| ▲ | tw04 6 hours ago |
| Based on what data? A quick google search says the average automation engineer in Germany makes 90k euro to $107k in the US. And the German has universal healthcare, clocks out at 5 and can’t be bothered, and gets real vacation time. https://www.salaryexpert.com/salary/job/automation-engineer/ |
|
| ▲ | legulere 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Median automation engineer in Germany made 78 840 € in 2025, according to government statistics https://web.arbeitsagentur.de/entgeltatlas/beruf/59351 |
| |
| ▲ | spiderfarmer 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Now do per working hour, including benefits. | | |
| ▲ | mstaoru 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Per working hour would be €157,680. | | |
| ▲ | 21asdffdsa12 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | German Ex-Automation engineer here - was more like 120€ - don't forget they usually sub-contract that out.. | |
| ▲ | froh 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > €157,680 outside germany the `,` reads as thousands-separator. may I offer you a `.` in exchange? also that's gross, not net (Brutto/Netto) which is _painfully_ lower. | | |
| ▲ | socksy 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think the joke is that they only work half an hour a year... | |
| ▲ | mstaoru 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I meant it as a thousands separator. | |
| ▲ | ahartmetz 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Net is usually a little more than half of gross if your salary is high. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | larnon 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can't trust a quick google search nowadays for anything. I work in Germany. Any engineer making that much money has to be a senior at a higher position with loads of responsibilities (which means the average is nowhere near), plus living in a city that is considered expensive. Also, half that money goes to taxes. (someone has to pay for the universal healthcare afterall) |
| |
| ▲ | aktenlage 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > half that money goes to taxes That is a misguided simplification. Please correct this, before anyone starts to believe it for real. | | |
| ▲ | alberto-m 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | More precisely, given a salary of 85'000€, about 17'500 (20.5%) goes into income tax and about 16'800 (19.7%) goes into social contributions, though one can reduce the latter by taking a private health insurance*. The remaining 60% (Nettolohn) can be used to purchase things, usually paying 19% of VAT on them (though rent is exempt and food has a lower tax). So, “half goes away in taxes” is an exaggeration, but I can totally sympathize with the feeling. Especially since the quality of healthcare is declining and the pay-as-you-go pension system is only built to benefit the current generation of pensioners. * note that, if one is earning less than 77'000€ today or less than 84'150€ in 2027, one is prohibited to switch to a private insurance. One of the most regressive precepts of the German system. | | |
| ▲ | sva_ 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think you should also mention the ~17k Euro social contributions that your employer pays on top, which could otherwise be part of your salary. Then it is actually pretty much 50% | | |
| ▲ | alberto-m 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Correct: if one takes as basis not the Bruttolohn but the total cost for the company, the sum of taxes and mandatory social contribution can very well reach the half of the income. The method of splitting employer-side and employee-side deductions seems just there to hide this fact. | | |
| ▲ | aktenlage 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Most taxes are deducted when money is transferred between two parties. The view that one party pays it all (Brutto-Netto and VAT) seems wrong to me. I anyway doubt that the wages would be at the same standard if there wouldn't be any deductions (from the beginning). Wages in expensive cities are higher because the cost of living must be matched. Similarly salary negotiations account for deductions. Nobody wants a job that doesn't pay the bills. |
| |
| ▲ | KellyCriterion 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There are two terms in German salary: "visible" and "invisble" Brutto. The one is without "contributions from employer", which is a lie anyway since an employer makes a total comp perspective and he for sure includes his "contribution" into that | |
| ▲ | vel0city 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | US also has federal employer-paid payroll taxes the employee usually doesn't see or think about. For a $110k salary the federal employer paid payroll taxes would be almost $8,500, or ~7.69%. They would also pay some amount to unemployment insurance, but that rate depends a lot state by state. I realize that's less than the Euro taxes, just wanted to share so everyone is aware of these often forgotten US taxes when compared. |
| |
| ▲ | sajithdilshan 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Don’t forget the mandatory radio broadcast fee every household has to pay even if you don’t read or watch any of those propaganda channels | | |
| ▲ | f1shy 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And if we are comparing USA vs Germany, taxes to gas (car fuel) which is much more expensive in the EU, because of taxes. | |
