BETA


2010/2105(INI) Innovative financing at a global and European level

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead ECON PODIMATA Anni (icon: S&D S&D) HÜBNER Danuta Maria (icon: PPE PPE)
Committee Opinion DEVE DEVA Nirj (icon: ECR ECR) Enrique GUERRERO SALOM (icon: S&D S&D)
Committee Opinion ITRE MARINESCU Marian-Jean (icon: PPE PPE) Vicky FORD (icon: ECR ECR), Jens ROHDE (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2011/09/12
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2011/03/08
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2011/03/08
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 529 votes to 127, with 18 abstentions, a resolution on innovative financing at global and European level in response to the Commission staff working document on innovative financing at a global and European level and the Commission Communication on the taxation of the financial sector. Members take note of the work carried out so far by the Commission to respond to the call made by Parliament in its resolution of March 2010 for a feasibility study on financial transaction taxes at global and EU level. They call for the result of a comprehensive impact assessment and possible concrete proposals to be made public by summer 2011 , as announced in the Commission's communication on Taxation of the Financial Sector. A balanced and thorough feasibility study on an EU Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) should be the basis on which the procedure for introducing such a tax is implemented. Members emphasise that an increase in the rates of existing taxation tools and further cuts in public expenditure can be neither a sufficient nor a sustainable solution to address the main challenges ahead. The focus should be on removing the remaining barriers in the internal market , with studies showing that EUR 200 to 300 billion could be saved annually if all barriers to the four freedoms were removed.

Members go on to state that one of the main advantages of innovative financing tools is that they can bring a double dividend, as they can at the same time contribute to the achievement of important policy goals, such as financial market stability and transparency, and offer significant revenue potential.

(1) Taxation of the financial sector : Parliament welcomes the Commission's recognition that the financial sector is under-taxed, in particular because no VAT is levied on most financial services, and it calls for innovative financing measures to raise more from this sector and contribute to shifting the burden of taxation away from working people. The introduction of an FTT could help to tackle the highly damaging trading patterns in financial markets, such as some short-term and automated HFT transactions, and curb speculation. Members favour the introduction of a tax on financial transactions, which would improve the functioning of the market by reducing speculation and help to finance global public goods and reduce public deficits. The introduction of a tax on financial transactions ought to be as broadly based as possible and that the EU should promote the introduction of an FTT at global level, failing which, the EU should implement an FTT at European level as a first step . The resolution calls on the Commission swiftly to produce a feasibility study, taking into account the need for a global level playing field, and to come forward with concrete legislative proposals.

The current revenue estimates for a low-rate FTT, which could yield nearly EUR 200 billion per year at EU level and $650 billion at global level, could constitute a substantial contribution by the financial sector to the cost of the crisis and to public finance sustainability. Members call on the G20 leaders to speed up the negotiations for an agreement on the minimum common elements of a global FTT and to provide guidance on the desired future of these various kinds of taxation.

The resolution goes on to state that the flow of merely speculative transactions to other jurisdictions would have few detrimental effects , but could also have the potential to contribute to increased market efficiency. An FTT should have the broadest base possible so as to guarantee a level playing field in the financial markets and not drive transactions to less transparent vehicles. Members insists on determining who will ultimately be paying the tax, as the burden usually falls on the consumer, who in this case would be retail investors and individuals, and they stress the need for comprehensive rules on exemptions and thresholds, in order to prevent this.

Comparing other financing tools, Parliament states that bank levies, a Financial Activities Tax (FAT) and an FTT each serve different economic objectives and have different revenue-raising potential. Since they are based on balance-sheet positions, bank levies cannot take on the role of curbing financial speculation and further regulating shadow banking; in that connection. Members also stress that an FAT is mainly a revenue-oriented tax tool that targets the financial sector, making it possible to tax economic rents and profits from excessive risk-taking, and as such could provide a solution to the current VAT exemption of the financial sector.

The question regarding the purpose for which the revenues raised by an FTT should be used needs to be resolved in order to give taxpayers a proper picture of the rationale behind additional financial sector taxation. Members feel that, owing to its global nature, the revenue raised by a global FTT should be used to provide financing for global policy goals , such as development and poverty reduction in developing countries and the fight against climate change. In order to safeguard the European added value of the innovative financing tools a part of those revenues could be allocated to finance EU projects and policies, and Members call for a broad debate on the choices available.

(2) Eurobonds : Parliament notes that Eurobonds are increasingly referred to as a common debt management instrument. It calls on the European Council and the Commission to provide an immediate response to call Parliament made in its resolution on the permanent crisis mechanism for the necessary political signal to be given for a Commission investigation into a future system of Eurobonds. Members support the idea of issuing common European project bonds to finance Europe's significant infrastructure needs and structural projects in the framework of the EU 2020 agenda, anticipated new EU strategies, such as the new Strategy on Energy Infrastructure Development, and other large-scale projects. EU project bonds would secure the investment required and create sufficient confidence to enable major investment projects to attract the support they need and would thus become an important mechanism for maximum leverage of public support.

(3) Carbon tax : Members support a strengthening of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and a comprehensive revision of the Energy Taxation Directive to make CO2 emissions and energy content basic criteria for the taxation of energy products. A carbon tax and the revision of the Directive should set the minimum mandatory requirements for all Member States, leaving it to up to each Member State to go further if it sees fit. However, the scope for a global agreement at G20 level or within the WTO should be fully explored before such a tax is imposed on foreign imports into the EU in order to ensure that this border taxation adjustment tool does not give rise to a shortage of raw materials, on the one hand, and retaliatory measures by third countries against EU exports, on the other.

(4) Financing for development : Parliament calls for a re-affirmation by the Member States of their pledge to earmark 0.7% of their gross national income GNI to official development assistance, deploring the fact that only Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark and the Netherlands reached this goal in 2008. Innovative financing for development can complement traditional development aid mechanisms and should be additional to the UN goal of 0.7% of GDP devoted to development cooperation. Members stress at the same time, the need for developing countries to step up their own efforts in the area of taxation, mainly as regards tax collection and the fight against tax evasion.

