"It’s mind-boggling": The government does not yet know how its VAT hike will apply

Steering blindly at the federal level: in the middle of a parliamentary debate, the Finance Minister admitted he did not yet grasp the real scope of his own tax reform. Asked about the precise impact of raising VAT to 12% for school canteens and nursing homes, the governing majority had to concede there is a total legal vacuum, even indicating it was open to drafting the necessary legal provisions based on… the opposition’s advice.

It was an admission of ignorance that stunned the assembly: the De Wever government is imposing a VAT increase from 6% to 12% on meal deliveries without knowing whether it will have consequences (or how significant) for catering. Pressed for an explanation, the ministers dodged the issue, revealing that a major tax reform had been decided without its exact contours being defined.

Hugues Bayet (PS) denounced a "tax increase on consumption" despite the MR’s promises to the contrary that there would be no new taxes levied. The Socialist MP, who also holds the mayoralty of Farciennes, specifically pointed out the risks to which this would expose the beneficiaries of professional catering: "Can you confirm to me that the vast majority of our grandparents living in care homes will see their lunch—their main meal—increase by 6%? What about our children in nursery and primary schools? Will meals delivered to our municipal schools also increase by 6%?" These queries echoed the legitimate fears of many caterers and collective catering companies.

When questioned, the MR group leader Benoît Piedboeuf, who is also the mayor of Tintigny, acknowledged having asked himself the same questions. However, he also had to concede that he did not have an answer. He reproached the opposition for demanding details that are impossible to provide at this stage.

"You are incorrigible. The general decisions were taken during the night from Sunday to Monday. We know that the draft texts will follow. We know that we are going to debate them in committee and that we will vote on them. Consequently, you are seeking answers regarding all the modalities that have not yet been fixed. You are being unreasonable," replied the Liberal MP.

Arriving in the midst of this little skirmish, Jan Jambon (N-VA) confirmed that for the time being, it was only a "decision in principle," as the government still had to draft the legal text. The Minister of Finance thought it well to clarify that "a large number of questions must still be addressed" and that the points MP Bayet raised were useful. "We will evaluate them at the time of drafting the text."

"It’s mind-boggling!" lashed out Hugues Bayet, implying that amateurism prevailed in a federal executive that had been described as a "government of engineers," whose budget agreement apparently rested "on nothing at all."

"The best proof is that it took you many months to deliver the 2026 budget. Today, you explain to us that the budget tables transmitted are perhaps not reliable because 'we don't know and we'll just see tomorrow.' That is the general principle. You also know that when Sodexo, or another company, comes to deliver meals to your schools, you will have to pay 6% more," the Socialist parliamentarian regretted, indignant at what looks to him like a political attack against the less well-off.