| ▲ | encom 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Same in Denmark, and it really boils my piss. DR (Danmarks Radio) is 80% trash. If I was dictator in Denmark I would abolish it on the spot. I won't deny that DR produces things that are not trash or only mildly trash, but I have no interest in it. People who want it can fund it themselves. State financed reality TV is an abomination. |
| |
| ▲ | aktenlage 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Thank you. I think it is important to be (at least a bit) precise in this debate. I dislike the wording "social contribution", as these are (mandatory) insurances that benefit the insured person in case of sickness, retirement, loss of employment, etc. Discussion about the cost efficiency and fairness of the system are warranted, of course. Anyway, the current generation of retirees benefit greatly from it, so for them at least it was worth paying. Since you are accounting all those taxes, including the VAT on the citizen's side, companies only pay the Arbeitgeberanteil (you didn't mention) and the taxes on profit? | |
| ▲ | kuerbel 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >One of the most regressive precepts of the German system. If you mean the existence of two-tier private/public insurance, yes. The two-tier system was abolished in most of Europe for good reason. Either they abolished substitutive private insurance, restricted it, or transformed private insurers into regulated providers of universal basic coverage, e.g. very recently in the Netherlands. | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | usewik 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Having worked in another EU country, I can attest that I paid as much as 56% in taxes, so I believe a guy who says that he works in Germany and pays half in taxes. If you have other data, you are welcome to present it. | | |
| ▲ | chmod775 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you make 90k in Germany, you pay around 36k to mandatory (varying degrees) insurance/pension plus taxes if you're single. About 19.5k of that are actual taxes. If you're married/have children that total can drop to ~30k and will include health insurance for your entire family unit. | | |
| ▲ | criddell 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If these people are to be believed, tax freedom day (the day you stop paying taxes and start paying yourself) in Germany is July 11 so just over 50%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day | | |
| ▲ | chmod775 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I just gave you the actual numbers. The same numbers you will quickly get by using any of the many available net income calculators for Germany[0]. If you have a different idea, feel free to break the 90k down yourself. Don't lazily push the work on other people, asking them to puzzle together where some neglected Wikipedia articles' table of magic numbers actually comes from. Hint: It's a number made up by an interest group called the "German Taxpayers Federation", representing mostly entrepreneurs and wealthy taxpayers. The number being opaque is intentional, because its purpose is to mislead and support their advocacy for tax cuts. But by all means, don't let me stand in the way of your right to blindly believe whatever someone else wants you to. God forbid we input a five digit number into a calculator. What will it take? A notarially certified copy of tax returns mailed to your address? [0] First Google result: https://www.brutto-netto-rechner.info/gehalt/gross_net_calcu... | | |
| ▲ | criddell 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | You have to add in all the other taxes as well. For example VAT, gasoline, and property taxes are significant. That's generally what tax freedom day is meant to mean - when an average citizen is done paying all taxes. Edit: I was curious what the answer might be and couldn't find much. One source calculates the tax burden to be about 53% of income. https://www.steuerzahler.de/belastungs-check/?L=0 | | |
| ▲ | chmod775 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > https://www.steuerzahler.de/belastungs-check/?L=0 The link you provided is the web page of the interest group I mentioned. They will literally try any trick in the book to get that number up, including adding a bunch of things that aren't even taxes, a boatload of things they call "quasi-taxes" with numbers presumably pulled from their ass, and adding expenses your employer incurs only to subtract them again immediately. Anything to get that percentage number up. But even they don't even call the resulting number "tax burden" - that'd be transparently stupid. They more generally call it a "burden ratio" (Belastungsquote). Just to give you an idea of how ridiculous their calculations are: If my wages are 90k in Germany, they do their calculations as if I earned ~105k just so they can immediately subtract the entire 15k again and call it a burden (for expenses my employer pays on my behalf). Does this still sound like something you can easily compare one country to the next and draw useful conclusions from? Of course not. In the next country it might come from an interest group with a different goal, a government calculation, or a Fox News writer. > You have to add in all the other taxes as well. For example VAT, gasoline, and property taxes are significant. That's generally what tax freedom day is meant to mean - when an average citizen is done paying all taxes. What you're trying to get at - hopefully because the alternative is a nonsense number with no purpose other than being a fun fact supporting a discussion about degrees of individual autonomy in modern societies - is called discretionary income, and it's only meaningful when adjusted for cost of living and compared across similar living situations. | | |
