Reduced rate: the evolution of the flat rate?
Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2024 4:48 am
The "Reduced Rate" was created on 1/3/2015 ( Royal Decree-Law 1/2015 published in the BOE on 28/2/2015) as an evolution of the "Flat Rate" and coincides with it during the month of March 2015.
We speak of evolution because in both cases the following aspects coincide:
It applies to new full-time or par t-time permanent employment contracts of at least 50%.
The duration of the contribution qatar email list benefit, hereinafter bonus , is the same in both cases, 2 years extendable for 1 more year in companies that have less than 10 workers when signing the contract.
It is aimed at the same groups of workers .
The requirements for beneficiary companies are the same: they must be up to date with their tax and social security obligations and not have terminated contracts during a period of 6 months or, if they have been terminated, it must be due to justified dismissals.
The requirements for increasing and maintaining the level of employment achieved with the new hire are the same.
And they only differ in that:
The “Flat Rate” established a variable bonus while the “Reduced Rate” is a fixed amount. The flat rate, for bases higher than €924/month, is more favorable to the company.
In case of loss of the bonus the amount is calculated differently.
In part-time contracts, the amount of the bonus in the "Reduced Rate" decreases progressively, while in the "Flat Rate" it has 3 sections as illustrated by the colored bands in the attached table.
Given so much similarity, we can ask ourselves:
Why has the “Flat Rate” not been extended? , especially when the introduction of Royal Decree-Law 1/2015 recognises that “…the establishment of a flat rate of contributions has been an effective measure to contribute to the creation of stable employment…” and highlights that in 2014 permanent employment increased by 2% or, in other words, 212,800 people.
That is to say: Why change a drug that has worked? Especially considering that the problem for which it was designed persists, and the high level of unemployment that led to its use persists.
The first logical justification is that we have evolved the medication, we have improved it, and we are going to use it to optimize the results of the treatment. In this sense, it is worth highlighting that the "reduced rate" can be placed within the group of benefits or medications that existed before the labor reform and that Royal Decree-Law 20/2012, on measures to guarantee budgetary stability and promote competitiveness, did not hesitate to describe as "... those expenses that are more superfluous or with weaker effects on the incentives of economic agents.
In this line we must place the bonuses for hiring in Social Security contributions (which have lost relevance in the context of the new measures introduced by the latest reform of the labor market) ... " In other words, the new medicine, the "reduced rate" regresses to previous stages and has weak effects and with little relevance in the current labor market. It seems to me an incongruous explanation, an improper measure of the same Government team that repudiated similar measures existing just 2 years ago, I refuse to accept it and decide to look for another justification for the change of criteria.
We speak of evolution because in both cases the following aspects coincide:
It applies to new full-time or par t-time permanent employment contracts of at least 50%.
The duration of the contribution qatar email list benefit, hereinafter bonus , is the same in both cases, 2 years extendable for 1 more year in companies that have less than 10 workers when signing the contract.
It is aimed at the same groups of workers .
The requirements for beneficiary companies are the same: they must be up to date with their tax and social security obligations and not have terminated contracts during a period of 6 months or, if they have been terminated, it must be due to justified dismissals.
The requirements for increasing and maintaining the level of employment achieved with the new hire are the same.
And they only differ in that:
The “Flat Rate” established a variable bonus while the “Reduced Rate” is a fixed amount. The flat rate, for bases higher than €924/month, is more favorable to the company.
In case of loss of the bonus the amount is calculated differently.
In part-time contracts, the amount of the bonus in the "Reduced Rate" decreases progressively, while in the "Flat Rate" it has 3 sections as illustrated by the colored bands in the attached table.
Given so much similarity, we can ask ourselves:
Why has the “Flat Rate” not been extended? , especially when the introduction of Royal Decree-Law 1/2015 recognises that “…the establishment of a flat rate of contributions has been an effective measure to contribute to the creation of stable employment…” and highlights that in 2014 permanent employment increased by 2% or, in other words, 212,800 people.
That is to say: Why change a drug that has worked? Especially considering that the problem for which it was designed persists, and the high level of unemployment that led to its use persists.
The first logical justification is that we have evolved the medication, we have improved it, and we are going to use it to optimize the results of the treatment. In this sense, it is worth highlighting that the "reduced rate" can be placed within the group of benefits or medications that existed before the labor reform and that Royal Decree-Law 20/2012, on measures to guarantee budgetary stability and promote competitiveness, did not hesitate to describe as "... those expenses that are more superfluous or with weaker effects on the incentives of economic agents.
In this line we must place the bonuses for hiring in Social Security contributions (which have lost relevance in the context of the new measures introduced by the latest reform of the labor market) ... " In other words, the new medicine, the "reduced rate" regresses to previous stages and has weak effects and with little relevance in the current labor market. It seems to me an incongruous explanation, an improper measure of the same Government team that repudiated similar measures existing just 2 years ago, I refuse to accept it and decide to look for another justification for the change of criteria.