Sien Winters

Are There Grounds for Housing Allowances in Flanders (Belgium)?1

In Belgium, housing policy is one of the responsibilities of the regional governments. According to the Belgian Constitution, every citizen has the right to decent and affordable housing. However, the violation of this right for many families is increasingly contested. In particular, the problems of poor housing quality and of rising housing costs on the private rental market are being raised. In the past, housing policy in Belgium (and Flanders) has mainly been directed towards home ownership. There is no housing benefit for the private rental sector and the social housing sector remains limited. The Flemish government is now being challenged to develop a new approach towards the private rental sector. The introduction of a housing allowance is being considered. In this article, we describe the problems affecting the private rental market in Flanders. We discuss possible policy instruments, more specifically the introduction of a housing allowance, within the theoretical framework of neo-classical economic theory and within the institutional and regulatory framework of Flemish housing policy.

Belgian state reform as an opportunity to reorient Flemish housing policy

Abstract Flanders, the largest of the three Belgian territories, is one of the most prosperous regions of Europe with a good average standard of housing quality and affordability. Since the reform of the Belgian state in the 1980s, housing policy has been a competence of the regions. Contrary to the preceding Belgian policy that was mainly driven by economic objectives, Flemish housing policy starts with the constitutional right to decent housing and assigns priority to the housing needs of low-income households. One of the difficulties with implementing the right to housing for a long time was that important policy instruments remained federal competences. A planned transfer of competence is now offering a historic chance to reorient housing policy. In this review we describe the historical context of the Flemish housing policy and discuss the main outcomes. We go on to consider the possible changes that may be desirable in the coming reform.

Homeownership taxation in Flanders: moving towards ‘optimal taxation’?

Belgium devolved administrative and budgetary responsibility for the favourable income tax treatment of owner-occupied dwellings to its administrative regions in July 2014. This change allowed the regions to redesign their housing-related tax instruments. This paper examines a tax policy reorientation of the Flemish Region. It specifically applies the principles of the optimal tax theory based on the proposals of the British Mirrlees Review as a benchmark to determine whether owner-occupied housing is treated favourably via the Belgian tax system. A brief comparison is also carried out with four other countries (Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) in order to test for the use of these theoretical principles in other tax systems. Since none of the countries come close to optimal taxation, and as the Mirrlees Review is also not uncontested, practice-based recommendations from relevant international organisations are also taken into consideration. Indeed, it has recently been suggested that the Belgian tax system and more specifically Flemish home ownership taxation, has moved closer to what optimal taxation could be, but that this has not come about by explicitly considering tax system mechanisms.

Belasten eigen woning 'onrechtvaardig'?

In Vlaanderen kan je deze dagen geen krant meer openslaan zonder op de discussie over de ‘tax shift’ te botsen. Iedereen lijkt het er over eens te zijn dat de lasten op arbeid omlaag moeten om werkgelegenheid te creëren. De overheid heeft middelen nodig om ons welvaartssysteem in stand te houden, dus wordt er gezocht naar andere inkomsten, uit consumptie en uit vermogen. De nieuwe belasting moet rechtvaardig zijn, moet zo weinig mogelijk impact hebben op de koopkracht en mag niet aanzetten tot de vlucht van kapitaal naar het buitenland. Consumptiebelasting laten we hier terzijde. Wat is mogelijk met vermogen? Piketty wijst erop dat de ongelijkheid in vermogen de basis vormt van een toenemende ongelijkheid. Er circuleren in België voorstellen voor een ‘vermogensbelasting’ die alleen de allerhoogste vermogens zou treffen, een ‘rijkentaks’ dus. Een ‘vermogenswinstbelasting’, geheven bij verkoop van vermogens, kreeg de afgelopen maanden veel steun en komt mogelijk dit voorjaar op de tafel van de federale regering. Beide vormen van belasten van vermogen sluiten aan bij het gevoel dat het rechtvaardig is inkomsten te belasten waarvoor de vermogensbezitter weinig inspanningen heeft moeten leveren. Een ‘rijkentaks’ heeft daarbij het potentieel van brede steun bij de bevolking omdat maar een kleine minderheid er door wordt getroffen. Toch moest Frankrijk de pas ingevoerde ‘rijkentaks’ (niet op de vermogens, maar op de hoogste inkomens) omwille van protest weer afschaffen, onder andere nadat acteur Depardieu verhuisde naar Rusland.