MP Gilles Carrez law professor Martin Collet present their arguments on the decision of the Elders of Montpensier street.
● YES “Censorship of the Constitutional Council on the declining balance deduction of employee contributions is not a surprise: it is the logical continuation of its previous decisions. The Sages have always reminded that there is a difference between “charges of any kind” and social contributions. The first alimententde general public coffers. Contributions paid by employees, they are entitled to defined benefits: it is a contributory system. There is a direct link between the amount paid and the benefit received. This is particularly true in the pension insurance system, where pensions received are proportional to the amounts contributed. But it is precisely the essence of employee contributions that would raboterla contributions forthe majority are retired. If the declining allowance provided by the government was not censored, one third of employees while paying lower contributions, would still conservéles same entitlements. Rupture characterized equality. To make their decisions, the Sages are based on principles of law, but also carry a pragmatic appreciation. They gave the green light to the partial freeze pensionsde retirement (only those exceeding 1200 euros per month is concerned) because they felt that the measure is temporary (it only applies to the title in 2014) and little magnitude (7 euros per month maximum). Same time, they stressed that the unequal treatment of employee contributions was all the more unacceptable it would have affected many French and was durable. Some are surprised that the Constitutional Council validated the cuts in social security contributions paid by companies. But do not forget that all businesses benefit from allowances granted by the pact. In addition, the Constitutional Council has always validated the reductions in employers’ social security contributions, and since the early 1990s, however, the end of 2000, he already had censuréla attempt Jospin government to introduce a progressive CSG, that is ie, the rate would have varied according to income. The Constitutional Council has always been very vigilant on issues of égalitéet of consideration of the ability of households. He further confirmed Wednesday. This is a new blow to the government that if it wants to resume its copy should be surrounded by the necessary legal expertise. “
MARTIN COLLAR , PROFESSOR OF LAW AT PARIS-II Assas Photo credits: DR
● NO “With this decision on employee contributions, constitutionnela Commission of narrow legalism. Certainly, the contributions paid by employees are eligible for benefits. Legally, there is a close link between contributions and benefits, which makes it difficult to exempting certain categories of any payment. Or that’s what would have happened with the reduction of employee contributions. Always legally, taxes operate on a different logic, a tax not opening pasun law. But economically, these distinctions are meaningless. Today, a third of recettesde Social Security comes from taxes and duties assigned to it. The budgets of the State and the social security are inextricably linked. A major turning point occurred in 1991, lorsde creating the CSG. Surle matter of law, the CSG is a tax. But it feeds the coffers of the social security system and has replaced social insurance contributions paid by the employees. CSG, which is a hybrid vehicle, has a considerable weight: it generates more than 91 billion euros, more than the income tax (68.5 billion). We can see, everything is mixed. Moreover, the EU rules, since the Treaty of Maastricht, think in terms of total withdrawals. They do not distinguish impôtsdes contributions. Both are “mandatory contributions”
In addition, the argument that cuts in employers’ contributions are they, as they have constitutional to all companies me appears reversible. For it is not true: companies whose employees are paid more than minimum wage 1.6 (threshold where, in 2015, the allowances will stop) will not receive anything next year! The Constitutional Council has always validated the regressive cuts in employers’ contributions. So he admits that the “employer contribution” tool can be used to take a measure of general interest in the occurrencele strengthening compétitivitéet supporting employment. I do not see why this is allowed pourles payroll taxes paid by companies would not be for those paid by households. Redonnerdu purchasing power, willingness to work, these are reasons of public interest that could have been cited for decreasing validerla lower premiums paid by employees. “
No comments:
Post a Comment