4 ms·

> Social Affairs Minister Wouter Koolmees told Parliament there was little the government could legally do to force Booking.com to return the money because the

> Social Affairs Minister Wouter Koolmees told Parliament there was little the government could legally do to force Booking.com to return the money because the bonus provision was not immediately included in the rules. He said it was more important to maintain a consistent government than to apply the bonus rule retroactively and without warning. This sounds either lazy or corrupt. There’s no need to retroactively apply the rule, but there are consequences that could be applied in the future, like forbidding companies that used the money for bonuses to apply for other government grants. Doing nothing because it’s “more important to maintain a consistent government” is messed up.

the-dude 5y ago
As a Dutch citizen, I like my government to be consistent and not retroactively petty because of their own failings.
- stingraycharles 5y ago
  Agreed, as far as I can see, it was a calculated risk that companies would abuse it. Better to just suck it up and hope for public outrage in some of the more despicable cases, which is just what happened here.
  - sabas123 5y ago
    > Agreed, as far as I can see, it was a calculated risk that companies would abuse it During the announcement of the first support package it was explicitly stated that due to the short time frame they had to operate in, they were taking this risk for the greater good. I believe that in the next support package they immediately made it a lot better w.r.t to abusing support. Personally I really liked how upfront they were with it.
    - polytely 5y ago
      Yeah it's actually the part of the pandemic the government handled the best as far as I can see, they got it up and running really quickly
- gargs 5y ago
  On the other hand, the government in general and the tax authorities in particular have a history of backtracking and retroactively diminishing promised rulings. Refer to the 30% ruling changes that were retroactively applied after employees had moved to the country and had received a signed declaration from the authority.

the-dude 5y ago

As a Dutch citizen, I like my government to be consistent and not retroactively petty because of their own failings.

stingraycharles 5y ago
Agreed, as far as I can see, it was a calculated risk that companies would abuse it. Better to just suck it up and hope for public outrage in some of the more despicable cases, which is just what happened here.
- sabas123 5y ago
  > Agreed, as far as I can see, it was a calculated risk that companies would abuse it During the announcement of the first support package it was explicitly stated that due to the short time frame they had to operate in, they were taking this risk for the greater good. I believe that in the next support package they immediately made it a lot better w.r.t to abusing support. Personally I really liked how upfront they were with it.
  - polytely 5y ago
    Yeah it's actually the part of the pandemic the government handled the best as far as I can see, they got it up and running really quickly
gargs 5y ago
On the other hand, the government in general and the tax authorities in particular have a history of backtracking and retroactively diminishing promised rulings. Refer to the 30% ruling changes that were retroactively applied after employees had moved to the country and had received a signed declaration from the authority.