Proposition 54K1890

Projet de loi accordant une prime à certains bénéficiaires d'une pension minimum et portant augmentation de certaines pensions minima, dans les régimes des travailleurs salariés et des travailleurs indépendants.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

June 13, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

professional career wage earner self-employed person health insurance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB VB

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 ¶

June 29, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to the written report.

I give you the floor on behalf of your group.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, with this project, you welcome to compensate for the negative impact of your tax shift and your index jump on minimum pensions. A beautiful announcement! But it is nothing. In fact, you plan to increase not all minimum pensions but only the pensions of those and those who have 45 years of career. In practice, we know that few people will be affected. In the employee regime, 150,000 people - I round - benefit from a minimum pension. Only half of them will see their pensions increase.

You can boast of increasing the pension by 75,000 people but, for my part, I will keep that 75,000 people, including 60,000 women, are left on the touch! After decreasing the incomes of women working part-time involuntary, after increasing the cost of visits to the gynecologist and I pass, you confirm the red thread of the government’s deeply unjust and misogyny policy.

This discrimination against women comes to light and the State Council has rightly noted it. That must be the explanation. What a change compared to before! I just mentioned the 60,000 women in the wage regime left behind. In the self-employed regime, women will be ⁇ 14 times fewer than men to see their pension increase, it is written black on white in the vote project.

In the mixed diet, they will be almost five times fewer than men. But we escaped the worst. In fact, for a while, it was questioned to question the assimilated periods. The impact on women would have been even more dramatic. I open a parenthesis on this subject. Is this reversal proof that the assimilated periods will not be questioned tomorrow? Unfortunately, I raise some doubts.

Mr. Minister, raising some minimum pensions, even if it is modestly and unfairly, may seem seductive. However, things need to be put in perspective. Your government has chosen an index jump that has saved ⁇ 775 million euros on the back of the social benefiters. You promised to correct socially this index jump. For this purpose, you had announced an envelope of 127 million euros. Finally, there are only 50 remaining, including 25 for minimum pensions. This does not allow you to correct the effect of the index jump, but only to increase by 0.7% some pensions to cover an index jump that, in turn, cost 2%, thus three times more, to all pensioners. These $25 million will not compensate for the tax shift, the increase in excise taxes or the increase in electricity VAT for retirees.

The calculation is simple: a 0.7% increase represents approximately €8 gross per month for a few people, while the index jump represents a loss of €22 per month and your tax increases represent a loss of approximately €27 per month, or a total of €50 less per month. The calculation is quickly done: 8 euros of winning for a few and 50 euros of lost for all.

As this is the formula of the moment: stop the lie! Do not say that the increase in minimum pensions will be greater under your government than under its predecessor, in which Elio Di Rupo and Laurette Onkelinx sat. It is false! You make the most fragile and especially women suffer the consequences of your absurd and blind austerity policy.

I am pleased that some pensioners get 8 euros more per month. But your bill is unfair because it is insufficient and discriminatory. That is why my group will abstain.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, as part of the drawing up of the 2016 budget, the government had decided to allocate a sum of 50 million to correct socially the impact of the tax shift. This envelope was allocated in equal parts, on the one hand to increase the purchasing power of beneficiaries of the income of social inclusion, and on the other to increase the smaller pensions. This is the second aspect we are dealing with today.

Indeed, within a defined budget framework of 25 million, the government decided to allocate this amount to the revaluation of the lowest pensions, both for pensions of the private sector and for those of self-employed workers. In this context, the increase of the lowest pensions, at the level of 0.7%, which corresponds to more than eight euros per month at the isolated rate, is here a strong signal to our pensioners who need it most. This measure will also strengthen the link between the career provided and the amount of the pension.

For this year, the pensioners concerned will receive a recovery premium in December. As of 2017, this revaluation will be paid monthly. This is a kind of social pension bonus, as the Minister recalled, which will complement the measures taken as part of the use of the welfare envelope 2015-2016.

Furthermore, the King shall be entitled to provide for an increase of up to 10% and to mitigate career conditions up to 43/45th or equivalent fraction, if he considers it feasible. Before concluding, I would like to add that both the State Council and some of my colleagues, including Mr Daerden, questioned the penalizing and discriminatory nature of this measure towards women. It seems to me important to recall that, on the contrary, this measure will be even more beneficial for retired women in the private sector, given that it takes into account similar periods. But it must be clear that, while many women have lower pensions today, the problem does not come from pensions but lies at the level of careers. It is precisely at the level of careers that discrimination must be tackled.

Finally, on the question of the consultation, allow me to regret that a unanimous opinion could not be given. This measure, however, is deeply social and, thanks to it, more than 150,000 retirees will once again see their pensions increase. It is regrettable, but it is so. Nevertheless, as the Minister has previously done, I invite the social partners to engage in the near future and to make proposals for the allocation of the welfare envelope 2017-2018 to the increase of the lowest pensions.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that, yes, we have removed the pension bonus that benefited a small portion of pensioners for an amount of 18 million euros to be granted to the pensioners who need it most in the amount of 25 million euros. This is a choice made by the government that we fully support because this project is deeply social.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, of course, this bill provides for an increase in the lowest pensions, but this increase is so low that it cannot compensate for the other limitations of purchasing power that weigh on these small pensions.

I regret that by announcing a goal of improving lower pensions, the government has not seized the opportunity to pay more attention to the fate of women. I would like to remind you that 55% of women meet the career requirement for the minimum pension compared to 94% of men. So even if the amount of the minimum pension was significantly increased, which unfortunately is not the case, it would not solve the problem of women who fail to be entitled to it.

