Where can Bart De Wever find Belgium’s missing €10 billion?
Prime Minister Bart De Wever’s federal coalition is preparing a new budget round after official projections put the additional structural effort at about €7.7 billion by 2029 and €9.8 billion by 2031. No package has been agreed, and taxing company cars is among the politically sensitive ideas raised in the public debate rather than a confirmed government measure.
The eventual choices could affect wages, pensions, healthcare, public services, consumption taxes, savings and employment benefits. They will also test whether the ideologically broad Arizona coalition can reconcile fiscal consolidation with its commitments on purchasing power, competitiveness and social protection.
Prime Minister ’s federal government entered the final stretch of its budget preparations in on 27 August with roughly €10 billion still to find by 2031, but without an agreed package of spending cuts or new revenue. The figure is a rounded version of the €9.8 billion additional adjustment identified after the ’s July update; for the end of the present federal legislature in 2029, the corresponding gap is about €7.7 billion.
The distinction matters. The government has not announced a fresh €10 billion cut, nor has it decided to change the tax treatment of company cars. French-language reports by La Dernière Heure and 7sur7 instead examined the options facing the five-party coalition and presented company-car taxation as one possible source of revenue. Any such move would require agreement among De Wever’s N-VA, the French-speaking liberal MR, the centrist Les Engagés, the Flemish Christian democrats of CD&V and the socialist Vooruit.
The official arithmetic explains why the question has returned so quickly. ’s federal , a body of senior civil servants, estimated on 6 July that the deficit of Entity I — the federal state and social security — would rise from €25.7 billion in 2026 to €30.3 billion in 2027 and €44.5 billion in 2031 without further measures. The debt ratio for all Belgian public authorities was projected to climb from 110.7% of gross domestic product in 2026 to 122.6% in 2031.
Those are baseline projections, not a prediction that every euro will necessarily materialise. They incorporate current policy, expected ageing costs, interest charges and economic assumptions, while future reforms could improve the path. Yet they show that the coalition’s earlier budget work has not closed the structural gap. The separately expects ’s overall public deficit to fall temporarily in 2026 before rising again to 5.7% of GDP in 2029 and 6.3% in 2031 under measures already decided.
De Wever, the first N-VA politician to serve as Belgian prime minister, has consistently framed the adjustment as necessary to protect pensions, social security and ’s credibility with lenders and European institutions. His government agreement describes weak productivity growth, population ageing and rising interest charges as structural pressures. The coalition has already pursued pension and labour-market reforms, tighter follow-up of long-term sickness, savings in public administration and tax shifts designed to raise revenue while encouraging employment.
The new round is harder because many of those measures are already included in the baseline. Finding another €10 billion therefore cannot be achieved simply by relabelling previous decisions. The coalition must choose among deeper expenditure restraint, reductions in tax advantages, additional levies, stronger enforcement, delayed policies or assumptions about higher employment and growth. Each route distributes the burden differently, which is why the negotiation is as political as it is mathematical.
Company cars illustrate the difficulty. ’s federal tax and social-contribution system has long allowed employers to provide cars as part of remuneration, partly compensating for the country’s high taxation of wages. Reform advocates argue that the arrangement narrows the tax base, favours workers whose jobs offer such packages and encourages car use. An review noted that Belgium’s tax advantage for a medium-sized company car was unusually large by international standards. That makes the regime an evident subject for budget scrutiny.
Employers and workers with company-car packages see another side. Abruptly taxing the benefit more heavily could amount to a substantial change in agreed remuneration, increase labour costs or complicate recruitment. Fleet operators are also moving rapidly towards electric vehicles under rules that reduce the deductibility of fossil-fuel cars. PwC ’s 2026 mobility survey found that companies were already dealing with higher fleet costs and regulatory complexity. A reform intended principally to raise revenue could therefore collide with the federal policy of using company fleets to accelerate electrification.
There is also a competence boundary to respect. Taxation of salary benefits, social-security contributions and the federal mobility budget belong principally to the federal level. The — , and — control important parts of transport policy, road taxation and mobility infrastructure. A federal change to company-car taxation would consequently affect regional traffic and climate objectives without giving the regional governments the decisive vote on the federal tax measure itself.
The political alternatives are sharply contested. De Wever’s coalition argues that spending growth must be controlled and employment expanded because cannot tax its way out of a persistent deficit. In the Chamber, Socialist Party president and federal MP Paul Magnette has argued that the government is choosing the wrong burden-sharing model; the PS says greater contributions can be sought from capital and large fortunes without taking more from workers. The PTB-PVDA similarly favours heavier taxation of wealthy households and large companies, while rejecting welfare retrenchment.
Inside the majority, the emphasis also differs. N-VA places fiscal consolidation and labour-market activation at the centre. MR is particularly wary of measures it regards as punitive taxation on work or enterprise. Vooruit insists that stronger shoulders must make a fair contribution, while CD&V and Les Engagés must balance deficit reduction against the protection of families and public services. These are not merely differences of presentation: they determine whether the eventual package relies more heavily on expenditure, consumption, assets or employment incentives.
