Proposition 53K1411

Projet de loi prolongeant le bonus de pension accordé aux salariés et aux indépendants.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq, Nahima Lanjri
Groen Wouter De Vriendt
LE Catherine Fonck
MR David Clarinval
N-VA Karolien Grosemans
Open Vld Maggie De Block
PS | SP Yvan Mayeur
Vooruit Meryame Kitir

Submission date

April 29, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

pension scheme white-collar worker self-employed person

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Abstained from voting

Vooruit

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 14, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Julie Fernandez Fernandez returns to her written report.

I would like the leaders of the group to recall their speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I think we cannot leave this proposal, which was submitted in consensus with all parties, unnoticed, even though some colleagues are not present. This proposal will ensure that the pension bonus, as it currently exists, can be extended. This is a measure that was taken at the time within the framework of the Generation Pact. It was a continuation of that. Through this measure, it was aimed at ensuring that people are incentivized to stay at work longer.

We submitted this proposal, not to bring the debate to the bottom, although we would like to, but because we wanted to fill a gap and counter a false signal with the extension of this measure. The problem was signaled to us through the many questions we received ourselves. This was also ⁇ by the Ombudsman. After all, if we did not extend this measure, people would stop earlier. The evaluation of the measure leaves itself waiting so that at this time no new decision can be taken on the matter.

The bonus exists and is used by some. It is gradually being used by more and more people. We note that 15% of retirees took this bonus in 2007. Now they are about 20%. We also find that only 20% or even fewer of pensioners and future pensioners are aware of this measure. 20% of people say they want to use the measure.

In addition, we note two other elements. On the one hand, there is a bonus for officials, but it is dressed on another reading. This is a percentage bonus that starts from 60 years old and ends without a deadline. If we want to conduct the debate later, we must take as an element the fact that one is working in a different way for the officials. On the other hand, we should make a cost-benefit analysis of this bonus. I think we can build on the advice that was requested from the social partners. I hope this can happen a little faster than is currently planned. We must then look at how we can extend or reorient that measure.

We also consider that this measure, which is the extension of a temporary measure, should not, in particular, give a false signal for the future.

We know that we will have to conduct the debate about pensions in substance, from September. We do not do so immediately, as it is important that Parliament respects the fact that the social partners plan an evaluation. Currently, the study is underway to evaluate the Generation Pact. I also think we should take our time to conduct the debate thoroughly. We see this ultimately happening best with a stable government.

In any case, we cannot avoid the debate basically. We will need to adopt a global package of measures, which will both deal with working longer and bringing more people to work.

For us, the extension of the pension bonus for employees and self-employed is a purely conservative measure. The expiration of the deadline will, in our opinion, encourage those who do not intend to retire now to retire early for financial reasons. There is a lot of uncertainty and ignorance in the field. We want to fix that.

It would be contrary to the spirit of the law to discourage people who want to work longer by not extending the retirement bonus. The extension is valid for one year. We have made the reservation that there will be an evaluation in 2012. At that important moment, we will see whether the pension bonus keeps enough people working or not. If not, there may need to be another incentive to ⁇ the goal.

It has been said here, with officials there is another arrangement. This is contrary to the evaluation, because they have worked for a long time and the pension supplement worked rather deterrently. I asked for the numbers. In 2001, the average age was 61 years and nine months. Seven years later, with the pension supplement, the average age had fallen to 60 years and eight months, while the cost in 2008 was already 5.5 million euros. We need to see a little how we handle our resources in the social security, knowing that the trees do not grow up to the sky and that the money in the social security must be spent effectively.

We should also ask the question whether we should work only through stimuli or also through another method, for example through fiscal measures that are effectively noticeable monthly at the end of the career. I refer to my proposal for a work-out premium, where we reward people from month to month when they continue to work longer.

The bill also provides for more information. We are ⁇ always for that. It is through information about the size of the pension that one will effectively receive that one can decide for himself or one can work a little further. The question of whether there are still student children and high costs also play a role in this.

I, of course, hope that in the next legislature we will conduct a thorough and extensive pension debate, because a number of reforms need to be carried out urgently. There should be no taboo. We must ensure that our pension system is solid, balanced and fair in the future. Solidarity must be ⁇ ined, but we must also continue to uphold the insurance principle and we must also restore the link between work and retirement.

