Who will pay for Vlaams Belang’s plans? And big disappointment for PVDA: first conclusions after calculation by the Planning Bureau

The calculation of the party proposals by the Planning Bureau is virtually the actual start of the election campaign. Even now, the numerical exercise will not go undiscussed. Almost every party will try to pull the story in its own direction in the coming hours by emphasizing positive points and disputing weak points.

The calculation exercise therefore includes a double warning. The Planning Bureau has not calculated the complete program of any party. Parties were allowed to make their own selection of a maximum of thirty proposals. Only those have been settled. This means that parties were given the opportunity to place their own emphasis. For example, it is striking that only the left-wing parties also submitted mobility proposals. Above all, it also means that it is extremely risky to compare party reports, because different measures are weighed for each party.

A second limitation is that the Planning Bureau does not calculate proposals that go outside the current constitutional framework. This (of course) mainly affects the radical parties. The hoped-for migration stop has not been settled at Vlaams Belang. For example, PVDA has not assessed the nationalization of the energy sector.

However, you can learn how parties score on the priorities they themselves indicate, and what the consequences could be for you. An overview per party.

N-VA: the hardest saver

With the proposals submitted by the N-VA, the budget deficit would fall by just under 2 percentage points by 2029. The debt ratio would even fall by over 8 percentage points. No party comes even close to that plan, based on what the Planning Bureau was able to calculate. Left-wing parties, led by the PS, also realize a somewhat reduced budget deficit, but this is mainly the result of tax increases or shifts. The big difference with the N-VA is the planned sale of government participations in Belfius, BNP Paribas, Bpost and the National Lottery, among others, which would reduce the national debt by a few points.

The austerity operation does mean that the average disposable income of families would stagnate: higher incomes would improve somewhat more than the rest at the N-VA. The party would create 57,000 jobs on top of the 220,000 already predicted by the Planning Bureau by 2029. These are mainly at lower wages. This is because the N-VA wants to further flexibilize the rules regarding night work, e-commerce or flexi-jobs.

Lower incomes in particular will feel the difference. The lowest income groups are declining significantly. This is because the N-VA limits unemployment in time and does not index benefits and living wages. Job seekers would lose an average of 43 percent of disposable income. This makes the N-VA the strictest of all for inactive people.

Vlaams Belang: who will pay for that?

According to the Planning Bureau, Vlaams Belang promises that the disposable income of households would increase by an average of 6.4 percent by 2029. No one is being more aggressive. The upper middle class in particular benefits with increases above 7.5 percent. Job seekers see their income drop by 14 percent. However, no fewer than 110,000 new jobs would be created on top of what has already been calculated.

There is one problem: who is going to pay for it? According to the Planning Bureau, the VB is allowing the already large budget deficit (5.6 percent of GNP by 2029 with unchanged policy) to widen even further by almost 2 percentage points extra. The debt is also growing. The far-right party argues that its major austerity measures have not been taken into account: a migration stop and a split in social security.

CD&V: 320,000 additional jobs

According to the Planning Bureau, CD&V will create more than 100,000 additional new jobs by 2029. Only the MR and the VB promise to do even better. Disposable income would also increase by an average of 3.2 percent. Self-employed people are doing the best, with an income increase of almost 13 percent, and job seekers are also in the lead among the Christian Democrats (-20 percent disposable income). Living wage earners are spared from further savings.

However, based on the measures proposed here, including an increase in the tax-free amount, an expansion of the tax bracket from 45 percent and an investment in childcare, CD&V also has a budgetary problem. The dire budget situation would not improve by 2029. The party argues that its most important fiscal measures could not be counted by the Planning Bureau because they belong together in one major reform.

Open Vld: N-VA light

Just like N-VA, Open Vld dares to have savings proposals settled, but for the Liberals this does not immediately lead to an improved budget result. As with N-VA, there has been a moderate increase in average income, with large differences to the detriment of inactive people. However, it is all less pronounced among the Flemish liberals. Job seekers would also lose up to 29 percent of their income, living wage earners will also decline somewhat and retirees will stagnate. The difference is that N-VA plans an index jump for living wages, Open Vld does not want an increase on top of the index.