Documents
2011/03/08
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2011/03/07
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2011/02/10
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2011/02/10
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Documents
2011/02/01
   EP - Vote in committee
Details

The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Anni PODIMATA (S&D, EL) on innovative financing at global and European level in response to the Commission staff working document on innovative financing at a global and European level and the Commission Communication on the taxation of the financial sector.

Members take note of the work carried out so far by the Commission to respond to the call made by Parliament in its resolution of March 2010 for a feasibility study on financial transaction taxes at global and EU level. They call for the result of a comprehensive impact assessment and possible concrete proposals to be made public by summer 2011, as announced in the Commission's communication on Taxation of the Financial Sector. A balanced and thorough feasibility study on an EU Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) should be the basis on which the procedure for introducing such a tax is implemented. Members emphasise that an increase in the rates of existing taxation tools and further cuts in public expenditure can be neither a sufficient nor a sustainable solution to address the main challenges ahead. The focus should be on removing the remaining barriers in the internal market, with studies showing that EUR 200 to 300 billion could be saved annually if all barriers to the four freedoms were removed.

Members go on to state that one of the main advantages of innovative financing tools is that they can bring a double dividend , as they can at the same time contribute to the achievement of important policy goals, such as financial market stability and transparency, 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;

Taxation of the financial sector : the committee welcomes the Commission's recognition that the financial sector is under-taxed, in particular because no VAT is levied on most financial services, and it calls for innovative financing measures to raise more from this sector and contribute to shifting the burden of taxation away from working people. The introduction of an FTT could help to tackle the highly damaging trading patterns in financial markets, such as some short-term and automated HFT transactions, and curb speculation . Members favour the introduction of a tax on financial transactions , which would improve the functioning of the market by reducing speculation and help to finance global public goods and reduce public deficits. The introduction of a tax on financial transactions ought to be as broadly based as possible . The report calls on the Commission swiftly to produce a feasibility study, taking into account the need for a global level playing field, and to come forward with concrete legislative proposals.

The current revenue estimates for a low-rate FTT, which could yield nearly EUR 200 billion per year at EU level and $650 billion at global level, could constitute a substantial contribution by the financial sector to the cost of the crisis and to public finance sustainability. Members call on the G20 leaders to speed up the negotiations for an agreement on the minimum common elements of a global FTT and to provide guidance on the desired future of these various kinds of taxation.

The report goes on to state that the flow of merely speculative transactions to other jurisdictions would have few detrimental effects , but could also have the potential to contribute to increased market efficiency. An FTT should have the broadest base possible so as to guarantee a level playing field in the financial markets and not drive transactions to less transparent vehicles. Members insists on determining who will ultimately be paying the tax, as the burden usually falls on the consumer, who in this case would be retail investors and individuals, and they stress the need for comprehensive rules on exemptions and thresholds, in order to prevent this.

Comparing other financing tools , the committee states that bank levies, a Financial Activities Tax (FAT) and an FTT each serve different economic objectives and have different revenue-raising potential. Since they are based on balance-sheet positions, bank levies cannot take on the role of curbing financial speculation and further regulating shadow banking; in that connection. Members also stress that an FAT is mainly a revenue-oriented tax tool that targets the financial sector, making it possible to tax economic rents and profits from excessive risk-taking, and as such could provide a solution to the current VAT exemption of the financial sector.

The question regarding the purpose for which the revenues raised by an FTT should be used needs to be resolved in order to give taxpayers a proper picture of the rationale behind additional financial sector taxation. Members feel that, owing to its global nature, the revenue raised by a global FTT should be used to provide financing for global policy goals, such as development and poverty reduction in developing countries and the fight against climate change. In order to safeguard the European added value of the innovative financing tools a part of those revenues could be allocated to finance EU projects and policies, and Members call for a broad debate on the choices available.

Eurobonds : the committee calls on the European Council and the Commission to provide an immediate response to Parliament’s call in its resolution on the permanent crisis mechanism for the necessary political signal to be given for a Commission investigation into a future system of Eurobonds. It supports the idea of issuing common European project bonds to finance Europe’s significant infrastructure needs and structural projects.

Carbon tax : Members support a strengthening of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and a comprehensive revision of the Energy Taxation Directive to make CO2 emissions and energy content basic criteria for the taxation of energy products. A carbon tax and the revision of the Directive should set the minimum mandatory requirements for all Member States, leaving it to up to each Member State to go further if it sees fit. However, the scope for a global agreement at G20 level or within the WTO should be fully explored before such a tax is imposed on foreign imports into the EU in order to ensure that this border taxation adjustment tool does not give rise to a shortage of raw materials, on the one hand, and retaliatory measures by third countries against EU exports, on the other.

Financing for development : the report calls for a re-affirmation by the Member States of their pledge to earmark 0.7% of their gross national income GNI to official development assistance, deploring the fact that only Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark and the Netherlands reached this goal in 2008. Innovative financing for development can complement traditional development aid mechanisms and should be additional to the UN goal of 0.7% of GDP devoted to development cooperation. Members stress at the same time, the need for developing countries to step up their own efforts in the area of taxation, mainly as regards tax collection and the fight against tax evasion.

2010/12/16
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2010/12/02
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2010/11/16
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2010/10/27
   AT_NATIONALRAT - Contribution
Documents
2010/10/20
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2010/10/07
   EC - Non-legislative basic document published
Details

PURPOSE: open a debate on the taxation of the financial sector.

BACKGROUND: the recent financial crisis stressed the need for a more robust financial system, given the cost of financial instability for the real economy. In addition, there are several key challenges in the areas of development, resource efficiency and climate change with significant budgetary implications. Against this background, could supplementary taxes on the financial sector be a potential revenue-generating solution?