| ▲ | kakacik 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > If my wages are 90k in Germany, they do their calculations as if I earned ~105k just so they can immediately subtract the entire 15k again and call it a burden (for expenses my employer pays on my behalf). Aren't you talking about social contributions that your employer is forced by law to pay on your behalf? You realize that if this was not in place, those money would go directly to you since your salary is whole sum your employer is paying towards your employment? Doesn't seem you grok it fully from your words. I am not claiming if its good or bad (dramatic global financial changes will test viability of all these systems rather well in upcoming years, I'd expect many people will be unhappy when their naive views hit reality of numbers). I am outside of such system, in mostly private social system in Switzerland (aka I save for myself, mostly) and wouldn't want it any other way. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | ajmurmann 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Don't forget VAT | | |
| ▲ | chmod775 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I can spend that in whichever tax jurisdiction I want and the VAT rate might be whatever depending on what one buys. If you want to go that route you'd then also have to adjust for cost/quality of living to stay intellectually honest, which means you'd then have to come up with some statistical consumer basket. It's a stupid idea to even start down that route in what fits into HN comments. | | |
| ▲ | kakacik 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you pay VAT on almost anything? It affects how much your actual disposable income is and thus literally how much you can purchase. Nobody said its going to be trivial to calculate, reality doesn't care about that. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | chmod775 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You however have to admire getting things that wrong in the same paragraph that tells one to not trust what one sees in Google searches. Though I suppose HN comments would show in Google searches... maybe their humor just went over my head. | |
| ▲ | bbmatryoshka 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 49% of that money goes to taxes | |
| ▲ | pembrook 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sorry, you’re the one who is misguided here. Government spending as a % of GDP in Germany is exactly 50%. So definitionally half of all money goes to taxes. Are you counting in VAT on everything OP spends that money on? Are you counting capital gains taxes OP pays when investing that money? Are you counting the taxes paid by the employer for his role (which defacto come out of his pay, just before he gets it)? The property taxes he pays to live? The employer doesn’t look at the employees salary as the only cost. Employers look at things rationally, using the all-in cost to employ someone (the combined total of all salary and government mandated taxes and benefits contributions). In many European countries this is 2X the persons salary or more. | |
| ▲ | greenavocado 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | flohofwoe 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That "health care argument" is getting a bit tiring tbh. The US government spends much more than any European country per capita on health care (the US system is simply less efficient), and the chunk of your wage that goes into your health insurance isn't a tax either. | | |
| ▲ | groundzeros2015 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | US consumers also have high standards for healthcare. I interact with a lot of engineers moving from Europe and US and it’s never how US politics portray it. German friends talk about paying for private insurance because the public one is so bad. | | |
| ▲ | bcrosby95 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How do you define good/bad? People mostly seem to talk about wait time for socialized health care, but where we live in US there's plenty of specialists that you gotta book months ahead of time. When my mom needed a pacemaker it was a 4 month process. My wife's OBGYN is booked a year out - god help you if you miss an appointment. Anyone working in pediatrics look like zombies. Urgent care clinics have been big in our region. The primary system is obviously overloaded, and 2 of these have popped up in the last 3 years. It's more expensive per visit than our primary physician, but cheaper than an ER visit, which could easily take half a day anyways. | |
| ▲ | flohofwoe 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Complaining about the service quality for public health insurance customers in Germany is pretty much the definition of "first world problem" though. FWIW I never switched over to private insurance even though my income would allow it, also once you get above a certain age you can't switch back and that's when the private insurers really start to rip you off ;) | | |
| ▲ | groundzeros2015 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | And despite that they are willing to pay, because if you are out of poverty your health is a high priority! So yes, Americans love consuming healthcare. Is there any category they aren’t a high consumer of? You can’t measure efficiency only looking at the input side. | | |
