And it would clearly show the cost of social protection

The debate on social security contributions has been very strong these days and it is so much the better: this topic merit debate! Still necessary that the terms not to be not prejudiced. Or the fusion between social contributions employers and wage, advocated by a recent note of the Montaigne Institute, written by Jacques Bichot (1) and by the President of the Medef Laurence Parisot was strongly criticized by some trade union organizations on the basis of ce which is, at best, a misunderstanding the worst, deformation deliberate content.

What is it Salary and employer social contributions would be merged into a single block that would be now taken each month on payroll. Scandal! We are told. Antisocial! This is that you want to pay to the employee and his share of the burden, and who is today fortunately his employer. Scandal there would be if, in fact, the company paid today a portion of the payroll, as has suggested the name of "contributions". But there is nothing. Contributions are the responsibility of workers and employer contributions... also. The difference between the cost of the work for the employer and the net wage paid is unique, even if nature, for fifty years, it maintains the fiction of a burden-sharing. If there is a scandal, it is this fiction that must be an end.

The truth is that employees buy their social protection, their social protection, as they buy their Internet access or their food, using what they earn. Of course, money comes company or administration to which they provide their support as employees. But it cannot be inferred that it is the employer who pays: employer's expense, compensation of employees, net salary (paid them) more contributions (which are paid to the social security funds). He pays no more social protection that he pays the baguette of bread purchased the employee! Of course, an ancient custom, dating back at least to Bismarck, establishes a direct circuit for contributions to buy social insurance of employees and their families. Rather than go through the account of the employee, contributions are deducted at source, paid directly by the employer to the Urssaf and other funds. But it is precisely with this antiquated tradition that divides the contribution into two parts, a so-called "employer" and the other "wage", that he must break.

This unnecessary complication was born in effect the myth that employer contributions are to the employer and the contributions of the worker. Economically, it is a Phantasmagoria: is the responsibility of the employer all that he pays for his employee that might be called the super-brut salary, sum of the net salary and all social expenses. Symmetrically, all of these are dependants of the employee because each and the others cut off his remuneration.

If employers paid employees all of super-brut salary, to charge for them to pay their contribution to social welfare funds, then two things only change. A myth would disappear, employer contributions raising the cost of the work, and would be replaced by a fair perception of what this protection costs to households. And an opportunity of sterile confrontation between social partners would be deleted.

With a super-brut salary equal to the cost of the work and contributions equal to the sum of all current contributions, it would no change net wages falling in the pocket of the employee, nor the cost of the work for the employer. But on present negotiation and clashes between social partners on the true subject, the total remuneration of labour. And it would clearly show the cost of social protection. Which is in the Office of the employee, even when it is not.