The Senate is not exactly impressed with the 40 year compromise. The proposed new regulation with regard to the MRB exemption for old-timers encounters resistance. That made clear a visit from Team Vrijstellingoldtimer.nl to the politicians. In the meantime, the old-timer section was discussed as part of the discussions about the 2014 Tax Plan. In it, State Secretary Weekers appeared for the first time to be open to a relaxation within the transitional arrangement. However, the starting point is still the same as in the spring: the 40-year compromise remains the basis according to Weekers.
Sensitive to quality
The Senate, according to the Autobelangen Foundation, seems to have broad criticism of the unattractive and carelessly taken measure. Earlier, lawyer Tom Barkhuysen - in consultation with Vrijstellingoldtimer.nl - already demonstrated that the third measure is disproportionate in four years. The quality of the measure - hardly feasible and an additional cost item for the government - was also seriously questioned. The Senate seems sensitive to these findings, because it is precisely that political body that is sensitive to the qualitative content of a measure. The conclusions and results in the report drawn up by Vrijstellingoldtimer.nl will not favor the Senate.
Treatment Tax Plan
In the meantime, the substantive discussion of the 28 Tax Plan took place on 4 October and 2014 November. Naturally, the old-timer problem was also discussed. It was noticeable that State Secretary Weekers was still firmly behind the correctness of the 40-year compromise “because it was agreed that way and the oldtimer alliance agreed to it”. Furthermore, the State Secretary of Finance proudly stated “that the announcement of the measure in the Coalition Agreement alone has resulted in a significant decline in imported diesels.” That is a bridge too far. The Van Vliet Amendment already took care of that. As is now known, the results were not reported to the House. CDA Member of Parliament Pieter Omtzigt also pointed this out delicately. He also indicated that the decline had already started long before the coalition agreement was concluded and pointed out the lack of usefulness of the old-timer paragraph as it is now included in the Budget Memorandum.
Path clean
In the meantime, Weekers tried to clear the path. He did so by stating that the House did not ask questions about the lack of information that the State Secretary treated his audience in April. He also indicated, almost surprised, that the Chamber apparently now has questions. That makes sense, because it was treated with insufficient information this spring. Weekers did say they were open to a relaxation with regard to Diesels and LPG. The same rule would apply to that as has now been agreed for the petrol cars in the 40-year compromise. “That costs 27 million. So we want to have coverage for that. The MPs are free to submit an Amendment for this. "
No TNO report required
Meanwhile, the State Secretary also has the figures from TNO, but he said little about them. It is now time for Weekers and the MPs to see that the Van Vliet Amendment must be maintained. That is the best solution. Every classic car owner then knows where he / she stands in the long term. And only by maintaining that regulation Weekers will save the cabinet hundreds of millions. Better cover for the maintenance of the Van Vliet Amendment seems hardly conceivable.
In addition to @Joyce van der woning. It is even more disturbing that Frans Weekers sells his own made up assumptions as knowledge. Because in his earlier defense he argues that old cars cannot withstand winter weather .. and that a true oldtimer enthusiast will ensure that the car is somewhere inside. This in response to Mr Bashir's questions. The TNO report is also incomplete and it suggests which Weekers drew up at the beginning of this year. It is incomprehensible that the audience does not parry such dangerous assumptions ... with a “yes is that?” Of course, Mr. Weekers is not alone, because his colleagues are also not afraid of prompt acceptance and selling as knowledge.
It all shows that the qualities of several directors are bad and unreliable.
It is almost demonstrable that this laxity affects lower / other administrative bodies such as, for example, the municipality and schools.
Unfortunately, the media is ignorant and also presents a poor reflection of reality. So in doing so there is no longer any connection between the second room and the wishes of the people.
