Iedereen fraudeur of logisch beleid? Alles wat je moet weten over ‘money control’

Emma's heart begins to beat faster when she opens her Amazon package. Monitor your heart rate and work until 11 days with one small bowl. The Garmin's smartwatch scored gold at Emma for price and quality. Emma's five star. Discover great brands against low prices on amazon.com.be Lab 9, everything from Apple, including experts. It is 27 November. This is today's daily podcast of The Standard. I'm Marianne Justaert. Is the doll that gave birth to a little boy who is expected to have a baby? There is the doll again. If she is not busy with her baking, she will fill up the new year's envelopes for the little kids later. Only, does she really risk a burden controller? Who is expected to have a baby? At her door? At her door. According to Vincent van Quikkenbornen, Canerlid for Open VLD does exist. Too hot and too heavy, he has competed for weeks against Money Control, as it is called. Money Control, Money Control. Money Control is a new law. And it goes too far, as Van Quikkenbornen says. The Fiskus opens a hedge hunt on 11 million belgians. Now, according to colleague Ruben Mooimann, that 11 million belgian is still a little bit too much. You just know that there are a lot of belgians who are trying to reduce their fiscal obligations as much as possible. Money Control has been voted this week. And therefore, the Fiskus can look at pro-active bank accounts to bet on women. What about the privacy of Christophe van Schaubroek? This is the anonymous data, isn't it? It's not that they're going to look, they're going to read the list, but Marjan Ljussjardt, they're going to... If they're going to read it, then they're going to read it. But that's not it, it's anonymous. If the file is suspected because the algorithm shows it, then it's taken out. Because you de-anonymize it and then it's sent to the controller. Okay, for once and for always, is Money Control now a good law or not? What has van Quickenborn achieved with his stunt and... The bomb, the bomb. Can the bomb sleep on both ears? Money Control, so yes, it's nice. Hi Christophe van Schaubroek from the political editorial and Ruben Moojman, economic editor. I'm very happy to welcome you in the studio. Because you're going to hang on to the next 20 minutes, right? 20 minutes? Yes, 20 minutes. I hope you're done with the gemberteet. Otherwise you won't be full for so long. Gemberteet for everyone. Yes, good idea. Yes, you're alluding to Vessa van Quickenborn, chamberlid in the federal parliament. He is the face of the opposition against Money Control, Money Control the Wet. Never give up, always fight further. If you have to, drink a bit of gemberteet. That gives you a lot of energy. That's right. I have him after his filling bus. So 24 hours long last week. 24 hours in the chamber, always with the word, to keep the race against. Another colleague, it's unbelievable. I saw him at the parliament in the middle of the night. He knew, he's doing it for us too. I asked him for a call. What means did you use to keep it that long? Who can keep it that long? And he said gemberteet, that's my secret. A secret that he had already told you several times. But what he did tell me was that he wasn't in the chamber for a few weeks. Then he asked the chairman about it. He couldn't offer gemberteet to the parliament members here. And now since a few weeks he was available for gemberteet. Is that on the drink card? The drink card has been used for that. Look at him, something that he already holds on to. Thank you very much. I want to give that back. So one little trophy. We're going to talk about what he took in for the rest. But first let's look at the law itself. What exactly is in it? It's about the cap. That's the central focus for accounting and financial contracts. I have to always read that because I can't keep up with it. A database. So cap, that's a database. They were set up in 2011. And there were all kinds of accounting numbers from all over the world. Not more than that or less than that. They were set up in 2022. And then there is the salary of the accounting in the database. And it was used to see if there was a suspicion that someone had stolen something. Or by the court, for example, if there was a suspicion that someone had stolen something. To see which accounting has the person who is suspected and what is on those accounts. So it was always used to reactively. Now it's used proactively. There doesn't have to be any suspicion. You take that database. And then you go to all kinds of algorithms to see if certain files are anonymous. For example, certain things pop up and jump out. It can be someone who, as I said, is a placeholder who buys a lot of things. Or buys cars, that's registered. But officially, he can only have a low income or so. If there is a big difference, then there will be traffic lights. And they say, with that file, maybe there is something wrong. That file is then taken out of that database. And then I go to a controller who then has to perform a controller. Is there effectively a problem with that file or not? But what is important is that the controller doesn't use the data from that database. He has to perform his controller independently. He only gets that file here, looking at that file. That can be problematic. But he can't do any work on the data. So there is actually a filter. There is actually a filter that is recorded according to a sample in that case. Is that a special system? Are we the first country to have such a system? I'm not at the height of the exact modifications of AI systems by the physical services in all