DOCSLIB.ORG

Survival of the Richest. Europe's Role in Supporting an Unjust Global Tax

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Survival of the Richest. Europe's Role in Supporting an Unjust Global Tax Survival of the Richest Europe’s role in supporting an unjust global tax system 2016 Acknowledgements This report was produced by civil society organisations in countries across Europe, including: Attac Austria (Austria); Vienna Institute for International Dialogue and Cooperation (VIDC) (Austria); 11.11.11 (Belgium); Centre national de coopération au développement (CNCD-11.11.11) (Belgium); Glopolis (Czech Republic); Oxfam IBIS (Denmark); Kehitysyhteistyön palvelukeskus (KEPA) (Finland); CCFD-Terre Solidaire (France); Oxfam France (France); Netzwerk Steuergerechtigkeit (Germany); Debt and Development Coalition Ireland (DDCI) (Ireland); Oxfam Italy (Italy); Re:Common (Italy); Latvijas platforma attīstības sadarbībai (Lapas) (Latvia); Collectif Tax Justice Lëtzebuerg (Luxembourg); the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) (Netherlands); Tax Justice Netherlands (Netherlands); Tax Justice Network Norway (Norway); Instytut Globalnej Odpowiedzialnosci (IGO) (Poland); Ekvilib Institute (Slovenia); Focus Association for Sustainable Development (Slovenia); Inspiraction (Spain); Forum Syd (Sweden); Christian Aid (UK). The overall report was coordinated by Eurodad. Each national chapter was written by – and is the responsibility of – the nationally-based partners in the project. The views in each chapter do not reflect the views of the rest of the project partners. The chapters on Luxembourg and Spain were written by – and are the responsibility of – Eurodad. Design and artwork: James Adams. Copy editing: Vicky Anning, Jill McArdle and Julia Ravenscroft. The authors believe that all of the details of this report are factually accurate as of 15 November 2016. This report has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union, the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) and Open Society Foundations. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Eurodad and the authors of the report, and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the funders. Contents Acronyms 4 Report findings 35 Glossary 5 Methodology for country rating system 38 Executive summary 8 Recommendations to governments and EU institutions 50 Global developments 2016 10 Austria 52 Introduction 10 Belgium 54 Developing countries and tax 11 Czech Republic 58 Exclusive global decision-making 12 Denmark 60 Europe’s role in upholding an unjust tax system 15 Finland 62 Anti-tax avoidance measures 15 France 65 EU spillover analysis 15 Germany 68 Harmful tax practices 15 Ireland 70 Tax treaties 21 Italy 73 Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base 24 Latvia 75 Blacklisting 'non-cooperative jurisdictions' 26 Luxembourg 78 Financial and corporate transparency 27 Netherlands 80 Lack of whistleblower protection 32 Norway 83 European support for global solutions 33 Poland 85 Building capacity or compliance? 34 Slovenia 87 Spain 90 Sweden 92 United Kingdom 94 References 98 Acronyms AMLD Anti-Money Laundering Directive APA Advance pricing agreement BEPS Base erosion and profit shifting CBCR Country by country reporting CCCTB Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base CFC Controlled foreign company CRS Common Reporting Standard EC European Commission EU European Union FDI Foreign direct investments G20 Group of 20 G77 Group of 77 GAAR General anti-avoidance rule ICIJ International Consortium of Investigative Journalists IMF International Monetary Fund MNC Multinational corporation ODA Official development assistance OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development R&D Research and development SDG Sustainable Development Goals SPE Special purpose entity TIEA Tax information exchange agreements TJN-A Tax Justice Network Africa UN United Nations UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNDAW United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 4 • Survival of the Richest Glossary Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules See under ‘Tax ruling’. CFC rules allow countries to limit profit shifting by multinational corporations by taxing profits made in other Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD) jurisdictions where it ‘controls’ other corporate structures, An EU directive regulating issues related to money unless taxes have already been taxed in the other laundering and terrorist financing, including public access jurisdictions. There are many different types of CFC rules with to information about the beneficial owners of companies, different definitions of the jurisdictions and incomes covered. trusts and similar legal structures. The 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive was adopted in May 2015. In July 2016, General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) the European Commission initiated another review of the GAAR refers to a broad set of different types of rules aimed directive (see below under ’Hidden ownership’). at limiting tax avoidance by multinational corporations in cases where abuse of tax rules has been detected. Automatic exchange of information Whereas GAARs can in some cases be used to prevent A system whereby relevant information about the wealth tax avoidance by allowing tax administrations to deny and income of a taxpayer – individual or company – is multinational corporations