Housing, expat taxes take center stage in Eindhoven political debate

Candidates from VVD, PvdA-GL, CDA, D66, and Volt participated in an English-language election debate at the city hall in Eindhoven on Thursday. Organized by Eindhoven News, the debate was specifically aimed at internationals interested in learning more about the parliamentary election on November 22. The discussions revolved around several key election topics, such as expat tax, immigration, innovation, and housing. NL Times moderated the discussion on immigration.

The participants included Judith Tielen (candidate 15 on the VVD list), Eva de Bruijn (candidate 43 on the PvdA-GL list), Jan Joosten (candidate 44 on the CDA list), Mpanzu Bamenga (candidate 9 on the D66 list), and Valerie Pajak (candidate 16 on the Volt list).

In addition to Eindhoven News and NL Times, the event was supported by the municipality of Eindhoven and English media outlets Dutch News and Radio4Brainport. Other supporting organizations included Brainport Development and Eindhoven Airport.

Round 1: Education, Infrastructure, and development of the Brainport Eindhoven region

The first round of the debate notably focused on the issue of student housing and plans to limit English-language courses in higher education institutions, but also the question of the number of international students enrolling in Dutch higher education.

Eva de Bruijn (PvdA-GL) emphasized the need to "invest in extra student housing.” She expressed concern about the financial motivations behind choosing English as the main language of instruction, stating that the primary focus should be on the quality of education when deciding to internationalize.

Jan Joosten (CDA) acknowledged the value international students bring, saying, “We welcome international students, they give new insight and bring new juice.” However, he stressed the importance of being responsible towards the local population and suggested that Dutch should be the primary language for bachelor's education, while recognizing that some bachelor's programs could be in English when Dutch is not feasible feasible.

Mpanzu Bamenga (D66) highlighted that "internationals are part of our DNA in Eindhoven" and that their knowledge is indispensable. He advocated for an international approach, remarking on the often added value of offering programs in English.

Valerie Pajak (Volt) also supported the use of English in education, noting that "English does bring forward the quality of education."

Round 2: Immigration, 30% ruling tax break, and filling the labor shortage

The second round of the debate, moderated by NL Times, focused on immigration. Discussions centered around plans by various parties to limit all forms of migration, including family members of migrants, knowledge migrants, and migrant labor. It also focused on the proposed scraping of the 30 percent tax ruling for expats. The debate also touched on how to address labor shortages amidst political trends towards limiting immigration and internationalization.

Eva de Bruijn (PvdA-GL) said that it was “inhumane to separate people from each other.” She emphasized the need to facilitate the integration of immigrants with locals. She advocated for strict action against exploitative employers of labor migrants and suggested changes in employment and housing policies for migrants.

Jan Joosten (CDA) highlighted the crucial role of knowledge and labor migrants. “Without them, the entire Dutch economy will collapse.” He stressed shared responsibility in employment and the importance of "smart immigration" to fill gaps, potentially supplemented by automation in some sectors.

Mpanzu Bamenga (D66) argued for easing family reunification processes and punishing exploitation in employment. “Exploitation of people is a crime, and people should be punished for it.” He suggested a more targeted approach to the expat tax break, considering factors like income or sector, and emphasized the need for equity in treatment.

Valerie Pajak (Volt) spoke against the notion that migrants cause housing crises, blaming past governments instead. He called for addressing exploitative practices of foreign labor migrants. "We need to make it less profitable to use exploitative businesses with labor migrants, with financial pressures." He argued for the creation a fair system between expats and locals, including reassessing the expat tax break.

Judith Tielen (VVD) focused on the benefits of attracting foreign talent to the Dutch economy through tax breaks. She suggested increasing work hours in sectors like healthcare and education as a solution to labor shortages, rather than relying on migrant labor, which she viewed as a short-term fix. Regarding the 30% tax ruling for expats, she said: "We want to make sure that people from abroad come here with all their talent to bring to the Dutch economy, that why we need this tax break.”