European oversight narrows the room for postponement but does not dictate individual Belgian taxes. is subject to the ’s excessive-deficit procedure, and its medium-term fiscal plan must follow an agreed path for net expenditure. The EU sets the adjustment framework; the federal government and Belgium’s federated entities remain responsible for deciding how to meet it. Defence spending and the possibility of limited European flexibility add another complication but do not remove the underlying structural deficit.
The immediate test is whether De Wever and Deputy Prime Minister and Budget Minister can turn a menu of contentious ideas into a coherent multi-year agreement. Negotiators will have to show not only headline savings but also when measures take effect, which level of government receives the proceeds and whether behavioural responses could reduce the expected yield. Until that work is completed, the €10 billion is a target for negotiation, not a settled bill, and company cars remain a revealing possibility rather than a government decision.
Impact
Regional — Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels would experience different effects because employment rates, commuting patterns and reliance on public services differ. However, the central decisions under discussion concern the federal budget; regional governments are not responsible for setting the federal taxation of company cars.
International — Belgium’s projected deficit, debt path and public spending are relevant to its obligations under the European Union’s fiscal framework. EU rules constrain the country’s expenditure path, increasing pressure on the federal coalition to present a credible adjustment over the coming years. They do not, however, require Belgium to tax company cars or reduce any particular programme. The mix of taxes, savings and reforms remains a Belgian political decision, while the resulting fiscal trajectory will be assessed in the wider EU budget-surveillance process.
What it means for you
No immediate tax, benefit or company-car change follows from the €9.8 billion estimate: it is a planning requirement, not an enacted package. Employees with company cars, pensioners, benefit recipients, savers and users of healthcare or federal services should watch the coalition’s coming budget decisions for confirmed measures and effective dates. Employers should not change payroll or fleet policies based only on the current speculation. The key checkpoints are the additional effort targeted for 2029 and 2031, and any formal budget agreement specifying which taxes, spending programmes or employment benefits will change.
Opposing perspectives
- De Wever coalition’s consolidation frame
Prime Minister Bart De Wever and the federal majority argue that structural spending growth, low employment and rising interest costs require durable reforms. Their frame stresses expenditure control, activation and competitiveness, while maintaining that delay would transfer a larger debt burden to future taxpayers.
- PS and PTB-PVDA redistribution frame
The Socialist Party and PTB-PVDA reject an adjustment centred on welfare restraint or household consumption. PS president Paul Magnette argues that greater revenue can be obtained from capital and large fortunes, while the PTB-PVDA calls for heavier contributions from wealthy households and large companies.
- Company-car reform advocates
Economists and mobility reformers who question the company-car regime see a costly and unequal tax preference that reduces revenue and encourages driving. They argue that reform could broaden the tax base if employees receive credible alternatives and changes are phased in.
- Employers and company-car beneficiaries
Employers, fleet managers and workers receiving cars as remuneration warn that sudden tax changes could raise labour costs, disrupt salary packages and weaken recruitment. They also point out that company fleets are already bearing much of Belgium’s transition towards electric vehicles.
Who, where and what
Key people, places and terms in this story
Belgian prime minister leading the federal coalition and the forthcoming budget negotiations.
Country whose federal deficit, public debt and budget policy are under discussion.
Region whose residents and workers may experience the effects of federal budget measures.
Region whose residents and workers may experience the effects of federal budget measures.
Region whose residents, commuters and public-service users may experience federal budget measures.
Show the full library (15)
Belgian prime minister leading the federal coalition and the forthcoming budget negotiations.
Named Belgian political figure associated with the article’s federal budget and taxation coverage.
Country whose federal deficit, public debt and budget policy are under discussion.
Region whose residents and workers may experience the effects of federal budget measures.
Region whose residents and workers may experience the effects of federal budget measures.
Region whose residents, commuters and public-service users may experience federal budget measures.
Federal government preparing the new budget round.
Ideologically broad federal coalition that must agree on the adjustment package.
Official body estimating Belgium’s federal and social-security budget trajectory.
Federal administration publishing the Monitoring Committee’s estimates.
Public institution producing the 2026–2031 economic outlook used to assess the budget path.
Supranational framework whose fiscal rules constrain Belgium’s expenditure path without prescribing individual measures.
International organisation that documented Belgium’s structural fiscal challenges in its 2024 economic survey.
Belgian federated authorities included in the wider public-sector deficit but outside Entity I.
Belgian federated authorities included in the wider public-sector deficit but outside Entity I.
Sources & evidence
- View sourceLa Dernière HeurePrimaryprimary· dhnet.be· 27 August 2026Retrieved 27 August 2026· 36 days ago· Dated
- View source7sur7corroborating· 7sur7.be· 27 August 2026Retrieved 27 August 2026· 36 days ago· Dated
- View sourceFederal Public Service BOSA — Monitoring Committeeofficial· bosa.belgium.be· 6 July 2026Retrieved 27 August 2026· 88 days ago· Dated
- View sourceFederal Planning Bureauofficial· plan.be· 19 February 2026Retrieved 27 August 2026· 225 days ago· Dated
Related topics
Related to this story
Live connections from the Belgium Impulse ecosystem — not recommendations.
This briefing was prepared with AI assistance and reviewed by a Belgium Impulse editor before publication. methodology.