The European Council concluded on 17 June 2010, in preparation for the G-20 Toronto Summit, that the EU should lead efforts to set a global approach for introducing systems for levies and taxes on financial institutions with a view to maintaining a world-wide level playing field and will strongly defend this position with its G-20 partners. The introduction of a global financial transaction tax should be explored and developed further in that context.

The European Parliament has also been debating issues related to the financial sector and taxation. In particular its Resolution of 10 March 2010 asks the Commission and Council to look at how a financial transaction tax could be used to finance development cooperation, help developing countries to combat climate change and contribute to the EU budget. Some Member States have already taken measures with regard to bank taxation.

Such debates are not limited to the European Union. These are indeed issues reflecting the global and systemic nature of the financial crisis and its consequences. There have been discussions in the G-20 on new forms of taxation. However, there is no global consensus on additional tax instruments.

Regardless of the tax instrument considered, is there a rationale for adapting the tax system to make the financial sector contribute in a fair and substantial way to public budgets? The Commission sees three main arguments for this.

(1) to complement the extensive financial sector reforms underway, taxes could contribute to enhancing the efficiency and stability of financial markets and reducing their volatility as well as the harmful effects of excessive risk-taking;

(2) the financial sector is seen to bear an important responsibility for the occurrence and scale of the crisis and its negative effects on government debt levels worldwide. Additional taxes could also be justified by the fact that some governments provided substantial support to the sector during the crisis and it should hence make a fair contribution in return;

(3) most financial services are exempt from value added taxation in the EU. The reason is that the major part of financial services' income is margin based and therefore not easily taxable under current VAT.

This Communication contributes to the debate by covering two instruments, a Financial Transactions Tax (FTT) and a Financial Activities Tax (FAT).

CONTENT: the Commission communication shows that innovative financing mechanisms in general and new financial sector taxes in particular could be an important element in responding to the current global and European challenges.

Financial Transactions Tax (FTT) : the FTT is designed to tax the value of single transactions. For a wide coverage, it should be applied to a broad range of financial instruments (i.e. equities, bonds, currencies and derivatives), even if some current proposals envisage limiting the scope to a subset (e.g. currency transaction levy).

Globally, estimated tax revenues would have been around EUR 60 billion for 2006 for stocks and bonds transactions assuming a tax rate of 0.1 %. Some studies find ten times this amount if derivatives are included. However, there are technical problems for derivatives such as determining tax bases as well as doubts about the accuracy of revenue estimates. Past experiences have shown a substantial gap between expected and realised revenues. There are also open issues with currency transactions if levied only nationally.

The revenue generated would be largely collected in a limited number of countries where trading activities are concentrated. This uneven distribution would be even greater when derivatives are included. On the one hand, this could make an agreement on a tax more difficult given that all countries would have to implement the tax while only a few gain the revenue. On the other hand, one can argue that investors from all over the world use the central market places. Therefore, all users contribute to the tax revenue, giving it a global dimension.

Assessment : the Commission considers that globally, an FTT could be an appropriate option as a revenue raiser in particular to provide financing for global policy goals . For it to work effectively and fairly, participating countries should try to come to an agreement on global financing tools that can be acceptable to all. The Commission is committed to continuing to work with its international partners, in particular in the G20, to reach such an agreement.

A financial transaction tax could be considered at the EU level only. However, it must be borne in mind that the financial industry is a global and interconnected one. Financial activities are concentrated in a small number of financial centres both inside and outside the EU which compete on the world stage. Finance is also a complex and evolving area and the main players have a developed capacity to seek out new and innovative ways of doing business and of structuring financial transactions.

Financial Activities Tax (FAT) : another potential instrument to improve taxation of the financial sector and reduce potential negative externalities is the Financial Activities Tax (FAT) as proposed by the IMF. In its most extensive form (addition-method FAT), the FAT falls on total profit and wages. It can also be designed to specifically target economic rents and/or risk. In contrast to an FTT, whereby each financial market participant is taxed according to his transactions, the FAT taxes corporations. The focus here is on the addition-method FAT.

For the 22 developed economies considered in the IMF report to the G-20, a 5 % rate of the addition-method FAT would create revenue corresponding to the average of 0.28 % of GDP. Using the country-level estimates for the share in GDP to calculate absolute figures, this would translate into total revenue for the 22 countries of roughly EUR 75 billion for the addition-method FAT. For the EU-27, the addition-method FAT could raise up to EUR 25 billion.

Assessment : a t this stage the Commission considers that there is greater potential for a Financial Activities Tax at EU-level . This option could deal with the current VAT exemption of the financial sector and raise substantial revenues. Given the innovative nature of this tax there is a need for further technical work on how it might be implemented. The addition-method FAT can be interpreted as a tax on a proxy for total value added generated by a financial sector company. However, if designed as a complement to the current VAT, a number of technical issues must be resolved in order to align both taxes. The Commission believes that the FAT option is worth exploring in the EU context. This should include an assessment of its possible competitive implications and whether these are offset by possible disincentives for companies to relocate.

In the light of the conclusions above, the Commission will therefore without delay launch a comprehensive impact assessment , which will further examine each of these options, in order to be in a position to make appropriate proposals on policy actions by summer 2011.

