The Government guaranteed this Tuesday, October 14th, that it is studying a legislative change so that the subsidy for informal caregivers is no longer considered income by Social Security, to prevent beneficiaries from being excluded or suffering a cut in other social support.
In a joint hearing at the Budget, Finance and Public Administration Committee and the Labor, Social Security and Inclusion Committee at the request of the PS, the Secretary of State for Social Security, Susana Filipa Lima, admitted that in August “complaints arose” from “several citizens and associations, according to which the granting of the Informal Caregiver Support Subsidy was penalizing the household in some social benefits and, in particular, the family allowance”.
The government official admitted that it was necessary to make a change to the legislation to prevent these situations from occurring, but did not commit to the change having retroactive effects, to return to the beneficiaries the amount in which they were harmed.
The Secretary of State highlighted that this problem arises from the legal framework given to the subsidy, because in no rule is it stated in the law that the support is not considered “income for the granting of other social benefits, especially those of the family plan”.
“The granting of the family allowance, as well as other social benefits, including the caregiver support allowance itself, is subject to verification of the means-tested condition, which is regulated by a specific diploma, which is Decree-Law no. 70/2010. For this purpose, it is considered, among others, [como] household income, income from work, capital, pensions and other social benefits”, he explained.
According to the Secretary of State, “what happens is that, when included in the solidarity subsystem, the subsidy to support informal caregivers is not covered by this exception and, therefore, is counted as income”.
“Neither in 2019, nor in 2022, was there any initiative by the legislator to exempt the support allowance for informal caregivers from being considered as income for the purposes of granting social benefits. And so, in fact, from 2022 onwards, it would be expected that the granting of the support allowance for informal caregivers would impact families with family benefits, due to an increase in the reference scale that is relevant for the purposes of the benefit”, he stated.
“We are studying how we can reverse” these situations to “correct the situation of thousands” of beneficiaries who “were penalized”, guaranteed Filipa Limaadmitting that the legal change is complex because it is necessary to safeguard that it does not create other penalties.
Filipa Lima said it is necessary to ensure that the change is “made in a complete, integrated and coherent way” so that, by correcting what is later, “another problem that has not been properly taken care of” arises.
The minister said that around 1,600 beneficiaries had their family benefits recalculated, because of this situation.
Regarding the tax framework, the Secretary of State said that her team did not have any contact with that of the Minister of Finance, Joaquim Miranda Sarmento, to “make any type of taxation change” in the IRS. In this context, the minister’s office responded to parliament that the subsidy, being a benefit from the solidarity subsystem, “is not covered by any applicable rules of the IRS Code and, accordingly, is not subject to IRS”.
The problem that occurred refers to the amount considered income by Social Security, because the value of support is counted for the purposes of encompassing the household’s income when Social Security verifies whether a family is entitled to receive a certain social benefit.
At the start of the hearing, deputies from the PS and Chega benches noted that parliament had called the Minister of Labor and Social Security, Maria do Rosário Palma Ramalho, to the hearing and not the Secretary of State. The two benches criticized the way in which the ministry responded to the Assembly of the Republic, for having informed, and not putting it up for consideration, that the person who would represent the executive would be the Secretary of State, as she had delegated powers in relation to this matter.