Proposition 54K2891

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses en matière de pensions complémentaires et instaurant une pension complémentaire pour les travailleurs indépendants personnes physiques, pour les conjoints aidants et pour les aidants indépendants.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Jan. 19, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

supplementary pension assisting spouse pension scheme social security self-employed person

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Ecolo LE ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR PP VB

Abstained from voting

Vooruit PS | SP PVDA | PTB

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 ¶

Feb. 8, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I would like to refer to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, as I said in the committee, I think that there is a broad consensus within our assembly to work on the revaluation of the pension of the self-employed. This consensus would ⁇ be even wider if it were the self-employed with the lowest pensions, those that often shake the poverty line.

It is true that, according to the National Syndicate of Independents, an independent employee receives an average pension of 857 euros per month. An employee receives about 1,200 euros. Everyone agrees to say that such low amounts are unacceptable after a working life. We must work together to enable these retirees to live a dignified life. We believe that all pensions and social benefits should be revalued at the level of the poverty line.

I have emphasized, in the committee, the philosophy that is ours in this matter. We want greater solidarity between self-employed workers and, within the self-employed population, between the different income classes. The strengthening of the first pillar could guarantee this solidarity among all independent individuals.

The project presented here does not follow this path. The question arises: Will this law allow low- and middle-income self-employed to improve their standard of living and the amount of their pension? We do not think so. If we establish a classification of tax leverage for self-employed, we find that the second pillar, which is proposed to us here, will be less advantageous than the subsidized savings opportunities already available to self-employed natural persons. Therefore, it will be the self-employed persons with the highest income, who already exhaust the possibilities of subsidised savings under the Complementary Free Pension for Self-employed (PLCI), or pension savings, who will have an interest in using this new system in addition to others. The PLCI is tax deductible at 100%, which is obviously more advantageous than the system proposed here, whose deductibility is 30%.

As I said, the Socialist Group is fully associated with the goal of revaluing pensions. We hear the opinion of the middle classes and independent people who supported the measure. We are also sensitive to the argument that the difference in treatment between independent natural persons and self-employed persons who have chosen to form a company, business executives, must be removed.

On the other hand, we find that the government relies on the figures that are here a double or even triple discourse on the beneficiaries of this measure. In the press and in the House, you say that "this second pillar will benefit 430,000 independent individuals." And you add that these figures are confirmed by INASTI and the Plan Office. This is a first version.

But when you go to find the pension agencies and insurance brokers to advertise your measure, you know that you have an informed audience in front of you and your version is more modest. This version, we know it because the insurer Degauquier & Partners, which I cited in commission, relayed it on its website. So I quote this insurance company: "The experts of the cabinet estimate at 155,000 the potential number of self-employed who could enter this system. These are self-employed persons who declare income greater than 30,000 euros per year, considering that below this level, their income is not sufficient to allow them to contribute."

In addition to this second version, the third is the "budgetary" version, that is, you are asking the Minister of Finance 12 million euros. Following the discussions in the committee, I can admit that this amount is planned for half a year since the arrangement would apply on 1 July next year. But here, it is not more than 430,000 independent, not 155,000. We are talking about 17,000 independent workers, at least according to our experts and the information in our possession. Therefore, we would turn around this latter number of self-employed persons, in this case, the 4% who are the most fortunate among the 430 000 independent natural persons mentioned at the beginning. It is therefore true that it is very different from the image of the measure you present to us.

Regarding the budget and the 12 million euros that are inscribed in it, Mr Bacquelaine, in commission, you said that you are planning a monitoring mechanism to be able to adjust this amount. The Court of Auditors, during the review of the 2018 budget, had indicated that it had not received a calculation note and that it was not able to check the validity of the advanced figure. You confirmed this to us during the debates, admitting that you were not able to estimate the number of independent employees that would be involved, and therefore to predict the budgetary impact.

Of two things one: either this budget is completely underestimated, or this measure will benefit only a very small number of independent workers. We have a problem with how this file is presented to the House and public opinion. The budget impact is minimized and the social impact is exaggerated. We also believe that this device will benefit only those who need it least. That is why the Socialist group will abstain from this project.

