Eine Viertelmillion Flexi-Job-Arbeiter, laut Jean-Marie Dedecker unhaltbar: „Schluss mit diesem Steuerunsinn“

Van een neoliberaal als Dedecker is dit wel het laatste wat ik hem verwachtte te zeggen, maar ik ben blij dat hij het in het nieuws brengt.

Oh nee. Ik ben akkoord met Jean-Marie. Wat nu?

Het feit dat er dus ook duizenden bedrijven zijn die ENKEL flexi of jobstudenten als werknemers hebben zou gewoon verboden moeten zijn. Zet daar een limiet op van 20% of zo

In my opinion, there are multiple reasons why people do a flexi-job, and not all of them should be treated the same. I don’t think it’s fair to simply say that flexi-jobs are good or bad without looking at the situation.

**1. Someone who already works full-time but wants to earn a bit extra**

This is probably the most common case. Someone already works five days a week and does a flexi-job in the evenings or at weekends to make ends meet, save some money, invest, or simply have a bit more financial freedom.

Usually, this is done during hours when their regular employer is closed or doesn’t have work available anyway. I don’t really see a problem with this, because that person is already working and paying their normal contributions. The flexi-job is just extra effort.

**2. Someone who reduces a full-time job to do a flexi-job instead**

This is a different story. If someone goes from working five days to four days just so they can do a flexi-job on the fifth day, then there is a real shift. The government receives fewer contributions from the regular job, while the flexi-job often has a more favourable tax treatment.

Personally, I think this is the type of situation that should be looked at more critically, because it can create a loss of income for the social security system.

**3. Retired people who want or need to keep working**

Not every pension is enough for people to live comfortably, and some retirees simply want to stay active or help out in sectors that struggle to find staff.

I don’t think these people should be punished for wanting to work. They’ve already spent an entire career contributing to society, and many of them are filling gaps where employers cannot find enough workers.

**4. Someone who is on sick leave or disability**

This is probably the most nuanced situation of all.

For example, someone with a bad back might not be able to continue their physically demanding full-time job, especially if their employer cannot provide adapted work. But they may still be capable of doing a few hours of lighter or more flexible work through a flexi-job.

On the other hand, if someone is officially unable to work but is doing essentially the same job through a flexi-job, then questions can and should be asked.

I don’t think this can be judged with a blanket rule. Every case is different, and often these situations are a symptom of bigger problems, such as employers not offering adapted work or the social security system being too rigid.

There are also other situations. Students, people facing temporary financial difficulties, or workers helping out in sectors with labour shortages can all have valid reasons for taking a flexi-job.

In my opinion, the discussion shouldn’t be about flexi-jobs themselves. The real question is whether someone is creating additional value without shifting costs onto the social security system. People who already work full-time or who have already completed their careers are not the same as people replacing regular employment with a more favourable tax system. Those are very different situations and should be treated differently.

I feel like this is the kind of deal that could have been done theoretically if the current reforms had been discussed in a government that is tilting less to the right. E.g. if Les Engagés and CD&V had remained closer to their labor-wing or if Vooruit had done better and been less Rousseau.

„We limit long-term unemployment benefits and tackle long-term illness, but we also make sure that people reentering the labour market don’t have to compete with already employed people who cost a lot less due to flexijobs that are bleeding social security dry“.

Van mij mag het blijven. Goed om iets bij te verdienen naast je job. Beter dit dan zwartwerk

If it’s not defensible that someone pays 250 or more on 500 euro gross while someone else gets the full 500, why is it defensible that someone needs to pay 250 or more(definitely more when considering what employers pay on top) at all on 500 euro?

Apart from their hours as flexi, these people are paying into social security and income taxes. It’s only the pensionners who get the real exception.

Taking away ways to deal with a broken system does not fix the broken system.

Abolish flexijob except for horeca and very specific seasonal work, and instead give a tax cut to employers hiring an unemployed person, extra bonus for hiring an unemployed person above 50.

Dat is ook de bedoeling Jean-Marie.
BDW ziet drumb bezig in de VS en wil dat ook.

heb ik dan ook recht op een flexi-pensioen? ba neen zotteke

Hij heeft gelijk en het zal erger worden als meer en meer bedrijven voordelen zien in het aanbieden van flexi-jobs. Ik vind dat dit enkel voor de horeca, detailhandel, fruitsector, evenementen en zorg moeten kunnen aangezien deze sectoren personeelstekorten kennen en (vooral de fruit- en horeca sector) seizoensgebonden zijn. Die komen met een – voor mij toch – aanvaardbare tekorten in de RSZ want de noden worden doelgericht opgevangen.

Dat men dit uitbreidt naar alle sectoren is iets waar ik echt niet akkoord ga, het is heel onverstandig. Het slaat nu al een groot gat in de RSZ en zal groter worden. Wat voor nut heeft een flexi-job in een godbetert vastgoedsector?