| ▲ | flohofwoe 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think the main reason why high income Germans switch to private health insurance is less about service quality, but because they may actually pay less than public insurance (at least until they get near pension age). Can't talk for US citizens of course. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | usewik 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who is making this 'health care argument' you are responding to? | | |
| ▲ | flohofwoe 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maybe fully read the comment I'm responding to? The implication is that European countries (and especially Germany) spend an extraordinary amount of tax money on health care and that's why taxes are so high. This is basically wrong from start to finish. You also don't pay half of your wage in taxes in Germany. The chunk that's removed from your gross wage before pay out includes your mandatory employee insurances (health-, pension- and unemployment-insurances), and that's how you end up "losing" about 30% to 45% of your gross salary before pay out (the actual "tax part" is somewhere between 10 and 25% depending on income, marriage status etc...) |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | alberto-m 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The German value seems very suspect. Glassdoor, for the same job role, says €53,000 to €80,000 per year which is probably lower than the truth (Glassdoor overweighs junior roles) but looks much more realistic to me. |
|
| ▲ | sajithdilshan 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is such a misconception. There is no such thing as universal healthcare in Germany. Everyone pays for it as a mandatory percentage from their salaries every month as a health insurance fee. You can’t opt out from it and there is a very high barrier to switch to a private health insurance which can be cheaper if you’re young and healthy. The fucked up part is that the higher your salary you end up paying more money to receive the same service as someone paying way less with a lowers salary. Think of it as one paying 5$ for Netflix and other paying 50$ to watch the same shows with no change in service offering. Also, since covid times the health service has degraded significantly. You have to wait months to get an appointment for a specialist and also if you are single then you would be the one paying the most for it. Further, from a 100k salary you take only 58k home (Single person that is Tax class I). Keep in mind 100k salary is not that common in Germany and only a handful of people earn that much. This site calculates the take home salary and taxes/social contributions. (https://www.brutto-netto-rechner.info/gehalt/gross_net_calcu...) You between 25-30 vacation days and work time can be flexible depending on where you work. I would say Germany is a good place if you’re married and have kids. Then you get a lot of subsidies from the government and it’s relatively cheap to raise children in Germany. But if you’re young and single, you will be punished for that will be taxed the most. |
| |
| ▲ | kuerbel 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That is not "fucked up" it is called the solidarity principle. You contribute when you have the capacity to contribute, and society protects you when you happen to need more than you can afford. Netflix is a consumer product, and health insurance is risk pooling. You're treating health insurance as if you're buying healthcare services. You're not. You're buying protection against an uncertain financial risk. Also you forgot the contribution assessment ceiling at €69,750/year. However, Germany has a legitimate problem when contribution levels, service quality, and access aren't aligned with what people feel they're paying. That is a different discussion which needs much more nuance and intimate knowledge of the German healthcare system. | | |
| ▲ | sajithdilshan 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The fucked up part is the forced solidarity and high barrier to exit the so called solidarity principle. You need 77,400€ annual salary to switch to private insurance in 2026 and in 2027 it will be increased to 84,150€. | | |
| ▲ | ba1afd89f34cb23 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The fucked up part is the forced solidarity Of course it is forced, it has to be. What's the alternative? Make it voluntary, which immediately will lead to the total cost only being spread across sick people that definitely are going to cost the system money, resulting in an immediate increase in coverage cost, making it unavailable to a large part of the population? Just look at how well removal of the fee for non-coverage under the ACA worked in the US. That's just "let's take health insurance away from poor people" with more steps. | | |
| ▲ | kharak 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not op, but it’s solidarity if money is freely given, let’s call it something else when money is taken without consent. | | |