Mr. Speaker, our group will obviously support this bill that extends until 1 December 2013 the pension bonus which, it must be recalled, was conceived as a temporary measure by the Covenant of Solidarity between Generations.

Furthermore, the text submitted to us aims to counter a real problem of efficiency, given that only 19% of retired workers and future pensioners are aware of the very existence of this pension bonus.

That said, in the overall assessment that will take place during the second half of 2012, we will need to ask ourselves about the sufficient incentive nature of this bonus, since the Green Paper teaches us that only 10 % of workers who are aware of the bonus report that it has an influence on the decision at the time of retirement.

It should not be forgotten that by delaying retirement by one year beyond 62 years, pension entitlements increase only by 1/45th, or 2.2%, which is much lower than the benefit that one could have if one did not take advantage of his pension for an additional year. Therefore, the question must be asked whether the amount of the pension bonus brings a real plus-value in terms of incentive not to withdraw from the labour market.

Another question is the possible impact of the pension bonus. In the affirmative, there would then be a perverse effect that consists in workers, under the effect of increasing the expected amount of their pension, finally withdraw earlier from the labour market, while without bonuses, they intended to continue their careers until the age of 65.

In conclusion, the uncertainty as to the effectiveness of the pension bonus but also its cost in relation to the tax revenues it generates are as many questions that justify that the extension of the bonus is not, at the moment, unlimited in time but that it ensures the necessary legal certainty for workers who must be able to make their choice in full knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, today our Parliament must move forward in terms of pensions. It must be admitted that the current system is no longer sustainable. In this sense, the pension bonus, which acts as an incentive for people who want to stay active longer, is of course beneficial. It needs to be made known! Today, it has been said, it is not really known among the population.

This pension bonus consists of a fixed and permanent increase in the amount of the statutory pension for employees who decide to postpone their departure to retirement. This bonus was set at 624 euros for any year of activity beyond 62 years of age or beyond the 44th year of career.

I sincerely believe that such an incentive is currently totally necessary given the state of our legislation and in the context of the economic and social crisis that our country is going through. Nowadays, no one is safe from all kinds of crises. The fact of extending this pension bonus is to make the choice of a more responsible future for all, away from the cliché that the Belgian economy does not need workers or work.

However, we cannot cover our faces. The problem is much deeper than what the present bill encompasses. The problem comes from pensions and advance pensions. Recently, our former Prime Minister, Mr. Van Rompuy said how he felt that the legal retirement age should be raised to 67 years sooner or later. He added that this should not be done brutally, that these reforms could be spread over ten or fifteen years – I would say it would be time to think about it! And that would be a socially responsible way of responding to the crisis. He responded to Minister Milquet’s refusal to comply with a European recommendation on the retirement age. In fact, this game of deceit masks a terrible laxism, especially in Wallonia and Brussels, where we see that a pension reform is absolutely necessary, contrary to what we would like to make us believe.

Why is it necessary? You can see that the ratio of replacement contributors is reversing, I do not teach you anything. This means that from now on, 15-24 years old are far fewer than future retirees aged 55 to 64 years old. This phenomenon began in Flanders in 2008. Wallonia will pass the direction this year. Brussels has more margin but this drop in replacement will worsen with the massive retirement of the papy-boom generation. The current system is no longer sustainable.

It is known, it is not said enough, but by 2050, Belgium will be able to pay only one out of three pensions, unless the contributions are increased by half. No one is in favour of this solution.

The extension of the pension bonus is a small, very small step, but even if it is far from sufficient, we should encourage those who delay their retirement. A small positive step that calls for further pension reforms.

In the future, people will need to stay at work for longer. For my part, I am ⁇ in favour of a system such as the one in the Netherlands that benefits those who work longer and penalizes those who decide to work less. In the Netherlands, the pension decreases by 6.5% per year below the statutory retirement age of 67 years and increases by 6.5% per additional year. This is meritocracy; this is encouraging those who really want to work.

We will have to pursue a voluntary policy even if it will not be very popular. There must be political courage. I think the pre-emption system will also have to be touched. There is a need for consistency and efficiency. Today, prepension is a violation of the rule that the retirement age is legally set at 65 years. Pre-payments are now widespread and we cannot escape the debate on the extension of working time, which has become mandatory given the current life expectancy, if we want to keep a decent pension.

