By: Ž. K. (nova24tv.si)
Former Finance Minister Janez Šušteršič explains the pitfalls of the solidarity contribution in his latest column, which the government of Robert Golob has prepared for us. It will also be paid from contributions for social security, and some of the collected money will go to the budget, not just to the flood victims. It is very likely unconstitutional and has been accompanied by a now exposed lie from the very beginning.
As Šušteršič explains, the provisions of the law on intervention measures are written relatively unclearly (perhaps intentionally?) to the extent that he writes: “In the intervention law, there are a whole set of provisions that were not clearly explained to people, or even deliberately misrepresented, and which mean that you will pay more than you probably think. If people were to read and understand it, it might have caused more agitation and outrage in the public than hate speech.”
Consequently, there has been confusion from the very beginning regarding the basis for the solidarity contribution. It was not clear whether 0.3% would be deducted from the calculated income tax or 0.3% from the entire gross salary. The latter option, in particular, was initially seen as mere online speculation, but it turned out to be very real, as confirmed by Article 102(4) of the intervention law. “This means that you will pay the contribution not only from the net salary you receive in your account but also from everything that is part of your gross salary but not credited to your account. In other words, also from income tax advances and contributions paid for pensions, health insurance, maternity leave, and workplace accidents,” he writes for Siol, and he continues that the same applies to all other income that is not salary but is subject to income tax. “Such income includes pensions and allowances received by the unemployed if they exceed 35% of the average salary. According to data for the first half of the year, this is currently 762 euros gross, which is also significantly less than the minimum wage,” he explains.
Exposed lie
Šušteršič also exposes the lie uttered by the Minister of Labour, Luka Mesec (and previously by the government on its website), that the solidarity contribution would serve as compensation for those who would not want to work on the solidarity Saturday.
“This government claim is a plain lie. In fact, in the draft law, they wrote this provision, which was then also adopted in the National Assembly,” Šušteršič explains. Article 102(12) is clear: The mandatory solidarity contribution assessed or calculated under this article is reduced for each year by the calculated contribution of the worker or employer to the Fund for the Renewal of Slovenia due to the solidarity work Saturday from the previous article, but no more than the amount of the mandatory solidarity contribution under this article.
The former minister has also prepared a theoretical calculation of how much you will have to pay, even if you choose to work on the solidarity Saturday.
Not just for flood victims, but also for the budget
Furthermore, Šušteršič notes that the money collected through the solidarity contribution will also be used to fill the budget. He states: “The employer will transfer your net salary to the budget as a solidarity contribution for the future fund for reconstruction, and in addition, they will also transfer income tax advances from your gross salary to the FURS as well as their and your social contributions, wherever they are supposed to go. Nowhere in the law does it state that the salary you earn on the solidarity day is exempt from income tax and contributions.”
Inconsistent with the Constitution
Lastly, Šušteršič reveals one more critical point – the solidarity contribution is incredibly unconstitutional. It anticipates the taxation of all this year’s income, including those received before the adoption of the intervention law, making it retroactive. “The Constitutional Court has repeatedly stated that the introduction of taxes on income that has already been received makes such a law retroactive,” Šušteršič writes for Siol.
However, it does not necessarily mean that the Constitutional Court will recognise this in this case, as we add in the editorial office. Judging by how the Constitutional Court handled the amendment to the RTV law, which was evidently unconstitutional, we may also encounter a new departure from the rule of law in this case.