| ▲ | ba1afd89f34cb23 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The Solidaritätsprinzip is named that to distinguish it from the Äquivalenzprinzip (equivalency principle) of private insurance: with private insurance, your cost rate is determined by the services you would like to have covered as well as the assessed risk that you will consume these services as calculated by the insurance carrier's actuaries. In Germany (and other European countries), the public option insurance instead only uses your income to determine your rate: the insured risks are common and paid by everyone together instead of by the individual. "Solidarity" is a pretty good term for that abstract idea. What would you like to suggest instead? And yeah, I understand that people that do not buy into the concept of a society pooling together such risk to create a model that works best in the aggregate instead of emphasizing individual choice are going to hate everything about this. If you want to be able to save money in exchange for taking on risk, such a society can't let you easily do that because it'll inevitably lead to a tragedy of the commons; such a society would also likely help you anyway if you made the wrong risk trade-offs and become a burden to the state. Also, let's be clear: this principle is still very popular in Germany. I haven't lived there in a long time so I was curious and gave it 30 seconds. Admittedly the source here is an insurance carrier, but they found in a survey that while 66% of Germans last year were worried about insurance costs and the financial sustainability of the German healthcare system, 73% support the solidarity principle (https://www.aok.de/pp/gg/update/solidaritaet-gkv/) | |
| ▲ | boplicity 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why not call it taxes? And there certainly is consent, given voters can choose to elect people who will change the system, or not. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jonasdegendt 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Are you in favor of abolishing car insurance as well? It’s the same principle, pool money, pay out when necessary. It lets everyone, including those less well off, enjoy relatively low insurance premiums and you get personal mobility in return. I’m well off, part of the reason I’m well off is because I was lucky enough to be born in a place that provided lots of stability and opportunity (schooling, health care, et al), it’s nice to give back. Sure, there’s flaws and waste in places, but I’ve had a family member go through extensive medical treatment because of cancer and I genuinely wish that level of care and options for everyone, so paying my taxes and health insurance premiums it is! | |
| ▲ | ivan_gammel 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The word „solidarity“ means here that you empathize with other people and contribute to shared prosperity and success. You share the healthcare system with a lot of people who make the country what it is. Some of them earn less, some earn more, and that‘s ok. With your contributions you make sure that those who bake your wonderful bread, run the public transport or clean the streets in your neighborhood are covered. If you would rather prefer American system with its deficiencies, because you are high earner and don‘t like to share, you can always go there. Dubai is also nice for people with some cash and tolerance to human rights violations. What is really fucked up about Germany, is that exit to private insurance exists in principle, and our Bundesmimose Friedrich Merz have never used statutory one. The existing system has deteriorated only because nobody in the government is using it and has no clue what people now experience daily. | | |
| ▲ | KellyCriterion 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >
What is really fucked up about Germany, is that exit to private insurance exists in principle, and our Bundesmimose Friedrich Merz have never used statutory one. The existing system has deteriorated only because nobody in the government is using it and has no clue what people now experience daily
< its designed that way, no worries. |
| |
| ▲ | shevy-java 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well, people would not want to pay more, so free solidarity can not work. The net result will be higher taxes, of course. The question is whether these costs are worth it or not, but not the "let people do what they want" as that won't work - see how US billionaires don't really give up their wealth voluntarily. And now, building a foundation is just an excuse to not give the money to the people. It is for their protection of wealth, not for solidarity. |
| |
| ▲ | 21asdffdsa12 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It would be solidarity, if there was not a heavy anti-solidarity side to it. You can import millions into this system that dont pay a dime, do not contribute to it (in fact need subsidys to make a living wage) but also consume the services in equal amounts. | | |
| ▲ | kuerbel 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | That is not anti solidarity, I know Afternative für Deutschland voters like to frame it this way but it's not. | | |
| ▲ | shevy-java 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That is not an argument though. He gave a specific example. You brought up only AfD, without giving any counter-example or refuting his arguments. That's now how a discussion should work. See it from the other side: the argument IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT with regards to AfD or any other party. So, an argument should be made from this point of view as well. | | |
| ▲ | kuerbel 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They haven't brought up any argument at all, they simply said that "millions imported into the system do not contribute", which is not an argument or a fact. Just a statement. What is there to discuss? Why are you holding my comment to a different standard, because you don't agree or what? But just for you I have looked up the facts: 1.1 million Ukrainian refugees, and half of them are employed by now. 1.1 million including children, elderly, and so on, people who aren't able to work. A) its not "millions" B) german overall employment rate is about 45.5 million employed people out of 83.5 million residents. So they are totally in line with the average population. | | |
| ▲ | KellyCriterion 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >
or a fact.
