Key Divergence Between Solilová and Desiderio The January 28, 2026 hearing of the European Parliament's Budget Committee (BUDG) spotlighted sharp differences between experts on how the EU should finance its future budget through new Own Resources. At the heart of the clash were contrasting views on the Corporate Responsibility Fee (CORE) and the progressive wealth tax. Veronika Solilová from Prague University of Economics and Business highlighted structural inefficiencies of the turnover-based CORE, warning it unfairly burdens loss-making companies and risks duplication of levies across corporate groups. Opposing this, Oxfam Belgium’s Julien Desiderio argued for a progressive tax package including a 5% wealth tax on the ultra-wealthy, fossil fuel profit levies, and financial transaction taxes as tools for fiscal justice and revenue generation.
Debate Context and Setting This debate took place during the European Parliament’s public hearing on "Own Resources for the future: critical review & opportunities," held on January 28, 2026. This session was part of the broader EU effort to move away from reliance on Gross National Income (GNI)-based contributions and to introduce new revenue streams aligned with the green and digital transitions, alongside support for repaying NextGenerationEU funds by 2028.
Concrete Proposals vs Vague Assurances Solilová provided detailed critiques of CORE’s design, including data showing that 10% of companies liable for CORE in 2023 were loss-making and yet paid €8.8 billion, plus risks of multiple payments due to lack of consolidation rules. Her call for a more proportional fee model had clear quantitative backing. Desiderio proposed specific measurable targets: a 5% wealth tax on the top 0.001% yielding €280 billion annually, alongside levies on fossil fuel profits exceeding a 3% asset return, to decisively fund the green transition. Other speakers like Margit Schratzenstaller endorsed a diversified basket of Own Resources but were less concrete on exact targets. Florina-Andreea Pantazi defended reforms to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) with precise governance changes and budget caps.
Policy Orientations and Political Implications The CORE debate reveals a cleavage between those favoring a turnover-based levy that increases EU budget autonomy but risks burdens on vulnerable firms and those advocating for highly progressive, redistributive Own Resources targeting extreme wealth and fossil profits. Solilová and supporters stress proportionality and avoidance of double taxation, which appeals to business competitiveness and structural fairness. Desiderio’s approach emphasizes redistribution, social welfare, and ambitious climate funding, aligning with progressive civil society and EU taxpayers sympathetic to social equity. This introduces a tension between market liberalization and increased regulation through new tax instruments.
Stakeholder Impacts - EU producers and multinational corporations face risks of increased and duplicative levies under CORE, impacting competitiveness. - EU consumers might indirectly bear costs through potential price pass-through if DSTs or other levies increase corporate expenses. - EU taxpayers and civil society could benefit from wealth tax revenues funding public goods and climate initiatives. - National authorities confront balancing budget contributions with maintaining fair tax burdens and avoiding intra-EU tax competition.
What Comes Next? Given the complexity and sharp disagreements, further impact assessments and legal clarifications seem likely. The Parliament may push for amendments making CORE more proportional and addressing duplication. At the same time, discussions will continue on politically sensitive progressive taxes, with opposition citing risks like capital flight and treaty constraints. The Commission and Council will need to reconcile these divergent views to move proposals toward adoption, balancing revenue adequacy, legal feasibility, and economic fairness.
Additional Notes The hearing also covered reforms to ECHA with bipartisan support, focusing on improved governance and financial transparency, and included votes on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for dismissed Tupperware workers in Belgium, signaling attention to social impacts of economic shifts.
This debate underscores the EU's challenge to reconcile differing visions of fiscal responsibility, market impact, and social justice as it seeks innovative funding for shared priorities.