Editorial
| Date | 01 June 2001 |
| Published date | 01 June 2001 |
| DOI | 10.1023/A:1011934400228 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
European Journal
of
Social Security, Volume 3/2, 83-85,2001.
© Kluwer Law International (KLI). Printed in the Netherlands.
Editorial
83
Freedom
of
movement
of
workers
is
one
of
the pillars
of
the European Community.
There are a number
of
categories
of
individuals who make use
of
this freedom, such
as
persons who move to another Member State in order to start a new life, persons
who work for a short period in another Member State, workers posted by their
employer, self-employed persons who work for a longer period in another Member
State, persons who work in several Member States at the same time
and,
last but not
least, frontier workers.
It
is
quite likely that frontier workers are most intensively affected by the rules
on free movement,
as
they usually work
as
such for long periods. This means not
only that they are unable
to
escape the application
of
the relevant social security
rules, but that they are also confronted by the labour law and tax law rules
of
both
countries. Moreover,
as
they work abroad for long periods it
is
more likely that a par-
ticular risk, such
as
sickness or invalidity, will occur, and that they will feel the
effects
of
the applicable rules. Indeed, frontier workers are often referred to
as
the
pioneers
of
the free movement
of
workers.
Although these workers have traditionally been a relatively silent group -
as
frontier work
is
rooted in old traditions which has taught them to overcome practi-
cal problems -they are now attracting more and more attention from politicians,
including those in the European Parliament,
as
their situation clearly reveals gaps in
the promotion
of
free movement.
One main problem
is
the lack
of
coordination
of
labour
law,
tax law and social
security
law.
In the Netherlands, for instance, social security contributions were
raised at the same time
as
tax rates were lowered. Contributions were raised in order
to
improve the funding
of
the social security system, where the lowering
of
the tax
rate was intended to neutralise the effects on the macro-individual level. In other
words, the net incomes
of
residents
of
the Netherlands were intended
to
stay the
same. However, persons working but not living in the Netherlands were confronted
by higher social security contributions but, because they were subject to the tax
regimes
of
their State
of
residence, they received no compensation for the increase.
This was partly the effect
of
the
Netherlands-
Belgium Tax Treaty, which stipulat-
ed that frontier workers have to pay taxes in their State
of
residence. As a result,
frontier workers working in the Netherlands were worse off.
Frontiers, however, have two sides and there was a group
of
workers who ben-
efited from these provisions: frontier workers living in the Netherlands and working
in Belgium. This made it difficult
to
change the Tax Treaty. This example shows that
a lack
of
co-ordination in principles between tax law and social security law
is
often
difficult
to
resolve,
as
this situation has advantages for some groups
of
workers
which they
do
not want
to
lose. However, at the beginning
of
this year, agreement
EUROPEAN JOURNAL
OF
SOCIAL SECURITY
To continue reading
Request your trial