Proposition de loi modifiant l'arrêté royal nº 38 du 27 juillet 1967 organisant le statut social des travailleurs indépendants, visant à diminuer et déplafonner les cotisations sociales des travailleurs indépendants.
General information ¶
- Authors
- PS | SP Frédéric Daerden, Paul-Olivier Delannois, Jean-Marc Delizée, Éric Massin, Daniel Senesael, Fabienne Winckel
- Submission date
- Jan. 8, 2016
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Rejected
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- social-security contribution social security self-employed person
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP
- Voted to reject
- Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ PVDA | PTB
- Abstained from voting
- VB
Party dissidents ¶
- Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
- Anne Dedry (Groen) abstained from voting.
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 ¶
Dec. 20, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Jean-Marc Delizée PS | SP ⚙
Mr. Speaker, Mrs. and Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, in order to establish a link between the previous debate on the Railway Code and the point now discussed, I want to say that the PS group wants to put a better social status of independent workers on the right track.
Then, when my group decided to reinsert this point – namely our proposal on displacement and the reduction of social contributions for self-employed workers – on the agenda of the House plenary session, we did not know that we would defend it before a minority government and then resign. These are the values of political life. In this new context, the lines can move, as demonstrated in the previous debate on the period of shortage for self-employed workers. We are delighted with this. Based on what has just been said, we will be able to approve a proposal for a resolution that recommends the government to remove this famous period of shortage, the effect of which is most often to postpone the health care needed by self-employed workers, but to which they do not have access for economic reasons.
In this regard, sending recommendations to a resigning government is positive in itself. However, this remains insufficient. A resolution is good; but a law is even better. The first is, if I can afford, a parliamentary blabla; the second is a concrete action for the workers concerned. I hope that together we can make a decisive step. The PS has submitted a bill in this sense: Document No. 3098. I suggest that it be prioritised on the agenda of the Economic Committee, so that we can move from words to deeds. I hope that a consensus will emerge in order to ⁇ this goal to which we are all committed.
With this introductory statement, I come to the feeling that there is a broad consensus in this assembly to strengthen and improve the social status of self-employed workers.
Given the context, I pass the historical and I reduce a little the intervention I intended to do to speak to you more specifically of our will, not only to revalue the status of self-employed workers, but also to give a more specific inflexion that is the defense of the "small self-employed". It is not a matter of size. It is a matter of income. I am talking about those who have the lowest income. This has always been our line of conduct on several cases.
The issue of the second pillar supplementary pension was addressed by the fact that, in the end, what was offered to us only benefited 4 or 5% of the self-employed with the highest incomes. The debate on the workers of the platform economy has also been grasped through this line of conduct. In addition, we supported the reduction of the self-employed contributions rate from 22 to 20.5%. On the other hand, we opposed the tax shift because the shift to a consumption taxation does not benefit the workers with the lowest income, including self-employed.
The real line of division is not between those who defend employees or self-employed, but rather between those who take measures that promote high incomes and those or those who want measures that benefit first to self-employed workers who struggle to close the end of the month. Today, one in six self-employed people live below the poverty line.
What is the situation today in terms of social contributions? A self-employed person who earns modest incomes of €20,000 to €30,000 per year now pays 20.5% of social contributions, while a person who earns €150,000 or more pays a total of only 10% of social contributions. I would like to say that solidarity is the reverse. This is obviously not normal. This is not fair and we believe that low-income self-employed contribute too much, much too proportionally to the self-employed who have higher incomes. The current system is both degressive and ceiling. There are now three rates. This is because we are at the heart of the debate. There is a rate of 20.5% for the income section of less than 58,000 euros. There is a rate of 14.16% for the income segment between 58,000 and 86,000 euros and there is this rate of 0% for the income segment above 86,000 euros.
This means that, in the case of amounts exceeding a certain ceiling, the self-employed who earn these amounts do not participate in social solidarity at all, and this is not normal. After being effectively defeated in committee, we wanted to reopen the discussion on this bill, without obviously knowing in what context we would find ourselves today. We have received written opinions that allow, in any case, to reopen and signage this debate. It is regrettable that the debate was not possible following the note of the Minister in committee.
We therefore propose to move and introduce a single rate of social contributions for all self-employed workers. This is the position that we have defended and which we think is the most equitable of all incomes.
Of course, as we said in the committee, we are ready to discuss the terms; we do not want to impose a percentage. Initially, we started on the single rate of 20.5%, which would have had two consequences, in the sense that the small self-employed would pay no less than today, and that the system would release budgetary resources to expand social coverage.
In the commission, Minister Ducarme told us that, on this basis, additional revenues would come to the system's treasuries at the expense of €320 million, funds that could be used to finance additional social benefits. We think of an extension of the right of gateway, a replacement allowance from the first day of illness or disability or even paternity leave for self-employed. In any case, we can discuss it.
It can also be said that, in the end, there is no need to feed the system more, the accounts of the INASTI being in structural bonuses for several years: 316 million euros in 2017 and 170 million euros in 2018. Therefore, a single rate may also be set in such a way that the measure is budgetally neutral. We did this exercise; we did this calculation and, by amendment, we propose a single rate of 18% for all self-employed. So we introduced it on the basis of an amendment.
If we take this measure, we will not issue any additional funds for INASTI. This means that the independent regime does not contribute more than it does today. In contrast, all self-employed workers who earn less than 88,000 euros will see their bill decreased. This is 96% of the independent workers, or a million independent workers concerned by this measure.
Of course, it is especially the small self-employed who will see their bills lessen. An independent employee who earns 30,000 euros will earn 750 euros per year. An independent employee who earns 40,000 euros will save 1,000 euros per year. Women who earn on average much less than men in the diet are currently structurally damaged by the system in place.
Dear colleagues, I just wanted to summarize and recall the content of our bill. It was rejected by the former majority in the committee. But since the lines have moved and the debate is open, since the hands are stretched between the ex-majority and the ex-opposition – I want to say – the Parliament can take its responsibilities in full autonomy. I invite you to reflect on this at the time of the vote and to support this provision which will ultimately benefit the purchasing power of the independent in their vast majority.
Do not reject this proposal because it aims to establish more solidarity between high and low incomes. I think that the Independents, who today have difficulty linking the two ends at the end of the month, deserve better than the silent vote of rejection to which they were entitled in commission. I hope it will be different in the plenary session.