Proposition 53K2456

Projet de loi modifiant l'arrêté royal n° 38 du 27 juillet 1967 organisant le statut social des travailleurs indépendants, en ce qui concerne le statut du conjoint aidant.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Carl Devlies, Leen Dierick, Nathalie Muylle, Nik Van Gool, Jef Van den Bergh, Kristof Waterschoot
LE Catherine Fonck, Joseph George
Open Vld Mathias De Clercq, Frank Wilrycx

Submission date

Oct. 22, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

overlapping of income assisting spouse social security self-employed person

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld LDD MR VB

Voted to reject

N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.

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 ¶

Nov. 21, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to my written report.

You could have read the report while waiting for the Secretary of State to arrive!

That being said, I would like to say, on behalf of my group, that we support this proposal and look forward to its vote today.

The discussions in the committee were conducted very constructively, which we also welcome.

I would like to clarify that we had submitted, in a committee, an amendment which was adopted and which aimed to adapt the original proposal in the way that we wished that the assisting spouse with an accessory activity could retain the aforementioned status but without excluding this accessory activity from the notion of professional activity. I thought it was important to emphasize this.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. It went very smoothly, ⁇ even too smoothly: I fear that too little was thought about the consequences.

It is positive in itself, but on the other hand, as regards the status of the co-working spouse, this bill makes it possible to carry out an activity as a self-employed as well as as as a co-working spouse, although limited to 3 000 euros per year in terms of income. In this case, the status of co-working spouse is retained. We have some concerns about this. Here will now be voted on a bill installing a general rule for the benefit of a very specific and limited target group, in particular agriculture. The draft law only mentions examples from the agricultural sector. We specifically asked in the committee for other practical examples from other sectors, but the answer remained out. We therefore assume that this is too limited: we do not agree that laws are adopted for a particular sector. We better maintain the overall overview.

For us, the question remains what the impact would be if other sectors were involved. Can they also participate? Are there safeguards included in the bill to prevent the misuse of this preferential measure? These questions also remained unanswered. In fact, the lactose test of this law is in the enforcement. Which authority will take care of the checks on the declared amount of seating pensions? It may not exceed 3 000 euros, but does not mean a whole administrative burden with additional administrative costs for the federal government for this limited measure?

We thought that the basic principle of this law was initially the promotion of employment or the support of entrepreneurship, but we cannot get rid of the impression that one actually supports social engagement.

That is, of course, fine, but we must not forget that social engagement is rather voluntary work and that monetary resources or monetary drivers should be subordinate to it.

Another note is that we must face the reality of today. Many co-working spouses are subject to the fully social status, the maximum status, and thus pay contributions like a self-employed in the main profession.

Co-working spouses who were born before 1 January 1956, they are now 57 and 58 years old, are subject to a ministry status. They too may, if they wish, voluntarily submit themselves to the full maximum status of the social status of the self-employed.

We ask ourselves to what extent there is a real need to organize this cumul. Today, in fact, many co-working spouses have a social and fiscal status of self-employed in the main profession, just because they want to ensure full coverage of their social security.

I think you, as Minister, during the discussion in the committee, also noticed that the intended target group is very limited and also decreasing in number. Is it not better to simply encourage the remaining co-working spouses to move to the maximum status and thus obtain full coverage?

The limit of 3 000 euros seems to us to be quite arbitrarily set. We have not received any reasonable explanation why this is 3 000 euros and not 2 800 euros, 4 000 euros or any other amount. Our question in the committee was also not answered.

I would like to conclude with a general consideration. In this Parliament we should not be concerned with legislation that actually follows reality and introduces those provisions where in reality an evolution is already ongoing.

We fully support measures to create employment and to support entrepreneurship, but this key to the status of a co-working spouse does not have that purpose. It is a missed opportunity to truly address the status of the co-working spouse, which is indeed subject to improvement.

The opportunity for everyone to participate in social commitments deserves all attention and this in order to strengthen a sustainable social fabric in our society. However, this measure is aimed at a very private interest and therefore does not fulfill the aim envisaged.

I have been listening to you for a while and I have the impression that you do not know exactly what the status of the co-working spouse is. This is not just about farmers.

Today there are 38 000 women working in small SMEs. These are bakers, bone cutters, small merchants. We want to offer a solution because women – it is usually women – who are in this statute are the only occupational group – I hear you talk a little subordinate about social engagement – who today, when they teach, for example, in the context of a school that comes to visit, or when they are members of a women’s organization and want to give there a training for which they receive a remuneration, they can not even accept this remuneration because they then lose their status. This is the only group that has to deal with this. This is completely unfair and we want to find a solution for those 38 000 women. That is the purpose of this bill that is now being discussed.

I think this is completely unfair. It is true that the statute for improvement is susceptible. You are right in that. There are also other initiatives to ⁇ this. The proposers of the present bill want to eliminate the injustice in which 38 000 persons with the status of co-working spouse cannot take any commitment or even receive compensation for it without losing their status. We find this completely unfair. With this bill, we want to solve that.

I am pleased that you cite two examples again. It is about giving training and classes that come to visit the company. We call a social commitment and getting a compensation for it a subordinate interest.

For the rest, we remain with our views, which I will not repeat now. We will vote against this bill.

Since January 2003, the new social status of the co-working spouse has been applied. The introduction of that statute was a first step in recognizing the co-working spouse.

Since then, co-working spouses have been obliged to join the ministry. They are insured for disability, disability and maternity. Since 2005, co-working spouses, male or female, born after 1955 are obliged to join for the maximum status. In addition to disability, disability and maternity, the statute was extended to include pensions, family allowances and health care.

The status of cooperating spouse can only be obtained if one is the partner of a self-employed and effectively helps him on a regular basis and at least 90 days a year. In addition, one may not have own income from another professional activity or have a substitute income. In practice, we see that the latter element is very restrictive.

The bill allows the co-working spouse to retain her status if she wants to engage socially and socially. In exchange, she receives a limited income of 3 000 euros per year.

Employees who are socially engaged do not lose their status, as my colleague just said. This should also be possible for co-working spouses. The social aspect is clearly at the forefront, not the profitable aspect. Therefore, the Minister decided to deliberately keep the amount of 3 000 euros low. Co-working spouses can, for example, participate in a meeting in a vegetable or fruit dealer through the bill and receive a seat penny for this, but it is equally true for the baker or bone-working woman who takes a commitment. In fact, out of a total of 38 000 cooperating spouses, only 10 000 are active in agriculture and horticulture.

The bill is a new step in improving the status of the cooperating spouse. In addition to the present bill, CD&V also wants to strive for a further improvement of the statute. In the coming months we want to formulate concrete proposals on this subject and plan consultations. The current legislation leads to undesirable side effects mainly in the field of pension formation for the co-working spouse. We will be happy to return to that later.

CD&V wants to continue its efforts to improve the status of the co-working spouse.

Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues from the other political groups for their support in the Committee on Business.

Everything has been said. I would just like to clarify one point: it’s not just about social engagement. In the committee, many discussions have been held on this accuracy. Without rethinking the debate, it is worth paying attention: it is for social engagement, but it can still be for something else.

If you are the administrator of a family company and you have almost no income, this may also be appropriate. I have had cases where, in a company, the woman was an administrator and could not be free of charge; it is also for this kind of case. Not just for the parish or for similar cases, as some have wanted to caricate it.