tax exemptions, they do not automatically passed by the country where the funds are address the general problem of the lowering of withholding held to the taxpayer’s country of residence. As a result, the taxes through tax treaties, nor do they address the general tax authority of a taxpayer’s country of residence can check division of taxing rights between nations. its tax records to verify that the taxpayer has accurately reported their foreign source income and wealth. Harmful tax practices Harmful tax practices are policies that have negative Base erosion and profit shifting spillover effects on taxation in other countries – for example, This term is used to describe the shifting of taxable income by eroding tax bases or distorting investments. (profits) out of countries where the income was earned, usually to zero- or low-tax countries, which results in Illicit financial flows ‘erosion’ of the tax base of the countries affected, and There are several definitions of illicit financial flows. This therefore reduces their revenues. can refer to unrecorded private financial outflows involving capital that is illegally earned, transferred or utilised. In Beneficial ownership a broader sense, illicit financial flows can also be used to A legal term used to describe anyone who has the benefit describe artificial arrangements that have been put in place of ownership of an asset (for example, bank account, trust, with the purpose of circumventing the law or its spirit. property) and yet nominally does not own the asset because it is registered under another name. LuxLeaks The LuxLeaks (or Luxembourg Leaks) scandal surfaced Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) in November 2014 when the International Consortium of CCCTB is a proposal that was first launched by the European Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) exposed several hundred Commission in 2011. It entails a common EU system secret tax rulings from Luxembourg, which had been for calculating the profits of multinational corporations leaked. The LuxLeaks dossier documented how hundreds operating in the EU and dividing this profit among the EU of multinational corporations were using the system in member states based on a formula to assess the level of Luxembourg to lower their tax rates, in some cases to less business activity in each country. This is referred to as than one per cent.1 ’consolidation’. The proposal does not specify which tax rate the member states should apply to the profit, but simply Offshore jurisdictions or centres allocates the profit and leaves it to the member state to Usually known as low-tax jurisdictions specialising decide on the tax rate. The proposal was redrafted and in providing corporate and commercial services to relaunched in 2016 (see below under ’Common Consolidated corporations and individuals that aim to avoid or evade Corporate Tax Base’), but this time the proposal will be taxes. The services are primarily offered to non-residents negotiated in two steps, and the first step will leave out the and are often combined with a certain degree of secrecy. key element – the consolidation. ‘Offshore’ can be used as another word for tax havens or secrecy jurisdictions. Survival of the Richest • 5 Glossary Panama Papers Special purpose entity (SPE) The Panama Papers scandal broke in April 2016 when the Special purpose entities, in some countries known as International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) special purpose vehicles or special financial institutions, exposed the hidden wealth and financial activities of political are legal entities constructed to fulfil a narrow and specific leaders, drug traffickers, celebrities and billionaires. The purpose. Special purpose entities are used to channel funds core of the scandal was 11.5 million leaked files from the to and from third countries and are commonly established in Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, which revealed countries that provide specific tax benefits for such entities. information about more than 214,000 secret companies Swiss Leaks hidden in 21 different offshore jurisdictions. These The Swiss Leaks scandal broke in 2015 when the companies were linked to individuals in more than 200 International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) countries and territories
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Creating Market Incentives for Greener Products Policy Manual for Eastern Partnership Countries
    Creating Market Incentives for Greener Products Policy Manual for Eastern Partnership Countries Creating Incentives for Greener Products Policy Manual for Eastern Partnership Countries 2014 About the OECD The OECD is a unique forum where governments work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Union takes part in the work of the OECD. Since the 1990s, the OECD Task Force for the Implementation of the Environmental Action Programme (the EAP Task Force) has been supporting countries of Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia to reconcile their environment and economic goals. About the EaP GREEN programme The “Greening Economies in the European Union’s Eastern Neighbourhood” (EaP GREEN) programme aims to support the six Eastern Partnership countries to move towards green economy by decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation and resource depletion. The six EaP countries are: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine.
