4 ms·

No, I'm sorry but this is just pointless, arguing about some technicality like "you can't call that income". That doesn't matter, these are just words. What ma

No, I'm sorry but this is just pointless, arguing about some technicality like "you can't call that income". That doesn't matter, these are just words. What matters in real life is the size of the cut the government gets from the employee-employer transaction. That cut definitely includes all the "employer contributions". The bigger it is, the less the employee gets. And no, it's not the same as the cost of buying the desk. If would be the same if the state prohibited remote work making a desk a necessity and then forced everyone to buy desks from state-owned providers at the price set by the state. In this case -- yes, absolutely, this becomes a "desk tax" which is eating into your income. UPD Since you insist, I'll address this part too: > I will say it again - if those costs dropped down to zero, you wouldn't say your income is now smaller, would you? I'll go to my boss directly and say that "my income is now smaller than it should be" and ask for increase in gross. If this doesn't work out, I'll go and get an offer elsewhere. Knowing how hiring and budgeting works, this is the only sane course of action. Companies suddenly find them with money they've already budgeted but aren't spending, expect the arms race for professions with high demand. In parallel to that I'll make sure to distribute raises to key members of my team anticipating them doing the same. I'll lose a few less valuable members of the team in the process because they'll receive offers that I won't be willing to counter. In general, I pay more attention to what people do, not what they say. This is why I didn't reply to the question "you wouldn't say your income is now smaller, would you?" the first time -- it's inconsequential, but we can consider it if you like.

gambiting 1y ago
>>That doesn't matter, these are just words. Except it isn't, because you keep doing this to pretend like you're paying 50% of your salary in taxes which just isn't true. No one advertises a job as "pays €60k a year" and then you find out it includes the employer contribution too so actually your salary is more like €40k. If anyone did that you'd call it fraudulent. >>I'll go to my boss directly and say that "my income is now smaller than it should be" and ask for increase in gross ......why? You are paid exactly what you agreed to be paid. If your employer negotiated cheaper electricity deal for the office would you go and ask for a raise too? >>The bigger it is, the less the employee gets Again, why? The company would just pocket the money and not pay you more. I honestly don't see why they would. >>In general, I pay more attention to what people do, not what they say But this is a comments section on hacker news - discussion is the entire point. But look, we just aren't going to agree on this. I just never met anyone in my life who would consider their employer's legal obligations paid directly to the state as part of their salary - if you do that's cool, I have no interest in making you change that view, we're two random strangers on the internet.
- alexey-salmin 1y ago
  > Except it isn't, because you keep doing this to pretend like you're paying 50% of your salary in taxes which just isn't true. No one advertises a job as "pays €60k a year" and then you find out it includes the employer contribution too so actually your salary is more like €40k. If anyone did that you'd call it fraudulent. You consider the world as static picture where a salary is what your contract says it is. It doesn't have to be like this. Your salary is what you contract says, but you have a certain power over what it says. Contract by itself is a derivative of the economic situation, not the source of truth. In the end your salary is what you can negotiate and in this view you salary is heavily affected by employer contributions because it affects the negotiations. If your negotiation power increases, your salary can increase. If it drops, the company will pay you 3 months of wage, fire you and hire someone cheaper. > ......why? You are paid exactly what you agreed to be paid. Because I'm getting the maximum of what I can negotiate with the company. If they suddenly have more money in the people budget, I can obviously negotiate more. And if not, I'm getting a better offer elsewhere because the job market is very different now. > If your employer negotiated cheaper electricity deal for the office would you go and ask for a raise too? It depends, in a realistic scenario: no, because electricity is not a part of the people's budget, impact on the company profitability will be near zero and in the end this doesn't change the job market much, only affects my company locally. So counteroffer technique won't work either. However in an imaginary case of electricity prices crashing all across the country overnight making businesses more profitable: yes, I think I'll try to negotiate a raise. > Again, why? The company would just pocket the money and not pay you more. I honestly don't see why they would. It depends on how hard it is to replace you. Effectively there's new money on the table and you'll split that money with your employer. If you're hard to replace, you'll take the bigger cut or even all of it. If you're easy to replace, you get zero or else they'll get someone else who agrees to get zero. > But look, we just aren't going to agree on this. I just never met anyone in my life who would consider their employer's legal obligations paid directly to the state as part of their salary - if you do that's cool, I have no interest in making you change that view, we're two random strangers on the internet. Of course, we argue for the pleasure of it but I think our intentions are different. I don't have a goal of changing your definition of words -- you can keep the ones you like. However I think it's worth trying to change your world view. My suggestion: try thinking of your salary (if you're a hired worker) as something you can negotiate not something set in stone (you can call it $alary if you like). Twice in my career I approached my employer with an external offer and twice I got a 2x counter-offer. They didn't say "You are paid exactly what you agreed to be paid", it's not how it works. You need to play it well but it's an extremely strong negotiation technique. There are others but they're more complicated to execute so I suggest to start with this one.