< Obviously, you are not a local! Statistics all around, from Gov to private orgs, tell quite the opposite. | |
| ▲ | bijowo1676 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | noone was complaining about Ukrainian refugees, you missed the other area where refugees come but never contribute back to society except crime |
| |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can’t remove party politics from a discussion of national healthcare. It is absolutely relevant. |
| |
| ▲ | sajithdilshan 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Please keep your narrow political views to yourself. Just because someone tells and true fact about hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees that didn’t payed a single Euro into the health insurance system keeps on benefiting from it, doesn’t make them an AfD voter. That’s a sentiment shared by people from every political spectrum in Germany from Linke to AfD. If you like it or not, it is anti-solidarity if you benefit from a system that you have never contributed. That is just free loading and one should be ashamed of it. | | |
| ▲ | azan_ 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Aren't Ukrainians actually large net contributors? | |
| ▲ | customguy 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The act of giving involves someone who receives, that doesn't make it anti-giving. > it is anti-solidarity if you benefit from a system that you have never contributed What's your stance on disabled children who can never sustain themselves? | | |
| ▲ | sajithdilshan 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don’t have any problem with disabled children or even adults being taken care of by the society. But that’s not the point. Fully able bodied people that can work and contribute are taking advantage of the system without giving back anything to the system. That’s what’s anti-solidarity |
| |
| ▲ | adaml_623 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Should be ashamed" linked to refugees. This is a clear comment showing that your moral compass is quite broken. | | |
| ▲ | sajithdilshan 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | That’s not true. There is a limitation where one is charitable without taken advantage of. You cannot expect one to be a life long refugee and keep on sucking resources from the system. They need to start contributing back as soon as possible. Otherwise how sustainable and just do you think the system would be. Also this thread is the perfect example that one cannot even question the fairness of abusing the system because then they would be labled as immoral or an AfD voter | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | PorciiVorbesc 22 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
| |
| ▲ | alnxdrawr 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | As the main reason for my expatriation out fo a similar system I'd happily stay and pay if the service was good and the providence state was not collapsing. As it stands its just an extraction machine to the boomer benefit and it wont survive by the time i will need it | | |
| ▲ | sajithdilshan 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree with you. People would not complain and happily pay a premium for a really good service. But that’s not the case in Germany. Younger generation would absolutely end up paying even more in the future to sustain the health costs of aging boomers. Also the pension scheme in Germany for a lack of better word, is a ponzi scheme. Again, younger generation is paying to sustain the boomers and by the time those young people goes into retirement, they would barely get anything out of what they have paid. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Ajedi32 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That's what universal healthcare fundamentally is; everyone pays for it regardless of whether they use it or not, and regardless of the quality of service they receive in return. What, did you think universal healthcare meant everything would be free? That's not possible; doctors and nurses don't work for free. | | |
| ▲ | sajithdilshan 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | No it’s not. The universal healthcare is everyone contributing to it equally. That’s not the case in Germany. Private health insurance holders doesn’t contribute to it at all and a certain professions like government workers, doctors, etc. have their own health insurance schemes and doesn’t pay into the statutory health insurance. Even the people that has to pay for the statutory health insurance pays different amounts and also there’s a group of people that benefits from it even without paying a single euro for it. So it’s not universal at all. Only a certain group pays for the majority and takes on the burden | | |
| ▲ | KellyCriterion 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >
certain professions like government workers, doctors, etc. have their own health insurance schemes
< Completely WRONG:
you are mixing up "job-dedicated" pension schemes like for lawyers or doctors with the healthcare setup - in healthcare, there are only two parties: "public" healthcare ("GKV") and "private" healthcare ("PKV"), these two types are not anyhow related to the job dedicated pension schemes. Correct is, mostly all politicians, high-earners, docs, lawyers etc. are chosing the "private" insurance version, for (at least until yet) several benefits compared to the ones using the "public" model. You are allowed to enter the private model above a certain salary, but you are not forced. It may be cheaper for some time, but at least if kids arrive it gets fucking expensive, since in the public model your children are insured for free,while in private mode you have to pay for them. Also handling private mode insurance is more work. | |
| ▲ | Ajedi32 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sounds really complicated, but at the end of the day as long as everyone has health insurance that's still by definition universal health insurance, right? In particular, having "a group of people that benefits from it even without paying a single euro for it" seems mandatory for it to be truly universal. It sounds to me like you're envisioning something different from universal healthcare, but it's not clear to me exactly what. | | |