It is time for the ladies and gentlemen of the second room to consider or be ashamed ... about their displayed qualities.
it remains remarkable to see how such learned officials can sit so terribly next to practice / reality. everything seems permissible for survival. this is a very dangerous man
The conclusion “Weekers did indicate that he was open to relaxation with regard to Diesels and LPG. The same regulation would then apply as has now been agreed for petrol cars in the 40-year compromise. “That costs 27 million. So we want to have coverage for that. The MPs are free to table an amendment for this. ” seems to me personally a bit too bluntly and too optimistically formulated. The opening to come up with alternative proposals if provided with coverage, he already offered in April this year.
In addition, Weekers makes an open invitation for every counter proposal, provided it has coverage, so that does not automatically mean that a comparable transitional arrangement for diesel and LPG is in the pipeline.
De motions already submitted by Bashir have been rejected by the Chamber, so without cover the room does not like it.
However, the question is: Did the room at that time vote differently with the correct information?
But it seems as if Weekers is getting away with just telling half the story.
Finally, I hope the Senate is not the line of the Council of State and especially finds the transitional arrangement of poor quality (with the possible consequence that it will die).
Of course I also hope for a better arrangement. However, I do not believe that this can be achieved at this time by showing that it is unfair. In other areas, cuts are also made and there it is also unfair and it continues (think of a long-term study scheme).
A statement such as "By maintaining the Vliet Amendment, Weekers will save the cabinet hundreds of millions." I find it very tricky and seems unfounded to me. If that was clearly demonstrable, then the opposition could have carried more weight. Of course it is impressive file from Vrijstellingoldtimer and section 5.5 in particular is an important impetus here. Aspect, however, what is still missing in my opinion is that it is also partly replacement demand. Where people now use an odltimer daily and sell it, they may buy another car back. Even if “hobby money” no longer goes to a car, there is a good chance that it will be (partly) spent on other things.
The fact that the coalition agreement has a double standard (153 million (minus 20 million now)) + environment makes it very difficult. Just the argument that a decrease is already taking place is not enough. 131 million is also needed. You only have a strong case if you can prove that importing costs more than it actually delivers.
Normally, of course I also hope for a better outcome, but to shout “we are almost there” now….
It stands or falls with cover in my eyes.
Greetings Lars
Dear Lars, thank you for your good substantive response. I think Weekers' turn is remarkable. Because the way in which the 40-year compromise came about did not deserve the beauty prize. And Weekers is now cautiously returning to the integrity of the compromise. Filing an amendment is timeless, but during the discussion of the 2014 Tax Plan, Weekers very emphatically invited those involved to submit the Amendment with regard to diesels and LPG cars. The report you rightly cited tells the rest of the story. There is no legal basis for the measure, it yields 80 million less in MRB than assumed, there is hardly any replacement demand and 1.100 (estimated) unemployed people will be added. The latter in particular is an underexposed point. It has been calculated that it takes an average of 8 months for someone who is on unemployment benefit to return to work. If the unemployed person relies directly on social assistance, it will take 21 months. Do the math. Those effects have not even been included. Of course there will be people who will spend the money differently after suspending the oldtimer or not replacing it. But it is unlikely to assume that the amount that normally flows into the industry is now fully spent on other things. While in a number of scenarios the calculation can be made. (Trade, sales tax, VAT on parts, less participation in events). The VO report offers excellent insight into the numerical consequences and decrease of use. And certainly professional government computing centers must be able to translate those findings and draw the conclusion that there are just a few hundred million in lost income against the measure.
However, Weekers is looking for his certainties. The only basis for him is coverage, which is determined in advance in his experience. That is his interest and that justifies your final conclusion.
Thanks again Lars, and I will continue to closely follow your excellent blog!
The Vliet amendment is a perfect arrangement for all vintage cars and their owners.
Let us argue that this arrangement will continue to exist, nothing needs to change.
There is now always talk about the increased measure for LPG and Diesel passenger cars as a classic car, but I do not hear any reaction to the plans to tax the now exempt campers and motorcycles so unimaginably heavily in the new plan. These are usually real hobby vehicles, they are not used as daily transport.
While these vehicles drive very few kilometers and, as far as the camper is concerned, also mostly abroad.
Hopefully the old arrangement will be maintained.
mvg an old-timer enthusiast.