Certainly, the discrimination of women in regard to pensions is not recent and can be explained by several factors. Women often have incomplete careers and have a 20% lower salary than men. There are 44% of female workers who are part-time against only 9% of workers. Therefore, many of them struggle to have a sufficiently fulfilled career to be able to access a decent pension. The 2015 reform has aggravated the discrimination because to postpone the retirement age to 67 years without operating a corrective, it also makes the conditions more difficult for women.

This project further bridges the gap between those with a full career and others, as it provides for an increase of 0.7% of the minimum pensions granted for 45 years of effective work or similar periods. They are still the ones who will experience the most difficulties in accessing this tiny improvement in the minimum pension. There is still no correction, although one could have, for example, expected compensation in terms of opening the right to the minimum pension. The State Council has also formulated a critical opinion before concluding, I quote, “This condition which is unfavorable for women should be removed. Budgetary arguments cannot convince.”

For these reasons, and despite the slight increase in the proposed minimum pension, we will choose to abstain.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind you of the scope of this bill. It is to issue a budgetary envelope in addition to the revaluation of the minimum pensions that took place within the welfare envelope. I’m often told that the well-being envelope is automatic, that I don’t have a grip on it, that it’s the social partners who determine it.

I therefore ask myself why, during the previous legislature, only 250 million were devoted to minimum pensions, while during this legislature, within the framework of the welfare envelope, 500 million euros were decided to be devoted to them, which is exactly the double! During the previous legislature, the minimum pensions increased, as part of this welfare package, by 1.25%, while here they increased by 2%, and now adds 0.7% for full careers. We are therefore in favor of minimum pensions with full career, from 1.25% under the Di Rupo government to 2.7% under the current government. That is the reality! You can’t invent anything about it. This is the reality.

But if that is the reality! In any case, you cannot prove the opposite. and no. Or then you do not know the matter well, but that is the strict reality. Exactly 250 million were spent in the 2013-2014 Wellness Envelope and 500 million in the 2015-2016 Wellness Envelope. Twice as much, twice as much.

Here, therefore, we bring an additional 25 million, again for minimum pensions but also taking into account the necessary strengthening of the link between career and pension. Therefore, it is true that there is a preference here for full careers within the framework of minimum pensions.

I would like to say again that the thesis that one is discriminatory towards women is absolutely not the way! It is entirely the opposite. Discrimination, the difference in access to the minimum pension between women and men, originates in the mechanism of the minimum pension. But that has always been the case and the social partners have always accepted this without knocking; I also wonder why sometimes. It is true that when you make the total of access to minimum pensions, there are much more men who are entitled to the minimum pension than women. It has nothing to do with this project. This is the cross of the mechanism in place and that is why it needs to be changed. We will also present additional proposals to improve access to the minimum pension.

I point out that today, to have access to the minimum pension, you have to have, for example, 30 years of 208 days (two-thirds of career), plus 15 years of 52 days per year, so 7 020 days, exactly 50% of the full career of 14 040 days. This allows for an additional 0.7 percent.

I would like to relativize things. Of the 76,000 employees, there are 52,000 women and 24,000 men. That is the reality! However, it is true that this is not the case with independent workers. Why Why ? It was only in 2005 that the status of assisting spouse was recognized. Before, there was no assisting spouse and there were much fewer assimilated periods and much fewer assimilations among women. And what does the government do? He submits a bill to improve maternity leave and increase the equivalent period of maternity leave. This has never been done by previous governments and will be done by this government. This is also the possibility of increasing assimilations when, for example, a self-employed person must take care of a spouse or a family member who needs close care. This government takes these measures to improve the total possible assimilations for women. We are well aware of what needs to be done in this matter.

You can’t ask the pension plan to solve all the career problems. It’s too late when you get into retirement. We’re not going to change the career retroactively, I don’t see how we could do it. It is necessary to work on careers and assimilations so that, gradually, there is a certain retrieval. I point out that among the self-employed, the fact of having recognized in 2005 the status of the assisting spouse will gradually improve the access of women to the minimum pension. But it takes some time, it won’t happen right away. As always with pensions, there is a gap in time. Career-related measures only affect pensions after a certain number of years. Everyone can understand it.

The interest of the measurement may sometimes seem too low, I would not ask for better to increase more, but this must be put back in context.

In the welfare envelope, we made an effort that doubled that done under the previous government. Here, we add 25 million. Since we sometimes get the trial for having removed the bonus-pension and that therefore has some sort of paradox coming with a measure of this nature, I would add that 25 million, this may seem low, but it is more than the budget that would have been devoted to the bonus-pension. The budget saved during the abolition of the bonus-pension is 18 million. There are 7 million more. I recall that the bonus-pension, it was also for full careers, as is the case today for the allocation of these 25 million.

I would also like to say to Mrs. Caprasse that contrary to this permanent disinformation, I still think that it is quite simple to understand arithmetic rules. The postponement of the statutory retirement age to 67 years while ⁇ ining the duration of the career to 45 years, therefore not to 47 years, means that for all women who precisely do not have a full career, the fact of working up to 67 years will represent two 45ths of additional pension. It is mathematical! This is not a political doctrine, it is factual. It is necessary to stop this disinformation that has no interest, other than to distill anxiety and anxiety in people. Is it to favor the fate of people than to deliberately blacken their future? I do not think. Per ⁇ we would need a little more humanity in the appreciation of the policies we lead.

I would like to make a brief replica to your last speech, Mr. Minister. We abstain, we are not against. That is already one thing. As you know from the beginning, DEFI has never been against the extension of the retirement age. Simply, I drew attention to the constant problem that women are disadvantaged. This is not as alarming as you think.