2010/09/23
   EP - Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
2010/07/08
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2010/07/07
   EP - MARINESCU Marian-Jean (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in ITRE
2010/06/22
   EP - DEVA Nirj (ECR) appointed as rapporteur in DEVE
2010/05/18
   EP - PODIMATA Anni (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in ECON

Documents

Activities

Votes

A7-0036/2011 - Anni Podimata - Am 2 #

2011/03/08 Outcome: +: 360, -: 299, 0: 12
DE FR EL AT ES BE CY SI PT CZ DK MT LT LV LU FI SE SK EE RO NL IE BG HU IT GB PL
Total
93
66
21
15
43
20
5
6
19
19
13
5
8
8
6
13
16
11
6
31
22
10
16
19
66
66
47
icon: S&D S&D
171

Slovenia S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Finland S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Netherlands S&D

3

Ireland S&D

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
54

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

Against (1)

4

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

2
3

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
28

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: NI NI
21

France NI

Abstain (1)

3

Spain NI

1

Belgium NI

2

Romania NI

1

Netherlands NI

2

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
25

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Denmark EFD

2

Lithuania EFD

2

Finland EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
76

Spain ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Denmark ALDE

3

Lithuania ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1
4
icon: ECR ECR
52

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: PPE PPE
243

Belgium PPE

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

4

Cyprus PPE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Czechia PPE

Against (1)

2

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Malta PPE

Against (2)

2

Lithuania PPE

2

Latvia PPE

For (1)

3

Luxembourg PPE

Abstain (1)

3

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

A7-0036/2011 - Anni Podimata - § 20 #

2011/03/08 Outcome: +: 441, -: 215, 0: 18
IT ES DE FR RO PL HU EL PT SK CY MT LT AT BG FI BE LU IE SI SE LV EE CZ DK NL GB
Total
67
43
94
66
31
47
19
21
19
11
6
5
8
15
15
13
20
6
10
6
16
8
6
20
13
22
66
icon: PPE PPE
243
2

Malta PPE

2

Lithuania PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Slovenia PPE

2

Latvia PPE

Against (1)

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
172

Finland S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Ireland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Netherlands S&D

3
icon: EFD EFD
26

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Finland EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
21

Spain NI

1

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

Abstain (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

2

Netherlands NI

2
5
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
29

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

France GUE/NGL

Against (1)

3

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

4

Latvia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
54

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

For (1)

4

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

For (1)

4
icon: ALDE ALDE
76

Spain ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (2)

2
4

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

3
icon: ECR ECR
52

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

A7-0036/2011 - Anni Podimata - § 32/1 #

2011/03/08 Outcome: +: 369, -: 298, 0: 8
IT EL DE PT ES BE FI EE RO DK AT IE FR LT SE BG SI MT NL LV LU CZ SK CY GB HU PL
Total
67
21
94
19
43
20
13
6
31
13
15
10
66
8
16
16
6
5
22
8
6
20
11
6
66
19
47
icon: S&D S&D
172

Finland S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Ireland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Latvia S&D

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
76

Denmark ALDE

Against (1)

3

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
54

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
29

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

France GUE/NGL

For (1)

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: EFD EFD
26

Greece EFD

2

Finland EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
21

Spain NI

1

Belgium NI

2

Romania NI

1

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Netherlands NI

2

Hungary NI

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
52

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: PPE PPE
244

Belgium PPE

For (1)

4

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Austria PPE

For (1)

4

Lithuania PPE

2

Slovenia PPE

Against (2)

2

Malta PPE

Against (2)

2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Czechia PPE

2

Cyprus PPE

2

A7-0036/2011 - Anni Podimata - § 32/2 #

2011/03/08 Outcome: +: 545, -: 107, 0: 16
DE IT FR ES RO EL PT PL HU BG BE SK IE FI NL LT LV SI EE AT LU MT DK CY CZ SE GB
Total
94
67
65
43
31
21
19
47
19
16
20
11
8
13
21
8
8
6
6
14
5
5
13
6
20
16
65
icon: PPE PPE
243

Lithuania PPE

2

Slovenia PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Malta PPE

2

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1
2

Czechia PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
170

Ireland S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
73

Ireland ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

Abstain (1)

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
53

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

4

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
29

France GUE/NGL

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

3

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

4

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: EFD EFD
26

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Denmark EFD

2
icon: NI NI
21

Spain NI

1

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

Against (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

2

Netherlands NI

2
icon: ECR ECR
52

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

A7-0036/2011 - Anni Podimata - § 65 #

2011/03/08 Outcome: +: 564, -: 91, 0: 14
DE IT FR ES RO PT EL PL HU SE BE BG FI IE NL SK AT LT LV LU SI CY DK EE MT CZ GB
Total
94
66
66
42
31
19
21
47
19
16
20
15
13
10
22
11
15
8
8
6
6
6
13
5
5
20
64
icon: PPE PPE
243

Lithuania PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Slovenia PPE

2
2

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

2

Czechia PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
170
3

Finland S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Latvia S&D

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
76

Lithuania ALDE

1

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2
3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
54

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1
3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
29

France GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

3

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: EFD EFD
26

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Finland EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Denmark EFD

2
icon: NI NI
18

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

2

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Netherlands NI

2

United Kingdom NI

3
icon: ECR ECR
52

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

A7-0036/2011 - Anni Podimata - Résolution #

2011/03/08 Outcome: +: 529, -: 127, 0: 18
DE FR IT ES RO EL PL HU BG BE PT AT SK FI IE LT NL SI EE CY SE LU LV CZ MT DK GB
Total
94
66
67
43
31
21
47
19
16
19
19
15
11
13
10
8
22
6
6
6
16
6
8
20
5
13
66
icon: PPE PPE
244

Lithuania PPE

2

Slovenia PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1
2

Luxembourg PPE

Abstain (1)

3

Latvia PPE

Against (1)

3

Czechia PPE

2

Malta PPE

Against (2)

2

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
172

Finland S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
53

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
3

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

4
icon: ALDE ALDE
76

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

4

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Sweden ALDE

Abstain (1)

4

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

3
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
29

France GUE/NGL

3

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

4

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1
icon: NI NI
21

Spain NI

1

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

Against (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

2

Netherlands NI

2
icon: EFD EFD
26

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Finland EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2
icon: ECR ECR
52

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1
AmendmentsDossier
277 2010/2105(INI)
2010/10/13 ITRE 46 amendments...
source: PE-450.834
2010/11/16 ECON 194 amendments...
source: PE-452.656
2010/11/22 DEVE 37 amendments...
source: PE-454.359

