The organizations linked to the unions claim to reduce the transition period towards the new system and from the one linked to the employers criticize that the new proposal “is very green”
The negotiations between Ministry of Inclusion and Social Security and the organizations of freelancers to define the new contribution system based on income are advancing at a snail’s pace. This Monday the parties have held the third meeting after the new proposal presented by the team of Jose Luis Escriva and this has been settled with few movements. The little consensus that exists among the most representative associations of self-employed workers is that they demand that the Government be more precise when defining what exactly the concept of “actual income“. The key to the negotiation, because the calculation of the fee that the self-employed must pay monthly will depend on these.
“The proposal is very green”, the vice president of ATA has complained, Celia Ferrero, at the end of the meeting. The association linked to CEOE maintains a ‘defensive’ position in the talks, very critical of the foreseeable increase in contributions that the reform will imply for part of the group -especially those who enter the most- and without uncovering its cards for now in terms of proposals. “We did not arrive at an exact or approximate configuration of what real income is,” Ferrero insisted, as they have done since they at the last meeting. “It is the great stumbling block,” he summarized.
Until now, the formula that they had been transferred from Social Security is that the fee would be calculated taking into account the net income, that is, the income of the self-employed and discounting those deductible expenses. However, the final calculation method is not defined and it is not a saint of his devotion in UATAE, organization linked to CCOO. According to this, the fee should be calculated in relation to the “benefits”, that is, once the necessary expenses for the exercise of the activity have been deducted (here the concept of deductible is maximized) and including amortizations and the own fees to the Social Security. “We need a change of direction both in the proposal and in the negotiation itself”, its general secretary has claimed, Maria Jose Landaburu.
If ATA and UATAE coincide, from different positions, in clarifying this concept of income, UATAE and UPTA -association linked to UGT- coincide in demanding a shorter transition period and more beneficial sections for the self-employed with lower incomes. Specifically, from UPTA they claim to go from the nine years (until 2031) that Escrivá has proposed, to six years. “We expect an agreement with CCOO and UATAE”, declared the president of UPTA, Eduardo Abad. “The important thing is to have the widest possible consensus, but the consensus must be reached,” added Abad, in clear criticism of ATA and its up to now outright rejection of Escrivá’s proposal.