From chip shops to hotels: the De Wever government imposes overtaxes, the Chamber demands answers

During the plenary session dedicated to the government's statement, Arizona's consumption tax reform became a focal point of tension. While the federal government defended the reform as a way to rebalance the budget and reduce the tax burden on labor, the congressional opposition denounced it as leading to a surge in everyday prices, from a cone of fries to a hotel room.

“You are not a reform government, but a taxation government.” This is a classic Belgian political refrain, but it has rarely had such a bitter taste. During the first part of the debates on the declaration of the executive led by Bart De Wever (which, at the time of writing, are still ongoing), the infamous “tax shift” transformed the chamber into a chaotic free-for-all where insults and exorbitant prices were hurled at each other.

The chip shop as a social barometer

An unexpected but ubiquitous symbol of parliamentary debate: the chip shop. The harmonization of VAT on takeaway meals (increasing from 6% to 12%) was a key point of attack used to illustrate the loss of purchasing power for citizens. The Vlaams Belang party led the charge. Wouter Vermeersch sarcastically commented on the proliferation of debates surrounding fries, suggesting that people should have them delivered "while the VAT hasn't increased yet." Sam Van Rooy broadened the criticism, referring to an overall inflation in the cost of living in Belgium: "hotels, campsites, restaurants, takeaway meals, festivals, culture, sports, and cinema" will all become more expensive due to the tax shift.

Her colleague Barbara Pas denounced a "disguised VAT increase," asserting that these measures will primarily affect the Flemish middle class. The MP also expressed concern about the thousands of hotel bookings already made at fixed prices, which hoteliers would no longer be able to adjust to the increased rates also affecting the sector.

Questioning what logical explanation the government could possibly provide to chip shop operators, Stefaan Van Hecke (Ecolo-Groen) accused the majority of making "the man on the street" pay while complex tax arrangements remain untouched.

The government's response, relayed by MP Axel Ronse (N-VA), a frequent presence in the National Assembly, was intended to be pragmatic: it's a societal choice. "If I go to eat fries in Kortrijk tonight, do you know what my table neighbors, who pay a bit more VAT on their fries, will say to me?" retorted the nationalist group leader. "They'll tell me, 'Mr. Ronse, I much prefer that you collect 4 billion less in taxes on labor, so that in the end, we earn far more than the 1.3 billion you collect in VAT.'"

An argument supported by Minister Frank Vandenbroucke (Vooruit), who tried to put things into perspective: "I may pay 25 cents more for my fries, but the person next to me on minimum wage will earn 50 euros more. That's 200 times those 25 cents! What are you complaining about? "

Controversy surrounds ready-to-eat meals sold in supermarkets

Beyond the culinary anecdote, it's the vagueness surrounding the measure and its impact on the real economy that, along with concerns for foodservice operators , are worrying the political opposition. Parliamentarians are demanding clarification, with the Liberals focusing their search for details on the specific products and goods whose VAT will increase. "Your leisure tax is a complete absurdity! I've checked with experts. This tax is a real headache, because cultural activities are exempt when they are not for profit. You go to the Kinepolis cinema. You pay 12%. Don't buy fries beforehand, because it will cost you more. You were supposed to protect the middle class," criticized Alexia Bertrand (Open VLD), former Secretary of State for the Budget and Consumer Protection.

For now, the opposition is not receiving detailed answers. According to the Liberal MP, the government is simply unable to provide them. " As always, your agreement has so many grey areas that we will probably have to wait for a temporary agreement to resolve everything. You don't know that. "

Vincent Van Quickenborne (Open Vld) has raised a potentially explosive technical issue. According to the former Liberal minister, citing sources within the Federal Public Service Finance, " to reach the €222 million target, it won't be enough to rely solely on Deliveroo, Uber Eats, and chip shops; supermarket takeaway meals will also have to become more expensive. This applies to everything from sushi at Delhaize to pre-made sandwiches at Carrefour ." Axel Ronse categorically denied this, stating that any VAT increase on takeaway meals would be strictly limited to the hospitality sector.

And the Flemish liberal MP insisted: "Besides the 222 million euros in the table, it also indicates that the VAT on non-alcoholic drinks in the hospitality sector is being reduced. The cost of this is 140 million. And so, we need to recoup 140 million plus 222 million from takeaway meals. We can't do this exclusively through Uber or Deliveroo."

Leisure activities taxed as luxury

The specter of price increases extends far beyond food. Barbara Pas denounced an "anti-Flemish cultural tax," stressing that festivals, concerts, and hotel stays—sectors that are very dynamic in the north of the country—will be hit hard.

The same sentiment was echoed by environmentalists. MP Sarah Schlitz painted a picture of a middle class and young people for whom leisure activities will become a luxury: more expensive campsites, unaffordable festivals, and rising cinema ticket prices.

For the opposition, this budget is one of hidden taxes. " Taks, taks, taks , that's Arizona for you," Open Vld insisted, pointing to an inconsistency between promises not to increase taxes and the reality of the budget tables. Vlaams Belang went further, calling the N-VA/CD&V/Engagés/MR/Vooruit coalition a "taxation government," adding, in no particular order, to the VAT on restaurants and accommodations, an increase in excise duties on gas, a tax on airline tickets, and a tax on parcels.

Faced with this barrage of criticism, the majority rallied around a single promise: the recognition of hard work. "We're cleaning up your mess," Axel Ronse declared to the liberals, defending a logic where "those who work should be rewarded."

It remains to be seen whether, once the parliamentary test is passed, Belgian consumers will accept the more expensive pill in exchange for the promise of a larger paycheck. As this first plenary session has shown, the battle for perception has only just begun.