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

committees/0/associated
Old
True
New
 
docs/5/docs/0/url
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=19562&j=0&l=en
docs/6
date
2010-10-27T00:00:00
docs
url: https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2010)0549 title: COM(2010)0549
type
Contribution
body
AT_NATIONALRAT
docs/6
date
2010-10-28T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2010)0549 title: COM(2010)0549
type
Contribution
body
AT_NATIONALRAT
events/5/docs
  • url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-7-2011-03-07-TOC_EN.html title: Debate in Parliament
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE450.744
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ECON-PR-450744_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE452.656
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ECON-AM-452656_EN.html
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE445.791&secondRef=02
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ITRE-AD-445791_EN.html
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE452.566&secondRef=05
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/DEVE-AD-452566_EN.html
docs/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0036_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0036_EN.html
events/0/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/3/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/4
date
2011-02-10T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0036_EN.html title: A7-0036/2011
events/4
date
2011-02-10T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0036_EN.html title: A7-0036/2011
events/5/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20110307&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
events/7
date
2011-03-08T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2011-0080_EN.html title: T7-0080/2011
summary
events/7
date
2011-03-08T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2011-0080_EN.html title: T7-0080/2011
summary
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 54
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
committee
ECON
rapporteur
name: PODIMATA Anni date: 2010-05-18T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
name: HÜBNER Danuta Maria group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
committee
ECON
date
2010-05-18T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: PODIMATA Anni group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
name: HÜBNER Danuta Maria group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Development
committee
DEVE
rapporteur
name: DEVA Nirj date: 2010-06-22T00:00:00 group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Development
committee
DEVE
date
2010-06-22T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: DEVA Nirj group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
committee
ITRE
rapporteur
name: MARINESCU Marian-Jean date: 2010-07-07T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
committee
ITRE
date
2010-07-07T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: MARINESCU Marian-Jean group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
docs/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-36&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0036_EN.html
docs/5/body
EC
events/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-36&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0036_EN.html
events/7/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-80
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2011-0080_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2010-07-08T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: DEVE date: 2010-06-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Development (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ECR name: DEVA Nirj body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: HÜBNER Danuta Maria responsible: True committee: ECON date: 2010-05-18T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: PODIMATA Anni body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2010-07-07T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: PPE name: MARINESCU Marian-Jean
  • date: 2010-09-23T00:00:00 body: EP type: Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
  • date: 2010-10-07T00:00:00 docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2010&nu_doc=549 title: COM(2010)0549 type: Non-legislative basic document published celexid: CELEX:52010DC0549:EN body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/research/home.cfm title: Research and Innovation Commissioner: GEOGHEGAN-QUINN Máire type: Non-legislative basic document published
  • date: 2011-02-01T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: DEVE date: 2010-06-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Development (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ECR name: DEVA Nirj body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: HÜBNER Danuta Maria responsible: True committee: ECON date: 2010-05-18T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: PODIMATA Anni body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2010-07-07T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: PPE name: MARINESCU Marian-Jean type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2011-02-10T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-36&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0036/2011 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2011-03-07T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20110307&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2011-03-08T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=19562&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-80 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0080/2011 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
commission
  • body: EC dg: Research and Innovation commissioner: GEOGHEGAN-QUINN Máire
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
committee
ECON
date
2010-05-18T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: PODIMATA Anni group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
name: HÜBNER Danuta Maria group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
DEVE
date
2010-06-22T00:00:00
committee_full
Development (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: ECR name: DEVA Nirj
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Development
committee
DEVE
date
2010-06-22T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: DEVA Nirj group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/1
body
EP
shadows
group: PPE name: HÜBNER Danuta Maria
responsible
True
committee
ECON
date
2010-05-18T00:00:00
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: S&D name: PODIMATA Anni
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
committee
ITRE
date
2010-07-07T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: MARINESCU Marian-Jean group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/2
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
ITRE
date
2010-07-07T00:00:00
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
rapporteur
group: PPE name: MARINESCU Marian-Jean
docs
  • date: 2010-10-20T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE450.744 title: PE450.744 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2010-11-16T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE452.656 title: PE452.656 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2010-12-02T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE445.791&secondRef=02 title: PE445.791 committee: ITRE type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2010-12-16T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE452.566&secondRef=05 title: PE452.566 committee: DEVE type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2011-02-10T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-36&language=EN title: A7-0036/2011 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP
  • date: 2011-09-12T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=19562&j=0&l=en title: SP(2011)5426/2 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
  • date: 2010-10-28T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2010)0549 title: COM(2010)0549 type: Contribution body: AT_NATIONALRAT
events
  • date: 2010-07-08T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2010-09-23T00:00:00 type: Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament body: EP