| ▲ | sajithdilshan 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | What I want to make it clear is that people outside of Germany/Europe, especially Americans have this idea that everyone in Europe has health care because money appears magically to take care of everyone. But that’s not the case, it is true that everyone would get health care, but a group of people pays a significant portion to maintain that system (which is turning out to be unsustainable day-by-day) compared to majority of the people that truly benefit from it. For me universal healthcare would be something that everyone contributes equally and everyone benefits equally as well. | | |
| ▲ | toast0 an hour ago | parent [-] | | > For me universal healthcare would be something that everyone contributes equally and everyone benefits equally as well. Your version of universal healthcare must not cover much, because equal contributions that everyone can afford is not very much. Universal healthcare can only work if those with more ability to pay pay more or if you live in some utopia where everyone (including children, disabled people, and those too old to work) has the ability to pay for healthcare. If you want equal contribution, equal benefit, maybe auto repair is a better model. You might get some limited warranty, then anyone can go to any mechanic to get their car fixed, rates are generally posted and you get a mostly binding estimate before the work starts. This is a nice system, but I don't think anyone would call it universal auto repair. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | apexalpha 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can’t opt out from it This is the part that makes it universal. | |
| ▲ | boplicity 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Everyone pays for it as a mandatory percentage from their salaries every month as a health insurance fee. .... the higher your salary you end up paying more money to receive the same service Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds exactly how almost all income taxes work. > 5$ for Netflix and other paying 50$ to watch the same shows with no change in service offering. Counterpoint -- you pay taxes to get the full benefits that a stable society provides, which includes your ability to make any income at all. The more income you earn, the more benefit you're literally getting. > you’re young and single, you will be punished Don't worry, it's impossible to stay young and single forever. | |
| ▲ | randomNumber7 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I would say Germany is a good place if you’re married and have kids. Then you get a lot of subsidies from the government and it’s relatively cheap to raise children in Germany. The number of newborns in germany last year was lowest since WW2. Seems like most germans don't agree with this assessment. | | |
| ▲ | ricardobayes 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You have to be optimistic about the future, to have kids. And Germans lately are targeted with propaganda, algorithmic and amplified bad news. Every kind of german-speaking media and social media is full of dread, how the country is in a "freefall", etc. I saw the same in UK pre-brexit. | |
| ▲ | sajithdilshan 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s not just financials. Young people just don’t want to have that responsibility and burden and restriction of freedom that comes with having children. | |
| ▲ | KellyCriterion 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because cheap healthcare only is not a parameter for having kids (-: |
| |
| ▲ | leononame 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | My siblings have covered most of your points, but I think one gets overlooked easily: > Think of it as one paying 5$ for Netflix and other paying 50$ to watch the same shows with no change in service offering. This used to be the norm before department stores made fixed price popular. People would haggle, and more wealthy people usually paid more because they couldn't be bothered to haggle as much. | |
| ▲ | ambicapter 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The fucked up part is that the higher your salary you end up paying more money to receive the same service as someone paying way less with a lowers salary. That's basically how all progressive taxation works? | |
| ▲ | JAlexoid 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I hate to break it to you, but you have to wait for a specialist in US as well. Months is also a quite typical wait time. And even if you're on a princely healthcare plan - you're still out several thousand dollars for an ER visit. | | |
| ▲ | sajithdilshan 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | But the funny thing in Germany is that if you are on private health insurance, then you can get an appointment with a specialist like tomorrow or at most within a week. The months waiting time only applies to statutory health insurance payees and ironically they are the ones most of the time that pays a higher premium |
|
|
|
| ▲ | stingraycharles 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It’s really not a disputed fact at all that engineering jobs in the US pay more than in Europe, but that European jobs have more benefits such as vacation and social security, and US generally has higher cost of living. I am surprised that this suddenly is a “based on what data?” discussion. It has always been an apples / oranges comparison. |
| |
| ▲ | roarcher 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're surprised that people want evidence instead of blindly trusting (supposedly) common knowledge? If it's true it should be trivial to provide said evidence. |
|
|
| ▲ | schnitzelstoat 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The vacation time is genuinely better, yeah. The universal healthcare is hard to quantify - because most decent companies include health insurance in the US and the quality of the public healthcare provision in Europe can be quite patchy (i.e. location-dependent) Remember that you are comparing gross salaries too, and taxes are much higher in Germany so the engineer ends up with much less take-home pay. |
| |