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of States and Business: Explaining
    Ref. Ares(2017)5230581 - 26/10/2017 The power of states and business: Explaining transformative change in the fight against tax evasion and avoidance The Power of States and Business v2.0 19 September 2017 Document Details Work Package WP3 Lead Beneficiary University of Bamberg Deliverable ID D3.2 Date 05, 03, 2017 Submission 07, 28, 2017 Dissemination Level PU – Public / CO – Confidential / CI – Classified Information Version 1.0 Author(s) Lukas Hakelberg University of Bamberg Political Science [email protected] Acknowledgements The project “Combatting Fiscal Fraud and Empowering Regulators (COFFERS)” has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 727145. Document History Date Author Description 03-05-2017 Lukas Hakelberg First draft 19-09-2017 Lukas Hakelberg Second draft Page 2 of 52 The Power of States and Business v2.0 19 September 2017 Contents Document Details 2 Acknowledgements 2 Document History 2 Contents 3 Executive Summary 4 1. Introduction 5 2. Power in International Tax Policy 7 3. Post-Crisis Initiatives Against Tax Evasion and Avoidance 15 3.1 The Emergence of Multilateral AEI 16 3.1.1 Points of Departure: Savings Directive and Qualified Intermediary Program 16 3.1.2 Setting the Agenda: Left-of-Center Politicians and Major Tax Evasion Scandals 17 3.1.3 Towards New Rules: Legislative Initiatives in Europe and the US 20 3.1.4 The Role of Domestic Interest Groups: Tax Evaders and Financial Institutions 22 3.1.5 Reaching International Agreement: From Bilateral FATCA Deals to Multilateral AEI 25 3.2 Incremental Change in the Fight against Base Erosion and Profit Shifting 28 3.2.1 Points of Departure: Limiting Taxation at Source Through Transfer Pricing 28 3.2.2 Setting the Agenda: Starbuck’s and the Inclusion of Emerging Economies 30 3.2.3 Towards New Rules: The BEPS Report’s Ambiguous Recommendations 32 3.2.4 The Role of Interest Groups: In Defense of the Arm’s Length Principle 33 3.2.5 Reaching International Agreement? Ongoing EU-US Bargaining over BEPS 36 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Owns the Wealth in Tax Havens? Macro Evidence and Implications for Global Inequality
    Journal of Public Economics 162 (2018) 89–100 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Public Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jpube Who owns the wealth in tax havens? Macro evidence and implications for ☆ T global inequality Annette Alstadsætera, Niels Johannesenb, Gabriel Zucmanc,d,* a Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway b CEBI, University of Copenhagen, Denmark c UC Berkeley, United States d NBER, United States ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Drawing on newly published macroeconomic statistics, this paper estimates the amount of household wealth Inequality owned by each country in offshore tax havens. The equivalent of 10% of world GDP is held in tax havens Wealth globally, but this average masks a great deal of heterogeneity—from a few percent of GDP in Scandinavia, to Tax evasion about 15% in Continental Europe, and 60% in Gulf countries and some Latin American economies. We use these Tax havens estimates to construct revised series of top wealth shares in ten countries, which account for close to half of JEL classification: world GDP. Because offshore wealth is very concentrated at the top, accounting for it increases the top 0.01% H26 wealth share substantially in Europe, even in countries that do not use tax havens extensively. It has considerable H87 effects in Russia, where the vast majority of wealth at the top is held offshore. These results highlight the E21 importance of looking beyond tax and survey data to study wealth accumulation among the very rich in a globalized world. 1. Introduction statistics, we do not have a clear view of who uses tax havens.
