top | item 39221287

(no title)

lorenzhs | 2 years ago

This is not the norm, as the employment modalities in that thread are super strange. If you’re employed by a German entity and your salary is 91.1k€, your take-home income would be around 53.8k€. Put another way - the $100k / 91.1k€ are the Arbeitgeberbrutto, they correspond to 75.5k€ Arbeitnehmerbrutto (the number you’d normally see on your contract). The difference exists because there are employer deductions and employee deductions, but the employer deductions don’t show up on the pay slip. Only in this constellation the employee has to pay both. It’s very much the exception, not the norm.

discuss

order

foobian|2 years ago

> If you’re employed by a German entity and your salary is 91.1k€, your take-home income would be around 53.8k€. > Put another way - the $100k / 91.1k€ are the Arbeitgeberbrutto, they correspond to 75.5k€ Arbeitnehmerbrutto

I fully disagree. I'm talking about the Arbeitgeberbrutto as it does not make any difference for the employer if he sends the money to you or to the state/health insurance/.... He is already paying it so he would be willing to also pay it to you if he would not have to pay it to the state/health insurance/... So in my opinion it is part of the salary and I think the split into employer deductions and employee deductions just exists to make the contributions appear to be smaller than they actually are.

The post I linked just made it clear to me that salaries aren't that bad in germany compared to other states it is just that we have to pay most of it to the state/health insurance/...

lorenzhs|2 years ago

As an employee, the Arbeitgeberbrutto is a number you never see. You’re not saying that employing people isn’t worth it, you’re saying that working in Germany isn’t worth it. Then you have to take the employee’s perspective, not the employer’s. Nobody advertises the true cost to the employer in other countries either. How much do all those benefits to US employees cost? Do you include that when you list US salaries, or do those get magically excluded because health insurance isn’t mandatory?

Your premise just seems fundamentally flawed.