Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have to imagine it, I live in California. Top federal income tax: 37% Top California income tax: 13.3% Federal Medicare tax: 1.45% Additional federal medicare tax*: 0.9% The "additional" Medicare tax is only on whatever income is over $200k/$250k for single/joint filers. Call it "0.55% effective". Adds up to 52.3%. There's also a sizeable additional capital gains tax for three lucky ones who live in Californi…
Top California income tax: 13.3% That's the marginal rate applicable to each additional dollar over the threshold, not an overall rate.
No meetings, no deadlines, no full-time employees
501–510 of 543 posts
Re: No meetings, no deadlines, no full-time employees
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imaging paying 10%+ of your salary just for health insurance I decided to actually look at my budget from the last year and see how this compares to my costs. In Australia I pay about ~28% of my salary in tax. 2% is for medicare, and I have private health insurance on top of that for roughly the same cost again (for dental, which isn't covered in our system because of dentists lobbying an exception back in the 80s)…
> In Australia I pay about ~28% of my salary in tax. 2% is for medicare ... This is a common misunderstanding in Australia. The Medicare levy, as it's called, is an administration levy, not a 'this all goes to healthcare, and healthcare is only funded by this' tax. Originally set in 1984 at 1% and guaranteed to never to go up , it is now at 2%. (Aside - within two years it was raised to 1.25%, then in 1993 bumped to…
> Point being it's incorrect, and quite misleading, to assert that 2% of your salary 'is for medicare', as a simple breakdown for public health shows that, per-dollar, it's somewhere in the range of 10-25%
I want to push back on this a little though.
The implication that it actually costs 10-25% of your salary is just as misleading, as individual taxes only account for So maybe a better middle-ground would be to say it costs 5-12.5%? Even then, I'm not sure where you're getting that upper 25% figure from, a cursory search shows _total_ expenditure on health care (medicare + private together) was Looking at the budget, it's ~14% of expenditure [2]
So if we assume that all this money is fungible we could expect that ~7% of my salary, or 8.5% of all tax I ever pay, goes to government health expenditures.
Adding on my private cover and out-of-pocket expenses get me to about 10%, exactly what the OP is claiming they pay...but that was paying for _just_ insurance. The US government still spends huge amounts on health care, so a chunk of their taxes are going there too, and there is the out of pocket expenses etc.
As you say, an exact figure isn't easy to determine. But comparing the 2% medicare levy + my private health insurance to the 10% OP's US insurance cost seems pretty reasonable. They are paying more than that for healthcare out of pocket and their other taxes, so am I. The deal in Australia still seems much better than the US one.
[0] See Table 2: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart...
[1] https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/3be568f2-d938-4575-bf1f-874...
[2] See appendix B: https://budget.gov.au/2020-21/content/overview.htm#three
Re: No meetings, no deadlines, no full-time employees
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d love something like this: I loathe the bullshit factory process has become.
Process is one of those things you have whether you think about it or not. It's up to you collectively to decide if it is BS or not, too heavy, too light, etc. I'm not suggesting everyone has the influence to change process much at the place they work, but they idea that there is a single "thing" called process and some places have it and some don't is just dangerously misleading. It is true that process tends to nat…
Re: No meetings, no deadlines, no full-time employees
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you were working 80% as much, they would probably only be able to pay 70% of your salary. ...why? Unless there's an implication that they'd need to hire more people, why would they need to pay you less? If you're generating the same amount of revenue, just working fewer hours, their fixed profit should be able to cover your fixed healthcare whether you work 80% of the time or 10% of the time. As long as they aren…
> If you're generating the same amount of revenue if you worked only 80% but is able to generate the same revenue as working at 100%, then surely one of the following must be true: you either slack off the 20% of the time, or the company is overpaying you for the work you do! Therefore, it must be assumed that if you worked only 80% of the time, you're only 80% effective. So the fixed cost of an employee doesn't decr…
Re: No meetings, no deadlines, no full-time employees
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience, in Europe (at least in Switzerland and Germany) it's much more common for people to work 80% than it is in the US.
Curious how being laid back in regards to work opens up opportunity from countries such as China that have some companies working 996 schedules (9-am - 9pm, 6 days a week) to overtake and make obsolete European global companies. I guess the only way EU can compete is protectionism, no?
Re: No meetings, no deadlines, no full-time employees
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience, in Europe (at least in Switzerland and Germany) it's much more common for people to work 80% than it is in the US.
Curious how being laid back in regards to work opens up opportunity from countries such as China that have some companies working 996 schedules (9-am - 9pm, 6 days a week) to overtake and make obsolete European global companies. I guess the only way EU can compete is protectionism, no?
Re: No meetings, no deadlines, no full-time employees
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
If two equally capable entities are competing, the one who puts in more time will almost always win. The Chinese may be lacking the (social and physical) infrastructure that the Europeans have a head start on for productivity, but they are catching up or have already caught up. This probably applies less to big conglomerates who exist and will continue existing regardless of what happens (honestly most of their emplo…
No. I can guarantee you that in general in software engineering, you will produce the same result, whether you work 30 or 40 or 60 hr a week. The productive hours will be the same as you just have so much focused hours inside of you.
Re: No meetings, no deadlines, no full-time employees
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious how being laid back in regards to work opens up opportunity from countries such as China that have some companies working 996 schedules (9-am - 9pm, 6 days a week) to overtake and make obsolete European global companies. I guess the only way EU can compete is protectionism, no?
They even fail at protectionism. They try to take on American tech but get swatted away in the courts when they realize they need American tech to be remotely competitive again. There's a reason America is launching Teslas into space while the EU bickers in court
Re: No meetings, no deadlines, no full-time employees
#509> When someone new joins the company, they do what everyone else does: go into our Notion queue, pick a task, and get to work, asking for clarification when needed... Instead of setting quarterly goals or using OKRs, we move towards a single north star: maximizing how much money creators earn. It’s simple and measurable, allowing anyone in the company to do the math on how much a feature or bug-fix might be worth. Qu…
Re: No meetings, no deadlines, no full-time employees
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I make more than enough to afford proper health insurance on the open market. Everyone at Gumroad is paid very well and should be able to afford the same. This might be true for everyone at Gumroad , but I wouldn't be so sure. You also seem dismissive (probably unintentionally) of one of the biggest problems we have in the US right now: health care and insurance is ridiculously expensive–especially for people with…
My company pays $3,000/month for health insurance for my family of 5. I assume it's pretty good insurance at that price, but we still have to fight the insurance company tooth and nail whenever we have medical bills.
Isn't $36000/year above the US average income? How is that even possible?