    [Show full text]
  • Saleh Poll Tax December 2011
    On the Road to Heaven: Poll tax, Religion, and Human Capital in Medieval and Modern Egypt Mohamed Saleh* University of Southern California (Preliminary and Incomplete: December 1, 2011) Abstract In the Middle East, non-Muslims are, on average, better off than the Muslim majority. I trace the origins of the phenomenon in Egypt to the imposition of the poll tax on non- Muslims upon the Islamic Conquest of the then-Coptic Christian Egypt in 640. The tax, which remained until 1855, led to the conversion of poor Copts to Islam to avoid paying the tax, and to the shrinking of Copts to a better off minority. Using new data sources that I digitized, including the 1848 and 1868 census manuscripts, I provide empirical evidence to support the hypothesis. I find that the spatial variation in poll tax enforcement and tax elasticity of conversion, measured by four historical factors, predicts the variation in the Coptic population share in the 19th century, which is, in turn, inversely related to the magnitude of the Coptic-Muslim gap, as predicted by the hypothesis. The four factors are: (i) the 8th and 9th centuries tax revolts, (ii) the Arab immigration waves to Egypt in the 7th to 9th centuries, (iii) the Coptic churches and monasteries in the 12th and 15th centuries, and (iv) the route of the Holy Family in Egypt. I draw on a wide range of qualitative evidence to support these findings. Keywords: Islamic poll tax; Copts, Islamic Conquest; Conversion; Middle East JEL Classification: N35 * The author is a PhD candidate at the Department of Economics, University of Southern California (E- mail: [email protected]).
    [Show full text]
  • Download Article (PDF)
    5th International Conference on Accounting, Auditing, and Taxation (ICAAT 2016) TAX TRANSPARENCY – AN ANALYSIS OF THE LUXLEAKS FIRMS Johannes Manthey University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany Dirk Kiesewetter University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany Abstract This paper finds that the firms involved in the Luxembourg Leaks (‘LuxLeaks’) scandal are less transparent measured by the engagement in earnings management, analyst coverage, analyst accuracy, accounting standards and auditor choice. The analysis is based on the LuxLeaks sample and compared to a control group of large multinational companies. The panel dataset covers the years from 2001 to 2015 and comprises 19,109 observations. The LuxLeaks firms appear to engage in higher levels of discretionary earnings management measured by the variability of net income to cash flows from operations and the correlation between cash flows from operations and accruals. The LuxLeaks sample shows a lower analyst coverage, lower willingness to switch to IFRS and a lower Big4 auditor rate. The difference in difference design supports these findings regarding earnings management and the analyst coverage. The analysis concludes that the LuxLeaks firms are less transparent and infers a relation between corporate transparency and the engagement in tax avoidance. The paper aims to establish the relationship between tax avoidance and transparency in order to give guidance for future policy. The research highlights the complex causes and effects of tax management and supports a cost benefit analysis of future tax regulation. Keywords: Tax Avoidance, Transparency, Earnings Management JEL Classification: H20, H25, H26 1. Introduction The Luxembourg Leaks (’LuxLeaks’) scandal made public some of the tax strategies used by multinational companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Narrative Report on Ireland
    Financial Secrecy Index Ireland Narrative Report on Ireland Ireland is ranked at 47th position on the 2013 Financial Secrecy Index. This ranking is based on a combination of its Chart 1 - How Secretive? Moderately secrecy score and a scale weighting based on its share of the secretive 31-40 global market for offshore financial services. 41-50 Ireland has been assessed with 37 secrecy points out of a 51-60 potential 100, which places it into the moderately secretive 61-70 category at the bottom of the secrecy scale (see chart 1). 71-80 Ireland accounts for over 2 per cent of the global market for 81-90 offshore financial services, making it a small player compared with other secrecy jurisdictions (see chart 2). Exceptionally secretive 91-100 Part 1: Telling the story1 Chart 2 - How Big? Ireland as a financial centre: history and background Overview huge Ireland’s role as a secrecy jurisdiction or tax haven is based on two broad developments. The first, dating from 1956, is a regime of low tax rates and tax loopholes that have large encouraged transnational businesses to relocate – often small only on paper – to Ireland. The second is the role of the tiny Dublin-based International Financial Services Centre (IFSC), a Wild-West, deregulated financial zone set up in 1987 under the corrupt Irish politician Charles Haughey, which has striven particularly to host international ‘shadow banking’ activity2. Ireland’s secrecy score of 37 makes it one of the least secretive jurisdictions on our index: secrecy was never a central part of its ‘offshore’ offering.