countries. But I know that there is a kind of fear in Belgium that the fishermen know how much we have. And that fear is not justified in my eyes. In the outside world, it is very normal that the fishermen know how much you have. For example, in the Netherlands, you have to give that to yourself. In your tax form that you also have to fill in. Is there a question, how much financial resources do you have? And you just have to fill that in. So the fishermen know that. I also know that in the United States, the fishermen can't laugh with people who protect their resources. So that whole idea of yes, that is a part of privacy where the government is not allowed to sit on. That is a bit what van Kwikkeborn tries to emphasize. That is a Belgian idea that lives much less abroad. But do you also do proactive checks on the data that all the Dutch, all the Americans, have to give? Yes, I can only imagine that AI systems by the fishermen in different countries will be used as a possibility. Yes, but it is important. That is a very serious discussion here. Jan Bonn says and... Jan Bonn, Minister of Finance and Energy. We don't want AI to be used here. We don't want a sort of black box to improve itself. And then suddenly dossiers from the database, where we no longer know what is happening. But where are we going? There are algorithms used that control me and know me. But yesterday in the parliament there was also a very serious discussion. What is now AI and what is not AI? A talk of smart data mining. I think then also AI, artificial intelligence. Yes, you can say a system that develops itself further or a system that works on algorithms that are still made by the people. And a second element is that there is always a person coming in front of you that dossier goes to the controller. If a certain number of people come out of that dossier, then you have to be de-anonymized. You have to know, yes, that's what those people are going to do. That dossier also takes a look at, is that also not false positive? To say smart, before you learn that it goes to the controller. Yes, okay, so it's not as random as it might be thought. Yes, so that was a serious discussion in the parliament. And of course no one knows how to work and look at the data base and build it. Because there was a whole discussion that there could be a kind of fault, but that could not be public. That was secret and how it works with such an algorithm now. So yes, that is for specialists, but Jan Bonn guarantees that no AI is used here. And Van Quikkeborne says, yes, that is not true, there is no AI. It is a semantic discussion. It is a semantic discussion, because if you stand outside, you cannot see how the data base data base data is going to be given. Because that is also logical, because if you could see that, you could adjust your behaviour to that algorithm and you would never get out of that data base. Yes, now the bottom line remains that the data base was used only reactive, as you say, in terms of women and whitewashing and so on. And now it is not only via AI, but also proactive, to control money. By the way, where does the name of that money control come from? The name is actually "Verzonnen door Friedrich de Hucht", the new chairman of OPVLD. Yes, they are not looking to take something, because it is the central address point for calculations and financial contracts. Who is going to read that, if it is already somewhere in a title or somewhere, no one is interested in it. So Friedrich de Hucht found that name and looked at the chat control, the discussion in the European Union. At the moment it is also about being able to control the chat reports or whether there are any unforeseen things planned. Okay, but again, I understand Ruben, you or me, or you, Christoph, can soon get such a controller at the door, is that right? Yes, you can also get a controller at the door. But the difference is that everyone is in the database, and your calculations are also in the database. The difference is that now that selection is made with some simpler computer systems and also not with the database it has. The selection is made with some computers that are physically full or not, if suddenly it turns out that you give out a lot more than you have in common. Yes. Sometimes the database will also cut a light, or if you suddenly give it to you, you have something else. So you can also be controlled now. It is not that the chance is greater that you are now controlled against an old one. So you have something to hide. Yes, but yes, then also. The argument of forex, for example, which has been very strong here, is that we are just going to check a lot more carefully, that less people are going to be difficult, that can actually perfectly explain what they suspect of, the fiscals, to put it that way. The government is also trying to prove that people have to prove that they are not women, that they are in the rules. Yes, that is the way in which Van Krikkenborn has suggested it, but as I wrote in the train, no one will say, yes, I refuse to show my ticket here, because yes, I am in the north, but the controller here states that I am a black driver and now I have to prove that I am innocent. Yes, that's not how it works. A form of control is needed to let the matter run fair. And that is at the fiscals, yes, the fiscal justice is exactly the same. I also find it very strange that people always have a hard time about that power, because you never hear anyone about income. We just have to give the income or the benefits, where the fiscals know that themselves, without having to do anything about it. You hear someone about that, everyone