Coalition parties against proposal to pay for years of study towards pension

A proposal to allow people to pay into their future pension fund for the years spent in higher education has been struck down by federal coalition parties N-VA and CD&V. The proposal was made by pension minister Daniel Bacquelaine of French-speaking coalition party MR.

In order to claim a full pension in Belgium, people need to have worked for 45 years, but former students often must work past pension age to reach that number. They have the option to “regularise” years spent in university or college by paying €1,500 per study year, but that must happen within 10 years of the final year of study. After that period, the rate increases significantly.

Government employees’ study years are automatically regularised as counting toward work years, without having to pay. Bacquelaine’s proposal would have harmonised conditions across the workforce, including the self-employed, meaning government employees would also have had to pay to regularise study years.

The coalition parties’ concerns were with the unpredictable budgetary outcome. During a three-year transition period, everyone – regardless of when they graduated – could pay for their student years at the same price.

In 2017 and 2018, there would be an additional discount of 10%, and the payment would be tax-deductible. Public response to such an opportunity, according to N-VA and CD&V, would likely be enthusiastic. The more people that sign up for it, the greater the financial impact on the federal budget in the long term.

The plan is a “sale and lease-back, with the bill going to the next generation,” said MP Zuhal Demir (N-VA) (pictured). “As far as I’m concerned, this measure will never pass, not without the guarantee that the younger generation, who have not been consulted, will not be affected. This is only one idea out of an otherwise useful policy document. But laws are not just a matter of copy-pasting from a policy document.”

She was joined by MP Robrecht Bothuyne (CD&V), who described the measure as “passing the budgetary buck. Budgetary consequences, including those in the long term, have to be investigated”.