In the discussion on asylum, Judith Tielen (VVD) expressed concern about high migration numbers, emphasizing that the Netherlands should ensure only those who genuinely need to flee can stay. Jan Joosten suggested that asylum should initially be temporary, lasting five years, before granting a permanent permit, while also addressing the root causes of migration in the originating regions.

Mpanzu Bamenga (D66) criticized the focus on numbers over people, advocating for a more welcoming approach to migrants seeking better lives, education, or safety. He stressed the importance of regulating and facilitating safe migration paths.

Eva de Bruijn (PvdA-GL) highlighted that only a small percentage of migrants are refugees. "Only 13 % of migrants coming to the Netherlands are refugees, so it’s not an inflow problem, as right-wing parties try to frame it. She called for increased shelter capacity in the Netherlands, with municipalities contributing their share, and stressed the need to invest in development cooperation to address the reasons why people flee.

Valerie Pajak (Volt) described the current situation for asylum seekers as inhumane. “Migrants are being blamed for the problems created by the government," he pointed out. He argued that all European countries should equally share the responsibility for asylum seekers.

Round 3: Sustainability, mobility and cybersecurity

The third round of the debate centered on innovation, sustainability, mobility, and cybersecurity.

Eva de Bruijn (PvdA-GL) acknowledged the potential of innovation as a solution but also its "risks to public values." She advocated for regulatory control over innovation and the use of new technology to promote sustainability. On the climate crisis, she called for immediate, equitable action, combining green and social policies. Her suggestions included investing in solar panels and windmills, insulating homes (starting with those of the poor), increasing trains and reducing cars, ending fossil fuel subsidies, and introducing a CO2 tax.

Jan Joosten (CDA) emphasized the need for a diverse approach to sustainability, including solar, wind, water, "and nuclear energy if need be." He warned against setting unattainable goals because "otherwise people lose faith in it." He advocated for a gradual transition away from fossil fuels. Regarding cybersecurity, he referred to it as "the new gun" and highlighted the need for increased support for small companies to improve their cybersecurity.

Judith Tielen (VVD) expressed enthusiasm for innovation but stressed the need for affordable living for people in innovative sectors. For cybersecurity, she declared, “For security, you have to be at the VVD,” and advocated for strengthening forces to prevent or resolve cyber threats, with a focus on small and medium enterprises and healthcare.

Mpanzu Bamenga (D66) spoke about the importance of investing in innovation leading to sustainability, proposing a one billion euro stimulus for green companies. He expressed urgency regarding climate change impacts and called for a European approach to cybersecurity, emphasizing the need for increased training and knowledge. He reacted to what Tielen said about her party being for security, asking, "Security for whom?" and accused her party of ethnic profiling, to which she replied he should "take back those words."

Valerie Pajak (Volt) argued that technological solutions for climate change already exist and advocated for investment in public transportation and light electric vehicles. He criticized the slow pace of climate bureaucracy in the Netherlands compared to Europe.

Round 4: Housing and health insurance

The final round focused on housing, health insurance and taxation.

“There’s a housing issue on every level,” said Tielan (VVD). She promoted building homes for all income levels and more flex housing to fill the gaps with temporary solutions.

“We think tiny housing could be a solution. We think instant housing could be a solution,” said Joosten (CDA). These are projects that could be launched within weeks and not years, he emphasized.

The housing shortage “is a consequence” of previous Cabinet policies, said Bamenga (D66). “But employers and universities need to “take their responsibilities” and assist their people with acquiring adequate housing.

The GroenLinks-PvdA alliance wants to get rid of the healthcare allowance in exchange for reducing the monthly basic health insurance premium. She also noted that there is more cultural understanding between Dutch healthcare providers and ethnically diverse patients.

Bamenga (D66) agreed, telling a story about when his mother was ill, the doctor sent her home with paracetamol “because people from Africa cry out in pain a lot.”

Tielen (VVD) argues that “we need more meaningful care.” She suggested this should focus on better long-term planning, and more preventative care.