Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Reform of the regulations on marginal employment lacks cohesion

  • Published:
Economic Bulletin

Conclusion

If the federal government is concerned to avoid restricting labour market dynamics in the low-income segment, it should seek a solution that tears down the ‘wall’ represented by the ceiling on marginal employment. This is not achieved by the envisaged reform concept.

In fact the way forward was set out in the new government’s coalition agreement. There the government’s intention is expressed to incorporate all forms of paid employment, i.e. including self-employed activities, into the social insurance system. This would tear down the wall consisting of a high marginal tax and contribution burden that still blocks the transition from marginal work to regular part-time employment. Yet this would also require the courage to abolish flat-rate taxation in favour of an extension of individual income taxation. It seems that such a reform—as is the case with a comprehensive concept for a re-regulation of the labour market and a reform of social security—cannot be implemented in the short run. Consequently, the reform of marginal employment should be placed on the agenda of the ‘Alliance for Jobs’: these tripartite talks between employers, unions and the government, that are to be chaired by the Chancellor personally, should serve not only to bring about a reduction in German unemployment in the short-term, but also to find new, sustainable regulations for the labour market and social security. One advantage, at least, of the proposed reform of marginal employment is that it is in fact so marginal that it will not constitute an obstacle to a more comprehensive reform.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

o

  1. Figures derived from the German Socio-economic Panel Study (GSOEP) and the Current Population Survey (CPS) of the USA.

  2. Sir William Beveridge, Insurance for All and Everything, London 1924.

  3. Until the German government announced its concept, the debate on this issue had excluded the possibility that both the flat-rate tax and individual income tax would be dropped and marginal employees would, in principle, be exempt from taxation.

  4. It is accepted even by proponents of the other reform model (such as Bernd Huber) that this would also solve the problem of the ‘marginal employment trap’.

  5. Entitlements can be earned, however, if the employee is willing to top up the contributions by making payments equivalent to 7.5% of the wage.

  6. This solution is a lesson in public choice theory. Whereas social insurance contributions benefit central government directly, it loses only a proportion of its tax revenues, as it is obliged to share them with state governments. Thus central government would have gained an advantage to the detriment of a third party if state governments had accepted this change without compensatory payments.

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wagner, G.G. Reform of the regulations on marginal employment lacks cohesion. Economic Bulletin 36, 13–16 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02684059

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02684059

Keywords

Navigation