>The most important source of income for social security is the contributions of employees and employers.
>**Part of your gross wage – in most cases 13.07 percent – goes to social security. Those employee contributions have remained relatively constant in recent decades.**
>**The employer places the employer contribution on top of this. However, that part has fallen systematically in recent decades.** Whereas in the late 90s the employer’s contributions still amounted to approximately 34 percent of the wage mass, that figure today is almost 10 percent lower.
>**That is the result of a series of exemptions and the so-called tax shift. In 2014, then Minister of Finance Johan Van Overtveldt (N-VA)** reduced the patronal contributions to work, as a result of which social security loses billions in income annually.
Wientje on
Guy Mathot (PS minister of budget in the ‘80’s) declared that the national debt just happened and would also just go away.
Allemaal mooi om het „werkgeversbijdrage“ en „werknemersbijdrage“ te noemen.
Maar er is zeer weinig verschil tussen beide, buiten boekhouding en perceptie.
Je kan het geheel evengoed social security tax noemen. En wat is zelfs daar het nut van, de sociale zekerheid komt al jaren lang miljarden tekort en wordt gewoon bijgepast uit de algemene begroting (federale). Dus gooi het allemaal op één hoop en noem het „sociale zekerheid en belastingen“. Klaar!
Leave A Reply
Du musst angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
4 Kommentare
>The most important source of income for social security is the contributions of employees and employers.
>**Part of your gross wage – in most cases 13.07 percent – goes to social security. Those employee contributions have remained relatively constant in recent decades.**
>**The employer places the employer contribution on top of this. However, that part has fallen systematically in recent decades.** Whereas in the late 90s the employer’s contributions still amounted to approximately 34 percent of the wage mass, that figure today is almost 10 percent lower.
https://preview.redd.it/d8vbp9z8cqie1.png?width=768&format=png&auto=webp&s=d8eceff4fa84a3f15480503942028de800308f09
>**That is the result of a series of exemptions and the so-called tax shift. In 2014, then Minister of Finance Johan Van Overtveldt (N-VA)** reduced the patronal contributions to work, as a result of which social security loses billions in income annually.
Guy Mathot (PS minister of budget in the ‘80’s) declared that the national debt just happened and would also just go away.
Decreasing employers‘ social security contributions to about 25% is/was nothing out of the ordinary though. That is the [EU average](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Hourly_labour_costs#Share_of_non-wage_costs_highest_in_Sweden_and_France).
Allemaal mooi om het „werkgeversbijdrage“ en „werknemersbijdrage“ te noemen.
Maar er is zeer weinig verschil tussen beide, buiten boekhouding en perceptie.
Je kan het geheel evengoed social security tax noemen. En wat is zelfs daar het nut van, de sociale zekerheid komt al jaren lang miljarden tekort en wordt gewoon bijgepast uit de algemene begroting (federale). Dus gooi het allemaal op één hoop en noem het „sociale zekerheid en belastingen“. Klaar!