In these circumstances, instead of delaying the statutory retirement age, it seems more appropriate to eliminate purely and simply pre-pension and apply our laws. This is why I recently submitted a proposal for a bill aiming to eliminate pre-payments from 2016 except for heavy jobs, of course.

I am also pleased to find that self-employed workers who are so often forgotten can also benefit from the temporary extension of this pension bonus. It had to be signaled.

The pension bonus, a small financial supplement to the pension for those who worked longer, was supposed to be removed at the end of 2012. It is therefore with joy that I will welcome its extension as soon as possible, hoping that as soon as a government is formed, this construction of pensions can be implemented. There is indeed urgency in this matter.

This is not a regret, but simply a hope of being able to go further to reform together the institutions of our country that really need it. It is an obligation; we must have the courage to go much further and I hope that will be the case.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, we must welcome Mrs. Becq’s initiative, which we collegially followed. We find it important to extend the pension bonus by one year: first and foremost, in order to avoid an incentive to leave early retirement, i.e. before December 1, 2012.

This will of course not be enough. We reach here to an important file concerning the employment rate of people between 55 and 64 years of age for whom the question of the bonus plays, but, by itself, it will not be able to make this employment rate radically evolve.

The least that can be said is that it is indispensable to carry out an evaluation of this pension bonus. Of course, it is planned, but it is still not realized. I think it is important that the government and especially the Minister of Pensions can start it without delay: it is important that we make this pension bonus evolve by making it known, then by harmonising the principles of the various regimes (salaries, officials and self-employed) and, finally, by changing the philosophy of the system by taking as the basis the duration of the career rather than age.

These are the developments that the evaluation should enable us: it will give rise to decision-making. This is urgent, because this pension issue can no longer wait.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues and colleagues, Ecolo-Green! Today we will approve the extension of the pension bonus. We have signed Ms. Becq’s bill. I would like to thank her for the initiative she has taken. After all, if a government is failing – such an extension falls within the scope of ongoing matters – it is up to Parliament to intervene.

The pension bonus provides a financial incentive to people who decide to continue working longer at the age of 62 or after 44 years of work. One in five pensioners today receive such a bonus.

However, the pension bonus came to an end, causing a lot of sixties or people approaching the retirement age to wonder whether it would pay the effort to continue working. Therefore, the extension of the pension bonus does not come too early to give the concerned security.

However, we would like to make the proposal to anticipate the pension bonus and to spread it over time. Now, those concerned will receive the pension bonus only from the age of 62 years or after 44 working years.

However, the actual retirement age is much lower, namely at the age of 59 years. Thus, it is at that age that measures should be taken to encourage longer working. So the pension bonus comes into effect a little too late, to have full effect.

Ms. Vienne has just asked the impact of the pension bonus. The question arises whether someone who wants to stop at the age of 60 would work two more years, because they only have a prospect of a retirement bonus at the age of 62. We dare to question the above statements.

It is even likely that the pension bonus will be paid out to people who would have continued to work without a pension bonus. The likelihood is much greater that someone would continue to work at the age of 60 because from that age they are already entitled to a bonus.

A retirement bonus from the age of 60 or after a career of 40 years would be more effective in our opinion. We should not only look at age. We should also look at the length of the career and the number of years worked.

In order to anticipate the right to the pension bonus, we have submitted a number of amendments. Now the pension bonus for employees is 2,1648 euros per day of employment and for self-employed persons is 156 euros per quarter.

We also propose to make the financial incentive progressive. This means 0.5 euros per day from the age of 60 and 1 euro per day from the age of 61 to 2.5 euros per day from the age of 64 to 65 years.

A similar proposal was submitted for the self-employed and we believe that this responds to the legitimate demand of future pensioners.

Another other point. The Green Paper, as well as various parliamentary questions from our group, shows that the pension bonus is not sufficiently known to the target group. We therefore ask for attention to the pension bonus in every communication of the State Service for Pensions to fifty-year-olds.

Finally, colleagues, it should be clear that the extension of the pension bonus is, of course, only a very fragmentary measure. We regret that there has not been a thorough pension reform in the last four years. Our pension system has actually not been fundamentally structurally reformed in any way, despite all of us knowing the problems of affordability and also of too low pensions.

Mrs Becq, you just said that we should not move on to this very fundamental reform now. However, we have been working for four years. The national pension conference dates back to 2009, the social partners have contributed to it, but all that time nothing has actually happened. Under the governments of Leterme and Van Rompuy, a lot of time was lost. I think we can say that, that is an objective determination for several reasons.