gambiting 1y ago

>>That doesn't matter, these are just words. Except it isn't, because you keep doing this to pretend like you're paying 50% of your salary in taxes which just isn't true. No one advertises a job as "pays €60k a year" and then you find out it includes the employer contribution too so actually your salary is more like €40k. If anyone did that you'd call it fraudulent. >>I'll go to my boss directly and say that "my income is now smaller than it should be" and ask for increase in gross ......why? You are paid exactly what you agreed to be paid. If your employer negotiated cheaper electricity deal for the office would you go and ask for a raise too? >>The bigger it is, the less the employee gets Again, why? The company would just pocket the money and not pay you more. I honestly don't see why they would. >>In general, I pay more attention to what people do, not what they say But this is a comments section on hacker news - discussion is the entire point. But look, we just aren't going to agree on this. I just never met anyone in my life who would consider their employer's legal obligations paid directly to the state as part of their salary - if you do that's cool, I have no interest in making you change that view, we're two random strangers on the internet.

alexey-salmin 1y ago
> Except it isn't, because you keep doing this to pretend like you're paying 50% of your salary in taxes which just isn't true. No one advertises a job as "pays €60k a year" and then you find out it includes the employer contribution too so actually your salary is more like €40k. If anyone did that you'd call it fraudulent. You consider the world as static picture where a salary is what your contract says it is. It doesn't have to be like this. Your salary is what you contract says, but you have a certain power over what it says. Contract by itself is a derivative of the economic situation, not the source of truth. In the end your salary is what you can negotiate and in this view you salary is heavily affected by employer contributions because it affects the negotiations. If your negotiation power increases, your salary can increase. If it drops, the company will pay you 3 months of wage, fire you and hire someone cheaper. > ......why? You are paid exactly what you agreed to be paid. Because I'm getting the maximum of what I can negotiate with the company. If they suddenly have more money in the people budget, I can obviously negotiate more. And if not, I'm getting a better offer elsewhere because the job market is very different now. > If your employer negotiated cheaper electricity deal for the office would you go and ask for a raise too? It depends, in a realistic scenario: no, because electricity is not a part of the people's budget, impact on the company profitability will be near zero and in the end this doesn't change the job market much, only affects my company locally. So counteroffer technique won't work either. However in an imaginary case of electricity prices crashing all across the country overnight making businesses more profitable: yes, I think I'll try to negotiate a raise. > Again, why? The company would just pocket the money and not pay you more. I honestly don't see why they would. It depends on how hard it is to replace you. Effectively there's new money on the table and you'll split that money with your employer. If you're hard to replace, you'll take the bigger cut or even all of it. If you're easy to replace, you get zero or else they'll get someone else who agrees to get zero. > But look, we just aren't going to agree on this. I just never met anyone in my life who would consider their employer's legal obligations paid directly to the state as part of their salary - if you do that's cool, I have no interest in making you change that view, we're two random strangers on the internet. Of course, we argue for the pleasure of it but I think our intentions are different. I don't have a goal of changing your definition of words -- you can keep the ones you like. However I think it's worth trying to change your world view. My suggestion: try thinking of your salary (if you're a hired worker) as something you can negotiate not something set in stone (you can call it $alary if you like). Twice in my career I approached my employer with an external offer and twice I got a 2x counter-offer. They didn't say "You are paid exactly what you agreed to be paid", it's not how it works. You need to play it well but it's an extremely strong negotiation technique. There are others but they're more complicated to execute so I suggest to start with this one.