The present draft fulfils a promise from the government agreement. The government has finally taken serious steps to improve the ordinary pension of the self-employed. It was high time. There is still work to be done, but we are moving in the right direction.

The present draft also represents another such step in the right direction. It is a very logical step for many self-employed workers, at the time when things start to go well, to switch from a single-person business to a company, just because of the supplementary pension scheme. It was possible to use the VAPZ – and I am glad that good element is ⁇ ined, as it provides an initial supplement to the pension – but that remained relatively limited. In a company, however, one could build a much wider supplementary pension through an IPT. This was the incentive for many self-employed to move into the company. That incentive is now losing effect, because even in the case of a single-man business, one can now build a larger supplementary pension. That is a very good thing.

Mr. Delizée, I hope that as many self-employed people as possible will do so. It is a sign that their business is running well, that they make profits and that they can put something aside, so the more, the better.

I am also very pleased with the commitment made in the committee by both Minister Bacquelaine and Minister Ducarme that in the preparation of the framework they will not again burden the insurance sector with all sorts of additional rules that are unnecessary, which only cause inconvenience, additional paper bags and costs. One should keep it as simple as possible, of course with a good information provision, because every self-employed who starts it should know what it is about. There are already too many rules in the insurance sector and I am pleased that the ministers have fully committed not to go beyond what Europe imposes, because that is a good directive. I am glad that we will stick to that.

This bill puts an end to the discrimination in the constitution of supplementary pension rights between self-employed individuals, on the one hand, and self-employed business leaders, on the other. Until now, only employees and business executives had access to the second pillar of pensions. The self-employed subscriber to this system will be able, subject to compliance with the tax limit of 80%, to benefit from a tax reduction of 30% on the premiums paid. Additional pension benefits will also be taxed at a separate rate of 10%.

The project presented today offers a real freedom of choice between the different insurance products that will be offered to subscribers. This measure is a further step towards the generalization of complementary pensions and the harmonisation of schemes as envisaged in the government agreement.

It should be remembered that this government has already taken many steps to revaluate the social status of self-employed workers and, in particular, their pensions. In fact, during this legislature, the minimum pension of an isolated self-employed increased by 160 euros per month.

The extension of the second pillar to all self-employed is an important step towards making the status even more attractive. I would like to point out here that the representative organizations of self-employed workers welcome this measure very positively. The desire to ensure a higher level of pension for self-employed workers has been among their priorities for years.

Finally, the scope of this project is not anodine: from now on, more than 400,000 self-employed individuals will now have access to the second pillar of pension. Therefore, for these different reasons, our group will support this project undertaken by our ministers Daniel Bacquelaine and Denis Ducarme.

During the last legislature, various efforts have been made to increase the pension of the self-employed. Consider the equalization of the minimum pensions of self-employed persons with those of employees. This was an important effort to strengthen the statutory pension of the self-employed.

We support the proposal that will be voted on today. After all, we see that it can be a reinforcement of the additional pension for self-employed persons. Unfortunately, the statutory pension for self-employed persons is on average only around 850 euros per month. The average pension of a self-employed remains, therefore, still very low compared to other systems. Therefore, the supplementary pension scheme of the second pillar can be an important aid to strengthen the pension.

We have noted a few years ago that the supplementary pension currently exists only for corporate managers and not for self-employed natural persons. With this bill, this discrimination is finally eliminated. We therefore cordially support it. Thus, self-employed natural persons as well as the co-working spouses and the assistants can also have access to the second pillar of pension. Hopefully they will be able to build a stronger pension in the future.

Mr. Speaker, Dear Ministers, Colleagues, before moving on to some substantive comments in connection with the present bill, I would like to have addressed some formal aspects.

The bill itself was posted online on Monday in the week of the planned committee meeting. Not even forty-eight hours later it was processed (...) by the competent committee. The draft law in question was not even available during its consideration by the competent committee. In addition, the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber was also broken down. The draft law was submitted to vote while a number of amendments were submitted in the session. This procedure, if I am not mistaken, violates Article 82 of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Representatives. In other words, the bill could only be approved after at least forty-eight hours and on the basis of a draft of adopted text, which includes all adopted amendments. I would therefore like to pass this as a recommendation to my colleagues: if we expect our citizens to abide by the rules of our society, then we too must at least respect our own rules.