  • date: 2010-10-07T00:00:00 type: Non-legislative basic document published body: EC docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2010/0549/COM_COM(2010)0549_EN.doc title: COM(2010)0549 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2010&nu_doc=549 title: EUR-Lex summary: PURPOSE: open a debate on the taxation of the financial sector. BACKGROUND: the recent financial crisis stressed the need for a more robust financial system, given the cost of financial instability for the real economy. In addition, there are several key challenges in the areas of development, resource efficiency and climate change with significant budgetary implications. Against this background, could supplementary taxes on the financial sector be a potential revenue-generating solution? The European Council concluded on 17 June 2010, in preparation for the G-20 Toronto Summit, that the EU should lead efforts to set a global approach for introducing systems for levies and taxes on financial institutions with a view to maintaining a world-wide level playing field and will strongly defend this position with its G-20 partners. The introduction of a global financial transaction tax should be explored and developed further in that context. The European Parliament has also been debating issues related to the financial sector and taxation. In particular its Resolution of 10 March 2010 asks the Commission and Council to look at how a financial transaction tax could be used to finance development cooperation, help developing countries to combat climate change and contribute to the EU budget. Some Member States have already taken measures with regard to bank taxation. Such debates are not limited to the European Union. These are indeed issues reflecting the global and systemic nature of the financial crisis and its consequences. There have been discussions in the G-20 on new forms of taxation. However, there is no global consensus on additional tax instruments. Regardless of the tax instrument considered, is there a rationale for adapting the tax system to make the financial sector contribute in a fair and substantial way to public budgets? The Commission sees three main arguments for this. (1) to complement the extensive financial sector reforms underway, taxes could contribute to enhancing the efficiency and stability of financial markets and reducing their volatility as well as the harmful effects of excessive risk-taking; (2) the financial sector is seen to bear an important responsibility for the occurrence and scale of the crisis and its negative effects on government debt levels worldwide. Additional taxes could also be justified by the fact that some governments provided substantial support to the sector during the crisis and it should hence make a fair contribution in return; (3) most financial services are exempt from value added taxation in the EU. The reason is that the major part of financial services' income is margin based and therefore not easily taxable under current VAT. This Communication contributes to the debate by covering two instruments, a Financial Transactions Tax (FTT) and a Financial Activities Tax (FAT). CONTENT: the Commission communication shows that innovative financing mechanisms in general and new financial sector taxes in particular could be an important element in responding to the current global and European challenges. Financial Transactions Tax (FTT) : the FTT is designed to tax the value of single transactions. For a wide coverage, it should be applied to a broad range of financial instruments (i.e. equities, bonds, currencies and derivatives), even if some current proposals envisage limiting the scope to a subset (e.g. currency transaction levy). Globally, estimated tax revenues would have been around EUR 60 billion for 2006 for stocks and bonds transactions assuming a tax rate of 0.1 %. Some studies find ten times this amount if derivatives are included. However, there are technical problems for derivatives such as determining tax bases as well as doubts about the accuracy of revenue estimates. Past experiences have shown a substantial gap between expected and realised revenues. There are also open issues with currency transactions if levied only nationally. The revenue generated would be largely collected in a limited number of countries where trading activities are concentrated. This uneven distribution would be even greater when derivatives are included. On the one hand, this could make an agreement on a tax more difficult given that all countries would have to implement the tax while only a few gain the revenue. On the other hand, one can argue that investors from all over the world use the central market places. Therefore, all users contribute to the tax revenue, giving it a global dimension. Assessment : the Commission considers that globally, an FTT could be an appropriate option as a revenue raiser in particular to provide financing for global policy goals . For it to work effectively and fairly, participating countries should try to come to an agreement on global financing tools that can be acceptable to all. The Commission is committed to continuing to work with its international partners, in particular in the G20, to reach such an agreement. A financial transaction tax could be considered at the EU level only. However, it must be borne in mind that the financial industry is a global and interconnected one. Financial activities are concentrated in a small number of financial centres both inside and outside the EU which compete on the world stage. Finance is also a complex and evolving area and the main players have a developed capacity to seek out new and innovative ways of doing business and of structuring financial transactions. Financial Activities Tax (FAT) : another potential instrument to improve taxation of the financial sector and reduce potential negative externalities is the Financial Activities Tax (FAT) as proposed by the IMF. In its most extensive form (addition-method FAT), the FAT falls on total profit and wages. It can also be designed to specifically target economic rents and/or risk. In contrast to an FTT, whereby each financial market participant is taxed according to his transactions, the FAT taxes corporations. The focus here is on the addition-method FAT. For the 22 developed economies considered in the IMF report to the G-20, a 5 % rate of the addition-method FAT would create revenue corresponding to the average of 0.28 % of GDP. Using the country-level estimates for the share in GDP to calculate absolute figures, this would translate into total revenue for the 22 countries of roughly EUR 75 billion for the addition-method FAT. For the EU-27, the addition-method FAT could raise up to EUR 25 billion. Assessment : a t this stage the Commission considers that there is greater potential for a Financial Activities Tax at EU-level . This option could deal with the current VAT exemption of the financial sector and raise substantial revenues. Given the innovative nature of this tax there is a need for further technical work on how it might be implemented. The addition-method FAT can be interpreted as a tax on a proxy for total value added generated by a financial sector company. However, if designed as a complement to the current VAT, a number of technical issues must be resolved in order to align both taxes. The Commission believes that the FAT option is worth exploring in the EU context. This should include an assessment of its possible competitive implications and whether these are offset by possible disincentives for companies to relocate. In the light of the conclusions above, the Commission will therefore without delay launch a comprehensive impact assessment , which will further examine each of these options, in order to be in a position to make appropriate proposals on policy actions by summer 2011.
  • date: 2011-02-01T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP summary: The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Anni PODIMATA (S&D, EL) on innovative financing at global and European level in response to the Commission staff working document on innovative financing at a global and European level and the Commission Communication on the taxation of the financial sector. Members take note of the work carried out so far by the Commission to respond to the call made by Parliament in its resolution of March 2010 for a feasibility study on financial transaction taxes at global and EU level. They call for the result of a comprehensive impact assessment and possible concrete proposals to be made public by summer 2011, as announced in the Commission's communication on Taxation of the Financial Sector. A balanced and thorough feasibility study on an EU Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) should be the basis on which the procedure for introducing such a tax is implemented. Members emphasise that an increase in the rates of existing taxation tools and further cuts in public expenditure can be neither a sufficient nor a sustainable solution to address the main challenges ahead. The focus should be on removing the remaining barriers in the internal market, with studies showing that EUR 200 to 300 billion could be saved annually if all barriers to the four freedoms were removed. Members go on to state that one of the main advantages of innovative