    [Show full text]
  • EU-Parlament: Ausschussvorsitzende Und Deren Stellvertreter*Innen Auf Den Konstituierenden Sitzungen Am Mittwoch, 10
    EU-Parlament: Ausschussvorsitzende und deren Stellvertreter*innen Auf den konstituierenden Sitzungen am Mittwoch, 10. Juli 2019, haben die siebenundzwanzig permanenten Ausschüsse des EU-Parlaments ihre Vorsitzenden und Stellvertreter*innen gewählt. Nachfolgend die Ergebnisse (Reihenfolge analog zur Auflistung auf den Seiten des Europäischen Parlaments): Ausschuss Vorsitzender Stellvertreter Witold Jan WASZCZYKOEDKI (ECR, PL) AFET Urmas PAET (Renew, EE) David McALLISTER (EPP, DE) Auswärtige Angelegenheiten Sergei STANISHEV (S&D, BG) Željana ZOVKO (EPP, HR) Bernard GUETTA (Renew, FR) DROI Hannah NEUMANN (Greens/EFA, DE) Marie ARENA (S&D, BE) Menschenrechte Christian SAGARTZ (EPP, AT) Raphael GLUCKSMANN (S&D, FR) Nikos ANDROULAKIS (S&D, EL) SEDE Kinga GÁL (EPP, HU) Nathalie LOISEAU (RE, FR) Sicherheit und Verteidigung Özlem DEMIREL (GUE/NGL, DE) Lukas MANDL (EPP, AT) Pierrette HERZBERGER-FOFANA (Greens/EFA, DE) DEVE Norbert NEUSER (S&D, DE) Tomas TOBÉ (EPP, SE) Entwicklung Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU (RE, FR) Erik MARQUARDT (Greens/EFA, DE) Seite 1 14.01.2021 Jan ZAHRADIL (ECR, CZ) INTA Iuliu WINKLER (EPP, RO) Bernd LANGE (S&D, DE) Internationaler Handel Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU (EPP, EL) Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE (RE, FR) Janusz LEWANDOWSKI (EPP, PL) BUDG Oliver CHASTEL (RE, BE) Johan VAN OVERTVELDT (ECR, BE) Haushalt Margarida MARQUES (S&D, PT) Niclas HERBST (EPP, DE) Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ (S&D, ES) CONT Caterina CHINNICI (S&D, IT) Monika HOHLMEIER (EPP, DE) Haushaltskontrolle Martina DLABAJOVÁ (RE, CZ) Tamás DEUTSCH (EPP, HU) Luděk NIEDERMAYER
    [Show full text]
  • European Parliament Resolution of 26 March 2019 on Financial Crimes, Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance (2018/2121(INI)) (2021/C 108/02)
    C 108/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 26.3.2021 Tuesday 26 March 2019 P8_TA(2019)0240 Report on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance European Parliament resolution of 26 March 2019 on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance (2018/2121(INI)) (2021/C 108/02) The European Parliament, — having regard to Articles 4 and 13 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), — having regard to Articles 107, 108, 113, 115 and 116 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), — having regard to its decision of 1 March 2018 on setting up a special committee on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance (TAX3), and defining its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office (1), — having regard to its TAXE committee resolution of 25 November 2015 (2) and its TAX2 committee resolution of 6 July 2016 (3) on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect, — having regard to its resolution of 16 December 2015 with recommendations to the Commission on bringing transparency, coordination and convergence to corporate tax policies in the Union (4), — having regard to the results of the Committee of Inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion, which were submitted to the Council and the Commission on 13 December 2017 (5), — having regard to the Commission’s follow-up to each of the above-mentioned Parliament resolutions (6), — having regard to the numerous revelations by investigative journalists, such as the LuxLeaks, the Panama Papers, the Paradise Papers and, more recently, the cum-ex scandals, as well as the money laundering cases involving, in particular, banks in Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, — having regard to its resolution of 29 November 2018 on the cum-ex scandal: financial crime and loopholes in the current legal framework (7), (1) Decision of 1 March 2018 on setting up a special committee on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance (TAX3), and defining its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office, Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0048.
