As we know, the second pillar is in the sights in many respects. In the context of tax reform and in the context of the current discussions on a pension reform. But surprise, Ministers Vincent Van Peteghem (Finance), Frank Vandenbroucke (Social Affairs), Karine Lalieux (Pensions) and Alexander De Croo (Prime Minister) will soon receive a rather surprising letter from the social partners. The latter, gathered within the G10, have indeed decided to ask for the “peace of the brave” – a stand still – on the fiscal and parafiscal plans in relation to the second pillar of pensions, that of supplementary pensions financed by companies or by managers.
In the name of convergence between employees and workers
In the letter addressed to the aforementioned ministers, the cross-industry social partners specify that this status quo is requested until January 1, 2030. “This is the date on which, in accordance with Articles 14/2 to 14/4 of the law of 28 April 2003 on supplementary pensions and the tax regime for these pensions and certain additional social security benefits, the differences between workers and employees in supplementary pensions must end at the latest”, specifies the missive. Which one is surprising – who would have thought that the unions dubbed it? “The employers’ bench made itself very pressingnotes one of our sources familiar with the matter, precisely because of this link between the convergence of statutes and this fiscal and parafiscal status quo”. “It is shameful, because it is done in defiance of the government agreement, which plans to introduce more tax and social justice in this second pillar”, replies a union source. Who continues:For the management bench, FEB (Federation of Belgian Enterprises, Editor’s note) in mind, the maintenance of this status quo is to be taken or left, under penalty of ending all other discussions, on the extension of Collective Labor Agreements (CCT), such as those concerning unemployment income with additional compensation. company (RCC), etc.”. And in this “etc.”, there are also discussions on the bonuses to be negotiated as part of a possible future interprofessional agreement for 2023-2024.
The missive is very clear:Due to the substantial, formal and procedural complexity of the harmonization operation, it is of the utmost importance that, during the period legally foreseen for the harmonization, the fiscal and parafiscal framework in which the harmonization must take place stay fixed. This allows the social partners to fully concentrate on the content and organization of the harmonisation”.
A political bomb
Apparently, this missive is a political bomb. For the office of Minister Lalieux in the first place, she who has never ceased to say that it was necessary to put an end to abuses in the field of supplementary pensions, and to make them fairer, more equitable – the distribution of reserves is in unequally distributed effect, as shown in La Libre on March 8 in its columns. This status quo will certainly not help him…
As a reminder, the Minister intended to tax “large” supplementary pensions more, and wanted to fight once morest abuses linked to the “80% rule” and back-service (possibility of paying additional amounts at the end of , to catch up with those where there were few payments to a supplementary pension plan). The “80% rule” would simply be abandoned.
In Vincent Van Peteghem’s tax reform bill, the draft law submitted to the majority partners stipulates that “the existing limit of 80% is repealed and replaced by a new scheme in which the maximum amount of contributions or bonuses to be paid is now formulated as a percentage of salary”. Moreover, the text continues, “for the application of the current 80% rule, the statutory pension granted plays a crucial role. For these reasons, a different maximum contribution rate is proposed for the part of the gross annual remuneration below the salary ceiling and for the part above it”. These rates would be a maximum of 12% up to the salary ceiling, and 32% beyond this salary ceiling.
Casually, these are therefore enormous changes that are looming for this second pillar of pensions. But that was before the letter from the social partners…