knows exactly how many houses and apartments everyone has, through the disaster. There will also be taxes, no one says that the fiscals know that, and that is part of the privacy, but the power suddenly does. Yes, it is something belligerent, as you said, indeed. But Van Krikkenborn does not say that the government trusts its citizens. Yes, I think that's a strange donation, because then the government does not trust the citizens, because the speed controllers, like Jan Bonn, have already received. Or because the contribution of the income tax is being controlled, or just name it, what kind of controllers there are. Is it fun that all the signs of a government that does not trust its citizens? Maybe a distressing government, Kistof, I know that you are also allergic to that. I am allergic to a distressing government, but... I am also allergic to a distressing government, I find a lot of rules super distressing. But this is not a distressing government, you say? Yes, I think... Ruben, you wrote literally in the newspaper, it is just a good policy point. It is logical that you are not allowed to act on their obligations, and they are also punished when they are written about. I do not see how people can be against that. And privacy is also such an element where people always make a fuss about what they know about me and what they do not know too much about me. And we have to say, in the paper, you have the privacy authority, the privacy worker, who was critical of what the fiscal system does here. But it is quite critical, isn't it? Exactly, because it is logical that the privacy authority is critical, because that is their task. Their task is to be critical of the privacy protection, but their task is not to defend the benefits and disadvantages of money control against each other. So you can say, okay, the privacy authority is critical, but the problems they have with that are not against the advantages of the extra income that we get from women's control. That is a defense that should make policy. So the argument of yes, but the GBA is against it, so it cannot be denied. That is, I think, a bit too short through the corner. Now, many Flamingos are against it. In the Tafel van Tinnen on Plee, an inquiry was held under the viewers. 21% is pro, 79% is against. 79% of the viewers who participated in the inquiry, looked to be against money control, against the law. Also the people around the table were actively against it. I think that the government has to trust the citizens more or less. It is a minority that is not trusted, and it has to be controlled. Even Jan Bons Partijgenhouten was obviously against it. Nadia Spinaat, Interstate. What do you think about Quikke Borne, who was on Twitter? Absolutely. There is a parliament member from NVA that is only allowed to be here and not further. I think that that has to be something selective. If there are women's fears, I have no problem with that being investigated. But there has to be a legal approach somewhere, I think. I think that is how strong Vincent van Quikke Borne played and argued. And how weak they are, who are the defenders of this file, who have been politically involved. They have given the perfect answer to Van Quikke Borne, to the show, as you can call it. They have let it go, while they were a great front. As Ruben said, there are also perfect arguments to develop for the system. But they also came up against each other. So they are actually on that side. That is a trophy from their government. They let it go by Van Quikke Borne. Yes. And you immediately bring the bridge to the method in which money control has been known. Van Quikke Borne has really put that on the agenda. By leading it in a very striking way, in a position. In short, in the Chamber of Commerce and Finance. On a VLD Chamberlain, Vincent van Quikke Borne, who did not know anything about it. But as long as Van Quikke Borne continues to speak, no other commissioner could take the floor. No one was allowed to vote, and no other subpoena was allowed to be cut. You already said that word. Yes, Philippe Buster. Philippe Buster. Guys, it was something from a far past, actually, put it out. Yes, it is still possible. He spoke for the last time, I think, almost 24 hours. Yes. After a while, he was beaten by Lode Vreek van Vlaans Belang, who is still picking on what he said. That is a very long story. That is a long story. He keeps talking. He keeps talking. He keeps talking. He keeps talking. He keeps talking. Yes. He keeps talking. He keeps talking. He kept talking. He was always full of himself. That's how he was at the end, 40 hours on the floor. The warning is that you stay at the bottom. Yes. And that actually worked out very well. And the word is for him from Quickenborg. Everything, what smells like a vermonic disaster, is Jan Jan Bol. No pasaran. Did you compare it with all possible countries and so forth? No pasaran. And so the accent was on the last A. No pasaran. Correct. I thought that was pasaran. But sometimes, yes. You would say, what is that from Quickenborg, and then tell it. It went a bit further away from the subject, but it was never really exaggerated. I read the newspaper from time to time. Do I have to pick you up? No, I will pick them up. The first one. Sometimes, yes. I ordered pizza for everyone, and so forth. Do you want to sit in front of me and bring me pizza? Have you seen bread? Yes, but I ordered pizza for everyone myself. You are unbelievable. But you know that it is inexplicable to talk with mouth full. And did that in itself? Also with knowledge of things, I think. Because he didn't say anything about it. But it was