As long ago as 15 years ago, there was talk of abolishing the length-of-service allowance - to be replaced by an employer's length-of-service allowance.  The seniority allowance is pure nonsense. If we are talking about making it more difficult for older people to be employed, this supplement only makes it more difficult for them to be employed. It is not worthwhile for an employer to employ an older worker because it raises the cost of labour for no tangible reason. Workers who are loyal to their employer and have certain advantages based on years of experience can be rewarded with incentives rather than compulsory bonuses. Abolishing the length-of-service allowance would immediately save a lot of money in the non-economic and economic sectors. And nobody would have a complaint.  It will not be in the interests of the younger people, and it will make the older people look like hypocrites. The fact that an older person gets 5% or 10% more than a younger person is nothing more than age discrimination. If we are fighting against discrimination on grounds of gender, nationality, etc., let us also fight here. We (in our economic society) only divide workers into good and bad. The poorer employability of older workers is also strongly influenced by the severance pay on retirement and by the 'unforgivingness' of older workers. Calculate the cost of severance pay per month's salary if you employ a person who has two years to retire! These measures, which are supposed to protect older workers, only put them at a disadvantage when looking for a new job and, on the other hand, concrete the labour market.
It would also be necessary to tax student work (which should not be more than 5% lower than the total taxation of regular work) and to introduce a maximum percentage of the ratio of regular work to student work (e.g. 10%). In the case of regular work, the tax-free allowances for meals and transport to work and the payment of travel expenses in connection with work should be abolished. An employer who needs a remote worker will pay him anyway. The tax burden should be the same on all payments to an individual. This will have a double effect:
1. It will put an end to student work fraud and to the payment of wages in the form of meals and commuting and travel expenses. More money will flow in from taxes.
2. unfair competition between those companies that use these measures and those that pay their taxes honestly will be reduced. Those companies that really do better will prosper, not those that are better at cheating.
An additional advantage will be that inspectors will no longer have to do much to control trivial fraud (which can be controlled automatically under the above proposed method) and will be able to deal with more sophisticated ones.
On the basis of the financial impact of the above measures, which would have a positive effect on the inflow to the budget, reducing the cost to the budget and burdening all economic operators more evenly, we would be able to GENERALLY REDUCE taxation for all operators by the corresponding percentage saved, thus relieving the burden on the economy.
I believe it will be severe with the unions, but severe it will be in any case.  I think they will have the least room for manoeuvre to object to such measures.
There are plenty of measures that would remedy the situation, or at least give optimism to companies that are trying to do business honestly - that honesty pays:
E.g. this one:
Banning state, parastatal and all other entities that have any connection or receive anything from the Slovenian budget or EU funds (directly or indirectly) with companies that have owners from tax havens or do business with companies from tax havens.
Regards, Rok