WRITTEN QUESTION E-2236/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Replacement rates.
8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/77 Apart from the above, the year-to-year development of capital flows does not indicate any marked effects either from the referendum or from the current Community proposal for a proposal for a Council directive to ensure a minimum of effective taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments within the Community (1). The developments mentioned earlier, as well as more persistent trends, such as the globalisation of financial markets, all contributed to influence the capital flows and appear to dominate their variation. Still, a possible influence from Community efforts to harmonise capital income taxation could materialise eventually, once a new directive concerning capital income taxation is adopted and the public and the market can learn the precise content of the new legislation, implementation date and implications. (1) OJ C 212, 8. 7. 1998. (2000/C 225 E/077) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2236/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (1 December 1999) Subject: Replacement rates What are the typical replacement rates (benefit payments on unemployment as a percentage of earnings) for each of the Member States and, for comparison, the United States and Japan? Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (11 January 2000) The definition and management of social benefit schemes ü including their relative level of assistance, the replacement rates ü fall within the responsibility and legal competence of the Member States. Policy issues related to tax and benefit systems, and their impact on the labour market, have been given an increasing weight in the employment guidelines (1) and the broad economic policy guidelines in recent years. Some analysis and data on replacement rates for the Community, the United States and Japan have been published in The EU Economy 1999 Reviewí, Part II, Chapter 2 (2), and further analysis based on data from the European Community household panel (ECHP) will be published in the forthcoming Social Protection in Europeí report 1999. These documents deal with some of the conceptual issues involved in defining and measuring replacement rates and provide some examples of the results obtained. (1) OJ C 69, 12. 3. 1999. (2) European Economy series No 69. (2000/C 225 E/078) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2247/99 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission Subject: The Structural Funds and regional assistance (19 November 1999) 1. Will the Commission confirm that any award to a Member State of structural funding, for example under Objective 1 or Objective 2, is subject to the rule of additionality, that is that the Member State must ensure that expenditure of the funds in question by a local or regional level of government does not replace expenditure from existing budgets but is additional to them? Does this require a dedication of matching funds within locally secured budgets to match expenditure facilitated through the Structural Funds?