I now come to my comments on the content. I can confidently assume that the present bill was drafted and submitted with the best intentions. Indeed, there are still a lot of small self-employed people who find it difficult to tie the ends together and have to look carefully at how they can spend their cents. The competition is murderous and ruthless and in the long run there are a lot of self-employed people who have a small pension. It must be noted that the statutory pension for self-employed persons is still inadequate.

With the supplementary pension, the majority now hopes to finally eliminate a number of discriminations once and for all, in favor of 432 000 self-employed. This is a very noble goal, but is it realistic and will discrimination be eliminated? If we look at the proposed method, we still need to make some conclusions. Capital must be built entirely by the self-employed. The return is obtained through the financial markets, which are currently at a very low pitch. Therefore, the scheme appears to be only fiscal advantageous.

The central question is, of course, whether the small self-employed, already in difficulty, has the financial resources to be able to make the necessary contributions to that additional tax-subsidised product. We are therefore afraid that the bill will only benefit a select club of more mediated self-employed and that the real sucklers will remain in the cold. Instead of eliminating discrimination, new ones are created, which will only deepen the gap between the two groups.

Based on these arguments, we cannot, unfortunately, approve the bill. We will abstain from voting. To refute the cliché that sp.a would be against the self-employed, I would like to clearly emphasize that we are in favor of the equalization of pensions, but on the basis of equal rights and duties for all.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the discussion we had in the committee on this bill, I would like to recall a few important points in the eyes of my group.

First, everything related to the social status of independent workers is for us a major political concern. For at least two and a half years now I have been present in the Economy Committee, at the hearing of the representatives of the independent – be it the SNI, the UCM, the UNIZO – the social status, and in particular pensions systematically return to their concerns as the absolute priority in the improvements to be made to the status of independent. This is clearly a priority for us in the political improvement of the social status of independent workers. This bill, for us, is important, because it is partly trying to respond to it. Some elements of this text really hold us at heart, but we also have some comments and questions.

The second point, to which this text responds again in part, is the inequality that exists today, de facto, between the pension of an employee and the pension of an independent. This has already been ⁇ by other colleagues. There was also another inequality of treatment between the self-employed manager and the self-employed. The independent entrepreneur could benefit from systems such as the one proposed, while the self-employed could not benefit from them. Enabling a harmonisation of social protection and pensions is also a major political objective for us.

The preferred method is to work with financial products, whether it is branch 21 or branch 23. We discussed this in the committee. This is ⁇ not our favorite tool. We continue to demand the revaluation of the first pillar of pensions. This is what we would have done if we had been entirely at the manoeuvre. This remains a key political priority.

That being said, we find that existing instruments, such as the PCLI, still allow many self-employed to have a much more dignified pension, which corresponds to the many years of actual work before they can benefit from a pension.

It is true that in the committee, there was a debate on the figures in order to know the number of independent people who would benefit from it. More than 400,000 people were cited. Colleague Delizée gave other figures ranging from 150,000 to much less. It is obviously necessary to have, at some point, a quantified assessment of the impact of this measure and, above all, the profile of an independent person that this will affect.

Indeed, we all know it here and we repeat it quite often in the Economy Committee: about one-third of the independent people in our country today live around the poverty line. This is a situation that we all want to improve. Therefore, we will need to have this debate on the number of beneficiaries.

We also ask for an assessment, for example, in a year, of how this measure will be welcomed by the independent ones themselves. Which type? What is an independent profile? Will they really be the richest 3% or 4% or will the reception be wider as was the case for PCLI? It will be important to have this debate.

We are eager to be able to measure the effectiveness of this measure, because we share its political goal of increasing the pension of self-employed. Again, this may not be the path we would have preferred. Because we believe it is still going in the right direction, because we are demanding an assessment of the effectiveness of the measure, because it will clearly improve the situation of tens of thousands of independent workers in this country and reduce inequalities in treatment, my group and I will support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because the discussion in the committee was relatively constructive and consensual.