| ▲ | lionkor 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That makes it easier to quantify. If I need to work a decent job at a decent company to have good healthcare, then a large number of people don't have good healthcare. This is not acceptable. Healthcare should be a basic right, and a lot of European countries treat it as such (e.g. in Germany, everyone is insured, no matter their employment status, and its mandatory and equal for everyone regardless of their job). People also can't be fired for being sick. | | |
| ▲ | hobo123 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | In theory yes, but they're really running the German healthcare system into the ground. Many doctors leave the country after graduating from University. Doctors cannot freely open a practice, they have to bend over for some central commie committee. And they will only receive a fixed amount of pay per quarter per patient depending on the disease. And of they have "too many" patients, at some point they have to treat them for free (payment is limited). The whole thing is a scam run by our politicians, who of course are all private insured. | | |
| |
| ▲ | tw04 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I hate to break it to you, healthcare in the US is extremely patchy and location dependent. I can also tell you working in tech for a very long time, if you aren’t working for a Silicon Valley company you might have health insurance options, but that doesn’t mean they’re any good. Especially if you have a preexisting condition. | | |
| ▲ | goosejuice 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > working for a Silicon Valley company you might have health insurance options, but that doesn’t mean they’re any good I'd love to hear about people working in 'tech' who don't have decent health insurance options. If that's you, where do you work and what do you do? > preexisting condition Not with ACA compliant plans | |
| ▲ | lotsofpulp 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Especially if you have a preexisting condition. What does this mean? https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/pre-existing-conditions/ https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-co... > Health insurance companies cannot refuse coverage or charge you more just because you have a “pre-existing condition” — that is, a health problem you had before the date that new health coverage starts. >Health insurers can no longer charge more or deny coverage to you or your child because of a pre-existing health condition like asthma, diabetes, or cancer, as well as pregnancy. >They cannot limit benefits for that condition either. Once you have insurance, they can't refuse to cover treatment for your pre-existing condition. This has been in effect since 2014 due to the Affordable Care Act. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | _the_inflator 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Former member of the Senior Management for a huge global bank operating in Germany. 1. These averages are an average. Rarely are they paid. I don't know where these numbers are from but the these numbers are for top earners in good paying industries. There are junior, normal and senior devs, sometimes above is a lead dev. Business maybe has 2-3 leads that govern a head count of dozens, and many working off-shore. It is called blended average. People who rank in 107k are paid including bonuses. And rarely make any further wage jumps. The dev who is paid 200k fixed in Germany is a myth, not even close to 120k. Germany hates IT and devs. Business comes first, and anything and everything regarding IT is considered a cost factor, a necessary burden. 2. Freelancers Freelancers rake in more money due to tax deductions. So a day rate of 800-1000EUR per month is a pay off and freelancers have to take care of the taxes etc. Companies on the other hand can deduct those "investments" and roughly pay half the price in the end. So, this is the problem with employment: you are a cost factor and you are a liability from the beginning due to worker rights etc. Germany punishes workers as well as freelancers. But I could not raise payment as I saw fit. Germany means yearly total times 1,25 = total cost for a company ("employers' part of the tax" as sugar coating for taxes above 60%). 100 workers with a yearly raise of 2-5% in payments amount exponentially and are a risk factor especially considering the fact that productivity rarely increases as well as value to the company on average. So ever increased payments over a span of 10-20 years. That is the problem with the system: socialism favors keeping you poor. Don't steal people and companies their hard earned money, lower taxes, allow for higher payments at will not by "number comparison and increase to all" and let companies workers decide where they spend their bucks. 3. Conclusion
You might wonder how much the guys really perceive on their bank account in the end. It may be lower than you think. Rule of fist: if you do not immediately make the switch to stay in the US you have lots of cuts along the way: company share, taxes. Before I went to Senior Management I was totally on your page. Now knowing both sides I see the matrix so to say. I am still on your side however business doesn't benefit from all the taxes. |
| |
| ▲ | KellyCriterion 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >
Freelancers rake in more money due to tax deductions
< Until now - the freelancer thingy is heavy under fire ("Scheinselbständigkeit") and its quite to difficult to have only one or two clients; also 1-person-GmbHs are heavy under fire from the public pension scheme. | |
| ▲ | fock 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I know a lot of devs paid 120k€ before socialism over here. Also: The 25% "employers part of the tax" isn't a tax but masking the burgeoning costs of (non-tax...) social security systems - benefit receiver are also the only people getting those regular 2-5% raises tbh. (and ofc. every capitalist earns these too I understand by looking at a bank's business model...) |
|
|
| ▲ | ph4rsikal 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Maybe the engineer makes 90K, but there are still thousands in social contributions. Can be up to 15K. |