    [Show full text]
  • Eurogroup Inclusive Format List of Participants
    EUROGROUP IN INCLUSIVE FORMAT Bruxelles, 5 Novembre 2018 PARTICIPANTS President of Eurogroup Mr Mário CENTENO President Belgium: Mr Johan VAN OVERTVELDT Minister for Finance, with responsibility for the Prevention of Tax Evasion Bulgaria: Ms Marinela PETROVA Deputy Minister for Finance Czech Republic: Ms Alena SCHILLEROVÁ Minister for Finance Denmark: Mr Kristian JENSEN Minister for Finance Germany: Mr Olaf SCHOLZ Federal Minister for Finance Estonia: Mr Toomas TÕNISTE Minister for Finance Ireland: Mr Paschal DONOHOE Minister for Finance and Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Greece: Mr Efkleidis TSAKALOTOS Minister for Finance Spain: Ms Nadia CALVIÑO SANTAMARÍA Minister for the Economy and Enterprise France: Mr Bruno LE MAIRE Minister for the Economy Croatia: Mr Zdravko MARIĆ Minister for Finance Italy: Mr Giovanni TRIA Minister of Economy and Finances Cyprus: Mr Harris GEORGIADES Minister for Finance Latvia: Ms Baiba BĀNE State Secretary, Ministry of Finance Lithuania: Mr Vilius ŠAPOKA Minister for Finance Luxembourg: Mr Pierre GRAMEGNA Minister for Finance Hungary: Mr Mihály VARGA Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Malta: Mr Edward SCICLUNA Minister for Finance Netherlands: Mr Wopke HOEKSTRA Minister for Finance Austria: Mr Hartwig LÖGER Federal Minister for Finance Poland: Ms Teresa CZERWIŃSKA Minister for Finance Portugal: Mr Ricardo MOURINHO FÉLIX Deputy Minister for Finance Romania: Mr Eugen Orlando TEODOROVICI Minister for Public Finance Slovenia: Mr Andrej BERTONCELJ Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Slovakia: Mr Peter KAŽIMÍR Minister for Finance Finland: Mr Petteri ORPO Minister for Finance Sweden: Ms Magdalena ANDERSSON Minister for Finance Commission: Mr Valdis DOMBROVSKIS Vice President Mr Pierre MOSCOVICI Member Other participants: Mr Mario DRAGHI President of the European Central Bank .
    [Show full text]
  • European Parliament Elections 2019 - Forecast
    Briefing May 2019 European Parliament Elections 2019 - Forecast Austria – 18 MEPs Staff lead: Nick Dornheim PARTIES (EP group) Freedom Party of Austria The Greens – The Green Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) (EPP) Social Democratic Party of Austria NEOS – The New (FPÖ) (Salvini’s Alliance) – Alternative (Greens/EFA) – 6 seats (SPÖ) (S&D) - 5 seats Austria (ALDE) 1 seat 5 seats 1 seat 1. Othmar Karas* Andreas Schieder Harald Vilimsky* Werner Kogler Claudia Gamon 2. Karoline Edtstadler Evelyn Regner* Georg Mayer* Sarah Wiener Karin Feldinger 3. Angelika Winzig Günther Sidl Petra Steger Monika Vana* Stefan Windberger 4. Simone Schmiedtbauer Bettina Vollath Roman Haider Thomas Waitz* Stefan Zotti 5. Lukas Mandl* Hannes Heide Vesna Schuster Olga Voglauer Nini Tsiklauri 6. Wolfram Pirchner Julia Elisabeth Herr Elisabeth Dieringer-Granza Thomas Schobesberger Johannes Margreiter 7. Christian Sagartz Christian Alexander Dax Josef Graf Teresa Reiter 8. Barbara Thaler Stefanie Mösl Maximilian Kurz Isak Schneider 9. Christian Zoll Luca Peter Marco Kaiser Andrea Kerbleder Peter Berry 10. Claudia Wolf-Schöffmann Theresa Muigg Karin Berger Julia Reichenhauser NB 1: Only the parties reaching the 4% electoral threshold are mentioned in the table. Likely to be elected Unlikely to be elected or *: Incumbent Member of the NB 2: 18 seats are allocated to Austria, same as in the previous election. and/or take seat to take seat, if elected European Parliament ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• www.eurocommerce.eu Belgium – 21 MEPs Staff lead: Stefania Moise PARTIES (EP group) DUTCH SPEAKING CONSITUENCY FRENCH SPEAKING CONSITUENCY GERMAN SPEAKING CONSTITUENCY 1. Geert Bourgeois 1. Paul Magnette 1. Pascal Arimont* 2. Assita Kanko 2. Maria Arena* 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion in Danish Newspapers 1750–2018