The bill under consideration thus deals with a matter that is dear to us, namely the social status of independent workers.

We are eminently in favour of the improvement of this status, especially since, during the examination of the bill and the interventions of the employer or professional federations of independent workers or representative bodies, we have been able to find that the latter were also in favour.

If the text, as proposed to us, puts an end to a certain type of discrimination, it is mainly a question of harmonising the status of self-employed persons so that they can benefit from a better pension. It therefore ends the difference that existed in terms of right to pension between self-employed persons established as a natural person and those established as a company.

We also pursue the political objective of aligning the pension for self-employed workers through this second pillar that is proposed to us and that will be offered to self-employed persons, self-employed spouses, self-employed persons on a complementary basis.

This is the reason why, as we have done in the committee, we will support the text that is presented to us.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to tell you that Mr. Van Overtveldt, Mr. Ducarme and myself are pleased to present you a bill that improves the status of self-employed persons and that goes in the direction of a generalization of the second pillar as well as complementary pensions. In our view, this is essential.

In this regard, I would like to recall a few important points. First, it is the philosophy of complementary pensions. On the semantic level, this notion involves the idea of complement. Otherwise, it would be called otherwise. The aim is that people who constitute a pension supplement can live their retirement in a way close to the way they lived when they were working.

Of course, our intention is not to oppose the statutory pension and the complementary pension, but rather to work on complementarity. Of course, the strengthening of the statutory pension is absolutely essential. We did so, by revaluing the minimum pension – as Mr. Friart recalled. It has been increased not only for employees, but even more for self-employed: 160 euros per month since the beginning of the legislature – for a full pension which, today, amounts to 1 220 euros, an amount above the poverty line for an isolated person. This is one of the goals we wanted to ⁇ .

Furthermore, whether the supplementary pensions concern employees, business executives or, from now on, self-employed natural persons, they remain proportional to the salary. It is the very definition of the 80 percent rule that will allow the one who receives a high salary to contribute more – this is undeniable. The proportion is established from this rule, since it is about raising the replacement rate, which is always calculated based on the salary.

Needless to say, if you have an average salary, the 80% rate will allow you to have an average pension. If you have a low salary, the replacement rate will allow you to have a pension online with your last salary. It is a fact. If you have a high salary, the replacement rate and the 80% rule will allow you to increase your additional pension further and will also force you to pay some taxes. It needs to be reminded from time to time. This is the philosophy of complementary pensions. This corresponds to Mr. Delizée’s argument, I think. And I add by saying that Mr. Delizée is right to insist on the lowest pensions. I fully agree with this, but it is essentially the role of the statutory pension that must be revalued gradually and in a manner compatible with all the state budgets.

In all our pension reforms, we aim to move towards more equality and less discrimination, to gradually eliminate unfair situations. This is in the current pension system. You know like me that people who have worked all their lives as self-employed sometimes have lower pensions than people who have worked much less. We want to fight all these discriminations.

In the present case, there was a discrimination between business managers, on the one hand, and natural persons, on the other. There was a discrimination between those who were not entitled to a supplementary pension and those who were entitled to it. We eliminate this discrimination. It is important!

How many people will this affect? It is the 80% rule that determines this. And by the force of things, if people have incomes that do not allow them to go beyond the PLCI, for example, they will not participate in a supplementary pension.

That said, the status of an independent has one peculiarity: the income is not fixed. Therefore, when it is said that potentially 430,000 people are affected by the measure, it is entirely correct. In fact, Mr. Delizée, you cannot prejudice that one or the other of these 430,000 people will not, one day, by their activity as an independent, generate significant income. And, since the 80% rule applies to the average of the last three years of salary, this obviously fluctuates over the course of his career.