financing tools is that they can bring a double dividend , as they can at the same time contribute to the achievement of important policy goals, such as financial market stability and transparency, 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; Taxation of the financial sector : the committee welcomes the Commission's recognition that the financial sector is under-taxed, in particular because no VAT is levied on most financial services, and it calls for innovative financing measures to raise more from this sector and contribute to shifting the burden of taxation away from working people. The introduction of an FTT could help to tackle the highly damaging trading patterns in financial markets, such as some short-term and automated HFT transactions, and curb speculation . Members favour the introduction of a tax on financial transactions , which would improve the functioning of the market by reducing speculation and help to finance global public goods and reduce public deficits. The introduction of a tax on financial transactions ought to be as broadly based as possible . The report calls on the Commission swiftly to produce a feasibility study, taking into account the need for a global level playing field, and to come forward with concrete legislative proposals. The current revenue estimates for a low-rate FTT, which could yield nearly EUR 200 billion per year at EU level and $650 billion at global level, could constitute a substantial contribution by the financial sector to the cost of the crisis and to public finance sustainability. Members call on the G20 leaders to speed up the negotiations for an agreement on the minimum common elements of a global FTT and to provide guidance on the desired future of these various kinds of taxation. The report goes on to state that the flow of merely speculative transactions to other jurisdictions would have few detrimental effects , but could also have the potential to contribute to increased market efficiency. An FTT should have the broadest base possible so as to guarantee a level playing field in the financial markets and not drive transactions to less transparent vehicles. Members insists on determining who will ultimately be paying the tax, as the burden usually falls on the consumer, who in this case would be retail investors and individuals, and they stress the need for comprehensive rules on exemptions and thresholds, in order to prevent this. Comparing other financing tools , the committee states that bank levies, a Financial Activities Tax (FAT) and an FTT each serve different economic objectives and have different revenue-raising potential. Since they are based on balance-sheet positions, bank levies cannot take on the role of curbing financial speculation and further regulating shadow banking; in that connection. Members also stress that an FAT is mainly a revenue-oriented tax tool that targets the financial sector, making it possible to tax economic rents and profits from excessive risk-taking, and as such could provide a solution to the current VAT exemption of the financial sector. The question regarding the purpose for which the revenues raised by an FTT should be used needs to be resolved in order to give taxpayers a proper picture of the rationale behind additional financial sector taxation. Members feel that, owing to its global nature, the revenue raised by a global FTT should be used to provide financing for global policy goals, such as development and poverty reduction in developing countries and the fight against climate change. In order to safeguard the European added value of the innovative financing tools a part of those revenues could be allocated to finance EU projects and policies, and Members call for a broad debate on the choices available. Eurobonds : the committee calls on the European Council and the Commission to provide an immediate response to Parliament’s call in its resolution on the permanent crisis mechanism for the necessary political signal to be given for a Commission investigation into a future system of Eurobonds. It supports the idea of issuing common European project bonds to finance Europe’s significant infrastructure needs and structural projects. Carbon tax : Members support a strengthening of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and a comprehensive revision of the Energy Taxation Directive to make CO2 emissions and energy content basic criteria for the taxation of energy products. A carbon tax and the revision of the Directive should set the minimum mandatory requirements for all Member States, leaving it to up to each Member State to go further if it sees fit. However, the scope for a global agreement at G20 level or within the WTO should be fully explored before such a tax is imposed on foreign imports into the EU in order to ensure that this border taxation adjustment tool does not give rise to a shortage of raw materials, on the one hand, and retaliatory measures by third countries against EU exports, on the other. Financing for development : the report calls for a re-affirmation by the Member States of their pledge to earmark 0.7% of their gross national income GNI to official development assistance, deploring the fact that only Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark and the Netherlands reached this goal in 2008. Innovative financing for development can complement traditional development aid mechanisms and should be additional to the UN goal of 0.7% of GDP devoted to development cooperation. Members stress at the same time, the need for developing countries to step up their own efforts in the area of taxation, mainly as regards tax collection and the fight against tax evasion.
  • date: 2011-02-10T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-36&language=EN title: A7-0036/2011
  • date: 2011-03-07T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20110307&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2011-03-08T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=19562&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2011-03-08T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-80 title: T7-0080/2011 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 529 votes to 127, with 18 abstentions, a resolution on innovative financing at global and European level in response to the Commission staff working document on innovative financing at a global and European level and the Commission Communication on the taxation of the financial sector. Members take note of the work carried out so far by the Commission to respond to the call made by Parliament in its resolution of March 2010 for a feasibility study on financial transaction taxes at global and EU level. They call for the result of a comprehensive impact assessment and possible concrete proposals to be made public by summer 2011 , as announced in the Commission's communication on Taxation of the Financial Sector. A balanced and thorough feasibility study on an EU Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) should be the basis on which the procedure for introducing such a tax is implemented. Members emphasise that an increase in the rates of existing taxation tools and further cuts in public expenditure can be neither a sufficient nor a sustainable solution to address the main challenges ahead. The focus should be on removing the remaining barriers in the internal market , with studies showing that EUR 200 to 300 billion could be saved annually if all barriers to the four freedoms were removed. Members go on to state that one of the main advantages of innovative financing tools is that they can bring a double dividend, as they can at the same time contribute to the achievement of important policy goals, such as financial market stability and transparency, and offer significant revenue potential. (1) Taxation of the financial sector : Parliament welcomes the Commission's recognition that the financial sector is under-taxed, in particular because no VAT is levied on most financial services, and it calls for innovative financing measures to raise more from this sector and contribute to shifting the burden of taxation away from working people. The introduction of an FTT could help to tackle the highly damaging trading patterns in financial markets, such as some short-term and automated HFT transactions, and curb speculation. Members favour the introduction of a tax on financial transactions, which would improve the functioning of the market by reducing speculation and help to finance global public goods and reduce public deficits. The introduction of a tax on financial transactions ought to be as broadly based as possible and that the EU should promote the introduction of an FTT at global level, failing which, the EU should implement an FTT at European level as a first step . The resolution calls on the Commission swiftly to produce a feasibility study, taking into account the need for a global