    Continuity with the Past and Uncertainty for the Future: Religion in Danish Newspapers 1750–2018 HENRIK REINTOFT CHRISTENSEN Aarhus University Abstract The article examines the newspaper constructions of religion in Danish newspapers in a quantitative longitudinal analysis from 1750 to 2000 and a more qualitative analysis of recent news production from the last forty years. For the longitudinal part, the database of the digitiza- tion of Danish newspapers project is used. Using the available tools for quantitative data analysis, the article shows that the category of religion and world religions has been visible in Danish newspapers since 1750. The coverage of world religions is often related to the coverage of international news. Overall, the article documents a re- markable continuity of the presence of religion. Examining the more recent material qualitatively, the article shows that although many religions have been historically visible in the news, they have most recently become more frequent in the debate sections than in the news sections. It is primarily Islam that is debated. This is connected with a shift from religious diversity as part of foreign news coverage to domestic news coverage, related to changes in the surrounding Danish society. Nevertheless, the coverage of Islam also displays a remarkable continuity. Keywords: Danish newspapers, coverage of religion, secularization, reli- gious diversity The oriental question is one of today’s most pertinent questions. While some rejoice at the possible fulfilment of the probably quite reasonable wish to see the end of Turkish barbarism in Europe, others hope that this is a con- firmation of Islam’s impotence and the beginning of the eradication and disappearance of Islam from this world.
    [Show full text]
  • OPTIONS for TOBACCO TAXATION in AFGHANISTAN Public Disclosure Authorized
    Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized OPTIONS FOR TOBACCO TAXATION IN AFGHANISTAN Public Disclosure Authorized Knowledge Brief Health, Nutrition, and Population Global Practice Public Disclosure Authorized IN AFGHANISTAN, HIGHER LEVELS OF URBANIZATION, EDUCATION, AND INCOME ARE ASSOCIATED WITH LOWER TOBACCO CONSUMPTION AND A PREFERENCE FOR CIGARETTES. OPTIONS FOR TOBACCO TAXATION IN AFGHANISTAN André Medici, Bernard Haven, Lutfi Rahimi, Sayed Ghulam November 2018 I IN AFGHANISTAN, HIGHER LEVELS OF URBANIZATION, EDUCATION, AND INCOME ARE ASSOCIATED WITH LOWER TOBACCO CONSUMPTION AND A PREFERENCE FOR CIGARETTES. KEY MESSAGES • Men are the primary consumers of tobacco products in Afghanistan: 48 percent of ever-married men ages 15–49 use tobacco, compared to only 6 percent of ever-mar- ried women in the same age group. • Approximately 22 percent of adult men smoke cigarettes. An estimated 6.4 billion cigarettes are consumed per year in Afghanistan – a figure set to rise with the growth of the young urban population. • Around 5 percent of the country’s disability adjusted life years (DALYs) can be directly attributed to tobacco use. • Gradually increasing cigarette import tax from 27.6 percent to 46.2 percent is esti- mated to generate an additional tax revenue of US$19.7 million in 2022; a 5.1 percent reduction in cigarette sales; and a 2.7 percent fall in the number of cigarette smokers. • Illicit re-exportation is estimated to account for 24 percent of cigarettes imported into Afghanistan each year. While higher tax rates may disrupt this trade, modeling indicates that gradual tax rate changes will result in higher net revenues due to the size of the domestic market.
    [Show full text]