Despite the extension of the pension bonus that we will approve today, the clock is still ticking. If we consider pensions important, we urgently need a full-fledged government that can make fundamental decisions about them. Some parties may find other themes more important, but then it needs to be explained to the more than two million retirees today. The pension debate today is about working longer and we are willing to bring that debate with us, but it must not lead to social degradation and it must remain human. A viable combination of work and family is crucial for us, otherwise we cannot force people to continue working longer.

We must also keep the finality in mind. When I look at the debate now, I find that goal and means sometimes a little confused with each other. The purpose of the pension reform is no longer to work. The finality of the pension reforms is an affordable system and sufficiently high pensions.

For us, the goal is therefore very clear: to give people certainty about sufficiently high pensions. Let us work on this as soon as possible.

We have signed the bill, but we will abstain. We are ultimately for the extension because we want to give people the assurance that their retirement bonus is worth it and thus avoid people retire early because they have no certainty whether their retirement bonus counts or not. Therefore, we are now providing for an extension of their pension bonus.

However, we must make a distinction between, on the one hand, extending the possibility of building up pension rights and, on the other hand, ⁇ ining the accumulated pension bonus rights.

What are we doing now with the extension of the pension bonus to 2013? Anyone who continues to work after the age of 62 and builds up his pension bonus and who decides to retire after 2013 will lose his accumulated pension rights if the government then decides not to renew that pension bonus.

We are in favor of extending the pension bonus, but we want the extension for everyone. Therefore, we abstain from voting on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to Mrs. Kitir. I regret your reaction. I know that you have submitted an amendment to amend the current arrangement, which was then introduced within the framework of the Generation Pact by Minister Tobback in consultation.

We expect that the evaluation of this measure will take place in time and we expect that if a new measure comes into force, a transitional arrangement will be provided in a serious way.

You actually say that the arrangement that was drafted at the time was not good and imperfect, because it was not recorded what would happen if this was terminated. We agreed in consensus that we would not conduct the debate on the ground, but that we would simply arrange for an extension, that there is a timely arrangement after a new measure comes.

I am delighted to finally hear about pensions in this area. I have been there since 2007 and there have been few discussions and few decisions on pensions. However, this is an essential issue, both on the budgetary level, because it is a burden for the future, and on the level of solidarity especially with those who benefit from the lowest pension income.

Of course, we co-signed this useful text. However, it does not present an excessive ambition – it is not an insult to the authors and signatories of the text, of which we are – since it is about extending for a specified period the mechanism of the pension bonus, which is part of the debate on the extension of the career. This theme, in the air of time, is among the international recommendations. For us, the text should not be treated unilaterally and blindly, but should be able to take into account the actual length of the career of each interested party, and not only the age of the persons concerned, as well as the painful working conditions of persons who can access pension or not.

In this sense, we consider that the pension bonus is an interesting measure, because it is more inciting than penalizing for workers who would retire in advance and it can also, for workers who have constituted pension rights – who will only allocate very low pensions – constitute a surplus of pension that may prove useful, in particular in the context of the fight against poverty.

It is the extension of an existing measure until its evaluation, which was envisaged in the texts at the time of its adoption. I regret that we did not take advantage of this period of current business to advance it somewhat, to effectively have reliable data to evaluate it and prepare the follow-up, because every year lost in terms of pension reform will cost very expensive to the state budget and ⁇ interested parties.

Nevertheless, there are evaluations of this text carried out by academics. It shows that it can be improved. Ms. Kitir submitted an amendment that she defended at the tribune. We have supported it. Unfortunately, it has not been adopted in the committee. Similarly, we submitted several amendments with our colleague Wouter De Vriendt, who also expressed his views on this subject.

The aim is to make the pension bonus start faster since the problem of early retirement arises from 59, 60 years; therefore it would be more effective to start the pension bonus at 60 years rather than at 62 years and to make it more progressive, so that it remains incentive. Indeed, academic studies show a counterproductive effect: once one has earned a year of pension bonus, one is encouraged to retire while one could sometimes continue to work.

We re-submit these amendments in hopes that they will be supported at this plenary session but above all, we call on all our colleagues, the current affairs government and the government that may succeed it, to take hand in hand this essential topic in terms of solidarity between generations, which is the future of our pensions.