disgusting. I feel sorry for the minister. Or that it is a bit of a topic. But will gold staves be added to the majority tax or not? It did not work out. It broke and striped the lines of what he said and said. It is a pity that it is such a short sitting. That sounds pretty good, but after a while, of course, we have to work on the scene. Thank you, Borne. Can you give me honesty and respect for the services? Whether there is an end in sight? And the minister has actually continued. Good afternoon. We are going to end here for today. But at some point, as the chairman of the putt of the NVA, it is that this commission is so stupid that it just... The case has still been settled. Almost 24 hours after being elected, the microphone was turned off. Then it was called, but then it was done. And of course, Borne himself also realized that my goal has been achieved. I mean, I have been in all media. My goal has been achieved. Try to talk full for the next 20 hours. You have to have a very good study service behind your back. Because all those international comparisons. Yes, you have to do it. He says he has been there for a lot of hours, hours and weeks. Preparation has already taken place. Yes, he has also walked a bit. But it is not that he did not know what he was saying, that he was doing something stupid. He knew what he was saying. But it is him. Because I thought it was a bit childish in the beginning. We have to spend time there now. In the parliament. Politics is a success. Because we are sitting here now to talk about it. That was not happening without Borne, right? Yes. And it was independent. I think he did not insist on letting it go. Of course he knew that it was not going to happen. But it is now on the agenda. And as you said. With the big public, there is still something hanging. What is all that is happening here? And that is of course good. You can't have anything against that. Questions are asked about the policy of the government. That must be kept critical. That is what the opposition has to do. And I think that is very good. Everyone knows the law now. But he also found himself in the new position. With this support, you can call it. I mean, before the legislature, we had to deal with it as a minister of justice. Also in a bad press, on behalf of the police incident, a party at home against the police. But now it is there again. And he has his party open VLD. It is also a bit difficult. Because he had a liberal opposition party. It is also difficult to do something about it. It is a bit difficult. It is again someone from the old garden. Who has now become the face of the opposition. I can't ask you that. Does he not leave the young garden? But I can say what he has done. That the young garden would not be for me. For 24 hours you have to have a certain political experience. To be able to believe in each other. Indeed, a baggage can be known. I wouldn't be able to do that. You have to have a certain maturity for it. And you have to stand, I think. A young brookie who has not yet shown himself. I hear a lot of respect for the support of Van Quik and Borden here. A bit surprised. But Borden had a bit less respect. He said it last week in the plenary. What did he say again? Everything is a personal fact. I think that also has a personal problem, to be honest. But then it breaks me down. Certainly at the time and even more than in December to go into that. Maybe it also concerns the fact that he has a little pain. If you still have to explain it so personally. Minister, I don't have a personal problem. I find your insinuation down the drain. I have a problem with the fact that you and your government, the bank account of half a million Belgians, want to constantly check. That is the problem. If I say a personal problem, it mainly concerns a delivery problem. Van Quik and Borden, if I observe you in this room, I try to behave well with my children. If you are in a permanent state of great difficulty, with gesticulations and exclamations, I don't find that a complete delivery. I don't find that a complete delivery. I don't carry my son. A normal person does not carry himself in that way. That's all I say. But of course it helps if you indeed do not get a lot of criticism. Because how did the Minister of Finance, Jan Jambon, react to the rest of the commission? That is just the point. As long as you are responsible, you can remain responsible. You can not be interrupted. And if all those parliament members have done their says about that bill, then the minister gives a reply. And it happens on Tuesday. And he has also just answered many questions from Van Quik and Borden. In the eyes of Van Quik and Borden, of course, he is not satisfied. But that is actually the process as it goes on. So it is not that as long as you are responsible, you can remain responsible. Can we see more of that Philip Buster in the future? Do you think this is going to lead the method? I think that I can do that one time. That is one good thing. In a few years, I think, I can do that one time, but not in such a long time. That money control cuts into the women's competition policy of this government. That is wider. Where does the women's competition policy focus on? Yes, women's competition is a classic slidepost in every budget. That was with previous governments. That is now also new. At the youngest budget round, which now reached an agreement on Monday, there is a new post where, yes, how much is it? More than 600 million or so. Physical and social women are being taken out. At the beginning of the government, that was already around 8 million. So that is already around half a year on women's