused excessivestrong price volatility and persistent deviations of stock and commodity prices from their fundamental levels,
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas in the EU in particular the cost of the bail-outs has triggered a subsequentaccelerated the occurrence of an already looming fiscal and debt crisis that, and has placed a burden on public budgets and severely endangered job creation and welfare state provision,
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas this prompted the current debate on European economic governance, a key component of which should be measures to strengthen the coordination of taxation policies in order to safeguard tax justice and bring about a shift in the tax be inefficiency of the Stability and Growth Pact in its present form and the divergence in competitiveness between Member States prompted the curdren from labour towards activities with strong negative externalitiest debate on European economic governance,
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the crisis has highlighted the need to raise new, fair and sustainable revenues, as well as to enforce existent legislation and improve the effectiveness of tax collection in order to ensure that fiscal consolidation is effectively combined with long-term economic recovery and the sustainability of public finances, job creation and social inclusion, which are key priorities of the EU 2020 agenda,
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the work carried out so far by the Commission, but deplores its obvious reluctance to make concrete proposals and its failure toand welcomes its respondse to the call made by Parliament in its resolution of March 2010 for a feasibility study on an EU-based FTTthe FTT as part of its planned impact assessment;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that the main advantage of innovative financing tools, as compared to traditional ones, is their can bring double dividend, as they can at the same time contribute to the achievement of important policy goals, such as financial market stability, and offer significant revenue potential; stresses, in this context, that the effects of these tools on the negative externalities produced by the financial sector should also be taken into account;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that the main advantage of innovative financing tools, as compared to traditional ones, is their can bring double dividend, as they can at the same time contribute to the achievement of important policy goals, such as financial market stability, and offer significant revenue potential;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that the introduction of an FTT at a global level could help to tackle the growing and highlysome damaging trading patterns in financial markets, such as short-termism and automated HFT, and curb speculation; stresses that an FTT would thusmight improve market efficiency, and reduce excessive price volatility and create incentives for the financial sector to make long-term investments with added value for the real economy;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises the revenue potentialcurrent revenue estimates of a low-rate FTT, which could, with its large tax base, yield nearly €200 billion per year at EU level and $650 billion at global level; considers that – would these amounts materialise - this would constitute a substantial contribution by the financial sector to the cost of the crisis and to public finance sustainability;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is concerned that there is a high risk that the momentum behNotes the rapid evolution of the debate concernindg the proposal to introduce a global FTT is about to be lost and deplores the fact that the G20 has so far been unable to promotFTT and the increasingly differentiated evaluation of the feasibility, efficiency and effectiveness of such a tax as well as the emeanrgingful joint initiatives on this matter; calls on the G20 leaders to reach an agreement discussion concerning a Financial Activities Tax (FAT); calls on the G20 leaders to give guidance on the desired future onf the minimum common elements of a global FTTse various kinds of taxation;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Points out that some EU Member States have already introduced similar types of transaction taxes with no apparent negative impact, while other EU Member States have experienced strong negative impacts, including massive delocalization of financial activities, a phenomenon that could only be partially reversed after the tax was abolished;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Stresses that a European FTT should only be considered if the European Commission's impact assessment concludes that this is a viable option that does not cause a significant displacement of economic activity away from the European Union;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses, further, that the flow of merely speculative transactions to other jurisdictions would not have few detrimental effects, but could have the potential to contribute to increased market efficiency; also stresses that not all actions deemed to be speculation are to be condemned, rather that a broad variety of risk taking is necessary to maintain the stability of EU financial markets; recalls that the high interest rates offered on bonds in states experiencing a debt crisis are geared towards attracting the speculator's resources in order to help overcome the crisis;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that within the centralised European market central clearing and settlement services make an EU FTT technically feasible,could facilitate the introduction of an FTT that could be cheap in administrative terms and simple to implement;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Deplores the recentWelcomes the