level playing field, and to come forward with concrete legislative proposals. The current revenue estimates for a low-rate FTT, which could yield nearly EUR 200 billion per year at EU level and $650 billion at global level, could constitute a substantial contribution by the financial sector to the cost of the crisis and to public finance sustainability. Members call on the G20 leaders to speed up the negotiations for an agreement on the minimum common elements of a global FTT and to provide guidance on the desired future of these various kinds of taxation. The resolution goes on to state that the flow of merely speculative transactions to other jurisdictions would have few detrimental effects , but could also have the potential to contribute to increased market efficiency. An FTT should have the broadest base possible so as to guarantee a level playing field in the financial markets and not drive transactions to less transparent vehicles. Members insists on determining who will ultimately be paying the tax, as the burden usually falls on the consumer, who in this case would be retail investors and individuals, and they stress the need for comprehensive rules on exemptions and thresholds, in order to prevent this. Comparing other financing tools, Parliament states that bank levies, a Financial Activities Tax (FAT) and an FTT each serve different economic objectives and have different revenue-raising potential. Since they are based on balance-sheet positions, bank levies cannot take on the role of curbing financial speculation and further regulating shadow banking; in that connection. Members also stress that an FAT is mainly a revenue-oriented tax tool that targets the financial sector, making it possible to tax economic rents and profits from excessive risk-taking, and as such could provide a solution to the current VAT exemption of the financial sector. The question regarding the purpose for which the revenues raised by an FTT should be used needs to be resolved in order to give taxpayers a proper picture of the rationale behind additional financial sector taxation. Members feel that, owing to its global nature, the revenue raised by a global FTT should be used to provide financing for global policy goals , such as development and poverty reduction in developing countries and the fight against climate change. In order to safeguard the European added value of the innovative financing tools a part of those revenues could be allocated to finance EU projects and policies, and Members call for a broad debate on the choices available. (2) Eurobonds : Parliament notes that Eurobonds are increasingly referred to as a common debt management instrument. It calls on the European Council and the Commission to provide an immediate response to call Parliament made in its resolution on the permanent crisis mechanism for the necessary political signal to be given for a Commission investigation into a future system of Eurobonds. Members support the idea of issuing common European project bonds to finance Europe's significant infrastructure needs and structural projects in the framework of the EU 2020 agenda, anticipated new EU strategies, such as the new Strategy on Energy Infrastructure Development, and other large-scale projects. EU project bonds would secure the investment required and create sufficient confidence to enable major investment projects to attract the support they need and would thus become an important mechanism for maximum leverage of public support. (3) Carbon tax : Members support a strengthening of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and a comprehensive revision of the Energy Taxation Directive to make CO2 emissions and energy content basic criteria for the taxation of energy products. A carbon tax and the revision of the Directive should set the minimum mandatory requirements for all Member States, leaving it to up to each Member State to go further if it sees fit. However, the scope for a global agreement at G20 level or within the WTO should be fully explored before such a tax is imposed on foreign imports into the EU in order to ensure that this border taxation adjustment tool does not give rise to a shortage of raw materials, on the one hand, and retaliatory measures by third countries against EU exports, on the other. (4) Financing for development : Parliament calls for a re-affirmation by the Member States of their pledge to earmark 0.7% of their gross national income GNI to official development assistance, deploring the fact that only Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark and the Netherlands reached this goal in 2008. Innovative financing for development can complement traditional development aid mechanisms and should be additional to the UN goal of 0.7% of GDP devoted to development cooperation. Members stress at the same time, the need for developing countries to step up their own efforts in the area of taxation, mainly as regards tax collection and the fight against tax evasion.
  • date: 2011-03-08T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/research/home.cfm title: Research and Innovation commissioner: GEOGHEGAN-QUINN Máire
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
ECON/7/03071
New
  • ECON/7/03071
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/subject
Old
  • 2.50.08 Financial services, financial reporting and auditing
  • 5.03 World economy and globalisation
  • 6.30.02 Financial and technical cooperation and assistance
New
2.50.08
Financial services, financial reporting and auditing
5.03
Global economy and globalisation
6.30.02
Financial and technical cooperation and assistance
activities
  • date: 2010-07-08T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: DEVE date: 2010-06-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Development (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ECR name: DEVA Nirj body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: HÜBNER Danuta Maria responsible: True committee: ECON date: 2010-05-18T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: PODIMATA Anni body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2010-07-07T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: PPE name: MARINESCU Marian-Jean
  • date: 2010-09-23T00:00:00 body: EP type: Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
  • date: 2010-10-07T00:00:00 docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2010&nu_doc=549 title: COM(2010)0549 type: Non-legislative basic document published celexid: CELEX:52010DC0549:EN body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/research/home.cfm title: Research and Innovation Commissioner: GEOGHEGAN-QUINN Máire type: Non-legislative basic document published
  • date: 2011-02-01T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: DEVE date: 2010-06-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Development (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ECR name: DEVA Nirj body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: HÜBNER Danuta Maria responsible: True committee: ECON date: 2010-05-18T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: PODIMATA Anni body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2010-07-07T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: PPE name: MARINESCU Marian-Jean type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2011-02-10T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-36&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0036/2011 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2011-03-07T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20110307&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2011-03-08T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=19562&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-80 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0080/2011 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: DEVE date: 2010-06-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Development (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ECR name: DEVA Nirj
  • body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: HÜBNER Danuta Maria responsible: True committee: ECON date: 2010-05-18T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: PODIMATA Anni
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2010-07-07T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: PPE name: MARINESCU Marian-Jean
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/research/home.cfm title: Research and Innovation commissioner: GEOGHEGAN-QUINN Máire
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
ECON/7/03071
reference
2010/2105(INI)
title
Innovative financing at a global and European level
legal_basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
stage_reached
Procedure completed
subtype
Initiative
Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
type
INI - Own-initiative procedure
subject