competition. To be honest, I think that there is still a lot to be done on the surface of a better physical women's competition. Because you just know that there are many powerful Belgians who try to deviate their fiscal obligations as much as possible. For example, as you can see, the fiscal amnesty was extended by the Havoclap and every time it brought money up again. So you just know that there are a lot of people who try to get out of their fiscal obligations. And that's why I don't think it's so weird that the government puts it in there. Do you think that the French liberals of the M.R. and the N.V.A. party are also going to participate here? The N.V.A. is going to participate with my long teeth, I think. And the N.V.A. is now in a government where compromises have to be made and where the Prime Minister is. That is a compromise you have to take forward. And the same goes for the M.R. And by the way, Mathieu Michel is a member of the M.R. Chamberlain. He does hold back, which is also very light, with an amendment from Van Quikkenbornen in which he asks if it has to be forbidden for the AI to be used for it. He holds back with that amendment. A sign that I'm not very happy with that legislation, but the rest of the rule also goes along in the commission. So those are parties that wouldn't come down with it themselves, but since you are now only in a government where it has to be taken forward. It would have been logical to say that in this government, the Minister of Finance, as was mentioned before, they could defend their own documents themselves. Now it is a bit of a strange situation, I personally think that an N.V.A. minister, the leader of the N.V.A., has to defend himself and defend himself. I think that feels a bit strange. Yes, that's right. And then Van Quikkenbornen also makes use of it. Indeed. The power has already fallen a few times. There is still such a big taboo in Belgium. And that is a power disaster, a database of all powers of all Belgians. Is this not the first step in the direction of a power disaster? I don't know if you want to think about it, but I think a power disaster is not necessary as a soldier. There is always talk about power disasters, but I don't think there are many countries that have a separate power disaster, because that already exists. The banks know exactly how much power you have. So you just have to ensure that the data of the banks comes to the fishermen and you actually are there. So a power disaster seems to me an excessive government structure that you don't need in order to effectively deal with women. The fishermen already know a lot. They all know very well about all the Belgians. That is probably one of the most important power components for a lot of Belgians. So they all know that. Yes, now the government or the government does not like to focus on the power of all Belgians. They would rather not focus on the large organized women. But who says that the large organized women will not come out if they adjust the algorithms? Who says that it will be focused on small... You think that there will be a lot of Steffanies in Belgium and women-led refugees. No, I can't. Who says that now, I can also say, that the FISC is aimed at all the Belgians. That means that everyone is taking the risk to get under control if he doesn't fit in. That was one of the discussions that were registered yesterday. Van Quikworn says, for example, that it will be determined by the large organized women. But how do you do that? Do you have to put certain things in the database or not? That is not entirely clear. And Jan Monsig then says, "All women are actually women's points." But he promises that he will. And that is of course the weakness. That is not in the law that the large organized women are going to be. He promises that there will be a focus on that. But the law does not distinguish the law itself. I think so too. Why would you only focus on large organized women? Because unorganized women may be a number that you can take for granted. Bigger, right? A lot of small people together can deliver a bigger amount than maybe three or four very large women dossiers. You don't know that. Yes, why would you say that? We only focus on that large amount. Maybe even shorter, what else is still in the pipeline? In the pipeline, they just said that there will be a field. You may know that in the Netherlands. Yes, but in the Netherlands there is a field. I know the field. Now there will be a field. Fiscal lighting and sporting services. Okay, yes. They are also coming to Belgium. And there will also be a physical park. Yes, I will say that. They will all centralize a bit so that it can be focused. And there will also be, if it is decided again, 377 extra inspectors to spread even more women. They are in every case. It is the government's opinion exactly. But there will also be a lot of money expected. But the only problem is that you can never check if the deliveries that they deliver can also be effectively removed. And how is that? Now there will be about 1.5 billion. They can be removed. With the previous and now... Through these measures. With all the Stefani's in Flanders. Yes, not only Fiat Cap. They will be removed by 1.5 billion. That is all women, social and physical. Okay, good to hear. Christoph Ruben, thank you. You're welcome. This was the daily podcast of The Standard. Thanks for listening. Follow us on your favorite podcast platform "Our FTS Podcast". There you will also listen to all our podcasts about the work of other makers. All the credits of this episode can be found on standard.be/podcast. You can respond via [email protected].