Commission Communication, which comes down against the introduction of an EU FTT not on the basis of comprehensive, evidence-based research, but on that of the general argument of the competitive disadvantage for the EU economy as a first step helping to get a grasp on this difficult and emotionally laden topic;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. CWelcomes the fact that the recent Commission Communication has announced an impact assessment on various options for the taxation of the financial sector and calls on the Commission also to address in its feasibility study the geographical asymmetry of transactions and revenues and the possibility of a graded or differentiated rate on the basis of the asset category, the nature of the actor involved or the short-term and speculative nature of the transaction; calls on the Commission to develop follow-up proposals based on the results of its impact assessment;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Welcomes, in that context, the recent Commission proposals on OTC derivatives and short selling which impose explicit central clearing and trading repository requirements on all OTC derivatives transactions, thus making the implementation of this broad-based EU FTT futechnically feasible;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Stresses the importance of comprehensive rules on exemptions and thresholds in order to ensure that the main burden is not transferred toInsists on examining who will eventually be paying the tax, as taxes are usually burdened on the consumer, which in this case would be retail investors and individuals;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes the IMF proposal for a Financial Activities Tax (FAT), as endorsed in the recent Commission communication; stresses that an FAT is a solely revenue- oriented tax tool and therefore has no direct or indirect potential to restore mthat directly tarkget balance or to curb speculation in financial transactions; emphasises, moreover, that even if they are given the broadest possible scope FATs offer lower revenue potential than FTTs; believes, therefore, that an FAT can only be a complement to an FTTs the financial sector; notes that if well- designed, a FAT allows reaching two additional objectives of being a good proxy for value-added of the sector and to tax economic rents and excessive risk- taking; calls on the Commission to assess its potential;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Is aware of different options for the management of the additional revenues generated by the taxation of the financial sector at both national and European level; is convinced that in order to safeguard the European added value of the aforementioned innovative financing tools a substantial part of those revenues should be allocated to the EU budget to finance EU projects and policies;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2
Subheading 2
European bonds
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20 a. Calls on the Commission to produce a feasibility assessment in order to establish in the long run a system under which Member States may participate in the issuance of common European bonds; calls for the inclusion in such an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of all options, taking into account possible moral hazard implications for participating members;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Supports the idea of issuing common European bondsproject bonds to be administered by the European Investment Bank to finance Europe'’s significant infrastructure needs and structural projects in the framework of the EU 2020 agenda;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Stresses that the current taxation model should fully embrace the polluter-pays principle by using innovativadequate financing tools in order to shift the tax burden on to activities which pollute the environment;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Supports, therefore, the introduction of a carbon tax on European sectors not covered bya strengthening of the Emissions Trading Scheme as well as a comprehensive revision of the energy taxation directive to make CO2 emissions and energy content one of the basic criteria for the taxation of energy products;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Believes adequate tools need to be found to impose a CO2 tax on imported products and services in order to rWarns against the risk of initiating trade wars as a resulet out competitive disadvantages for the internal marketf the imposition of a border tax based on the CO2 content of imported goods;
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Believes thatCalls on the Commission to research the feasibility of a European carbon-added tax along the lines of VAT imposed on every product within the internal market would be the least distortive and fairest tool; suggests as an alternativealso calls on the Commission to explore the usefulness and feasibility of a Border Taxation Adjustment negotiated within the WTO framework to provide for the imposition of carbon tariffs on non-EU products imported into the internal market as an alternative to the carbon-added tax;
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27 a. Understands that a Carbon Tax would be an instrument to reduce emissions rather than a long-term source of income, as this source would eventually dry up should that instrument be effective;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 b (new)
Paragraph 27 b (new)
27 b. Points out that a common European carbon tax would have highly dissimilar effects on individual Member States; warns, in this respect,against the uneven burdens that such a tax would create;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28 a. Notes that there is as yet no clear idea to whom the proceedings thus collected are to be allocated;