It is possible for an independent employee not to contribute throughout his career, but to contribute when he can do so. This is the very specificity of the status of the self-employed, who does not have a fixed income and who is not necessarily concerned throughout his career. We cannot prejudice this. We need to make correct estimates. Since then, we have planned a monitoring system to monitor the evolution of the budgetary and fiscal aspects of this measure. Here are some of the comments I would like to make, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, the objective is to move towards more generalization of the second pillar, and towards more harmonisation between schemes. This measure contributes to this. It also ensures that the transition to society, for an independent, is not dictated essentially by pension problems, but is based on economic parameters related to the activity of the independent. We know that many self-employed people decide to move into a company, especially for the complementary pension aspect. It was not very logical, and it was not good for the municipalities, Mr. Delizée. You are also a municipalist. The incomes of the municipalities come from natural persons and not from companies. This project is favourable to the municipalities. This is an indirect, but real effect, which I wanted to highlight with this last comment. I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Ducarme and/or Mr. Van Overtveldt would probably like to provide additional information.

Mijnheer de voorzitter, ik dank mevrouw Smaers en de heer Klaps voor hun support yesterday in commission. Naturally, mijnheer Klaps, we are het eens: de informatieplicht zal voor de sector niet zwaar of nutteloos zijn. Hiermee wordt wel gegarandeerd dat de verzekeringsnemers een correcte keuze maken.

I would also like to point out from the beginning to Mr. Casier that the project was distributed not on Monday, but on Friday. He was online on Friday 19. The amendments you mentioned were not submitted by the government but by the parliamentary majority.

In some projects, the differences are exceeded. This is rare enough to be emphasized. I would therefore like to thank Mr Vanden Burre and Mr de Lamotte for their objectivity. This indicated – it is important to highlight – that all the organizations representing the independent are in favor of this project.

Mr. Delizée, that means something anyway. We can agree on a number of points. This is the subject of all the action of this government in terms of improving the social status of independent workers. Without going back on all the measures, I can recall what we did regarding the months of lack, the sickness benefits, which are no longer paid after a month but after 14 days; what we voted here, still a fifteen days ago, on the new thresholds for independent workers, the reduction of thresholds for independent startups.

It is clear that these are measures that today, in this legislature, we are able to take, which was not necessarily the case – these policies in favor of the independent and their social status – in the past.

And I, Mr. Delizée, I know you, as a socialist, opposed to discrimination. I am surprised, therefore, that you and the Socialist Group, as we put an end to discrimination here, indicate your intention to abstain. I don’t understand it and I think self-employed people will have a hard time understanding that you don’t support a new policy that tends to end discrimination between self-employed and all other categories of workers.

And I would also like, in this context, to return to what my colleague Mr. Bacquelaine indicated. The life of an independent, as it is known, is not a "long quiet river". There are more flourishing moments, others more difficult, and so it is necessary to observe the career of an independent not statically, but dynamically; what you do not fully do, I think.

Self-employed persons who, at a time T, will probably not have the possibility to save for the second pillar of pension, will be able to do so at another time. They are probably encouraged more by the fact that they will be able to contribute for the previous 10 years, retroactively, and not only for the year N. This is an important element and I feel that you do not consider it fully.

One point also with regard to Mr. Vanden Burre, whom I would like to thank for the constructive work, both in the committee and here, in the plenary session. It is true that you have questions, Mr. Vanden Burre, regarding the possibilities that will be those of the self-employed to work on branch 21 or branch 23, the branch 21 guaranteeing income, the branch 23 being a more risky product.

It is about leaving the independent the widest possible choice and leaving him additional freedom.

It seems to me that this project, which ends this discrimination, will be an advantage for the self-employed by offering them more equality at the level of their pension, even if in an incomprehensible way the PS abstains. I thank you.

Does anyone ask the word for a replica?

The word is to Mr. Delizée.

I will be brief, because I do not think that this is a matter of controversy. I think that the day we collectively can eliminate pensioners with incomes below the poverty line, we will have actually eliminated very large social discriminations. For us, the first pillar is our priority. Others have said so too. This is a more solidary system. We believe that, in any case, a more solidary system should be established between the different income classes of the self-employed.

Regarding the supplementary tax leverage, it is clear that if there are tax leverages that can be deducted at 100% and others at 30%, it is first the 100% deductibility tools that will be chosen. The potential beneficiaries of this new system will be those who have exhausted the other tools. They are those with the highest incomes. Discrimination is not eliminated by this project, except, I acknowledge, between individuals and business executives.

That is why we abstained. This is not the way we would have chosen to improve the pension for self-employed people in general. I thank you.