In general, the lowest 40 percent of incomes are declining at Open Vld, while the higher incomes are improving the most. The Open Vld would create 267,000 new jobs. Most additional blue jobs would be found at lower wages, again just like with N-VA.

Forward: everyone forward?

According to the Planning Bureau’s calculations, everyone would make progress with Vooruit’s plans, with an average 4.9 percent increase in income. The progress is most noticeable from the lower middle class, with increases above 5 percent. Wage earners gain the most on average (+5.7), but the self-employed, retirees and the unemployed would also gain a little more.

Too good to be true? Perhaps so, because the alarming budget deficits and government debts would hardly decrease under these plans. All in all, this is not too bad, as in quite a few parties the red numbers become even darker red. The party wants to progressively tax all income from capital, rental income, and inheritances and donations, in order to finance a reduction in labor taxes.

Green: the redistribution champion

Contrary to the general trend, Groen opts for a significant additional redistribution from rich to poor. The big difference with the others comes from the so-called ‘welfare guarantee’, a mild form of basic income, which lifts all low incomes above the poverty line.

This is reflected in the figures of the Planning Bureau. With an average income growth of 6.3 percent, which is quite generous, living wage earners and job seekers would see their income increase by 14 percent. Salary earners are also improving at Groen (+ 6.7 percent). The Greens pay for this with more and higher taxes on capital and capital gains, and the abolition of some tax benefits.

Green mobility measures would see the share of public transport increase by 9 percent. The car would lose 1.6 percent. That is more than for Vooruit, but for the Flemish Socialists the number of car kilometers would decrease more than for the Greens due to a tax reform.

PVDA: degrowth in practice

For the PVDA, the Planning Bureau’s report is a major disappointment. The millionaire tax, which the party is strongly committed to, does help to keep the budget somewhat in order, but the Planning Bureau predicts negative economic effects. For example, the plans of the far left would create fewer jobs than normally anticipated (-20,000). GDP would also grow less than expected. No other party comes up with that negative effect.

Because the Planning Bureau cannot calculate other measures taken by the PVDA, the overall picture for Raoul Hedebouw’s party looks poor. Free public transport would increase the number of users by 18 percent, but those additional customers by train, tram and bus would largely come from cyclists and pedestrians (-10 percent), which moderates the environmental impact.

The PVDA does not accept the Planning Bureau’s analysis. “There is a return to the neoliberal vision,” says political director David Pestieau in a press release. “There is no room for other economic policies. This exercise remains limited to a logic that is favorable to the traditional policies that dominate Belgian politics.”

PS: more income, lower deficits

Just as with Vooruit, no income group would be worse off with the PS. Employees are by far making the most progress (+5.2 percent, with an average growth in disposable income of 3.3 percent). The PS therefore comes to the same conclusion in a completely different way than N-VA or Open Vld: work should pay more.

Remarkable: after the N-VA, the PS will reduce the budget deficit and national debt the most (-1.12 and -5.3 percentage points respectively in 2029). But the difference in tax ideas to achieve that goal is large. The PS wants, among other things, to tax capital more and to abolish tax benefits on savings and investment products.

MR: opposite of the PS

The reverse of the PS applies to the MR. The French-speaking liberals are allowing the budget and national debt to derail even further, which is remarkable for a liberal party. With the MR proposals, the budget deficit would rise to as much as 7.6 percent of GDP by 2029, while the national debt would exceed 121 percent. The difference with the also right-wing liberal N-VA is immense.

However, just as with the Flemish nationalists, it is the job seekers who pay the price. But just like N-VA, Open Vld and also CD&V, which all want to limit unemployment over time in one way or another, the MR also argues that the intention is to have fewer job seekers. As many as 340,000 additional jobs would be created with the plans of Bouchez and co. can occur, according to the Planning Bureau. No other party reaches that ambitious figure.