Why is the Difference Between Net and Gross Salary a Percentage?


Hello everyone, I’ve been wondering for a little while now why do we have to take 25% (roughly) off the gross salary to get our take-home pay?

According to my information, it is the social contributions that go to the health insurance for example (not on…).

Why should this contribution be higher for a person who earns 1700/month than a person who earns 1500/month when they are doing the same job (They don’t necessarily do the same job but let’s take this example)?

The subject is open ^^

jack11

Hello,

you forgot the pension contribution (the biggest piece). And it’s normal that it’s a percentage, retirement is a percentage of your active income 😆

There is also the mutelle contribution (for some)

Edited on 30/10/2010 at 10:30 AM

KarLKoX

Jayce

2 not very complicated reasons:

  • There are things like retirement and unemployment, where the higher your salary, the higher your entitlements.
  • This is also the principle of solidarity of the French system: those who earn a little more money are asked to be generous so that everyone can benefit from a proper health system. Without it, there’s no chance of making enough money to run something at a good level.

Well, that’s the simple part, then it gets funnier, it’s also to look at the employer’s side who already paid some stuff from your salary before the gross
:wink:

chidory

We “ask” for solidarity… I’d say we’re forced to. Even the biggest skinflint in the department won’t have a choice.

I find it a little disgusting personally. Ok for some things then (retirement) but let’s take for example a person who dies before retirement. He will have contributed all his life and therefore will have had a less beautiful life (because he will not have benefited from his gross salary but only from the net).

Okay, it’s an exception, but still…

I’d like to find a list of all the dues if you have.

hisvin

In another system, you would put money aside for your retirement, so the day you blow it, you’ll still have lost it. [:shy]

PicRage

The difference is that you will have had the enjoyment of being able to use it all your life, in the other at any time
:smiley:

And then, given the number of people who are retiring before or very shortly after retirement, I would like someone to explain to me (in real [:jeanpopol] not the official blabla
:wink:
) how it can be underfunded.

Edited on 30/10/2010 at 21:03

chidory

It still disgusts me so much, I can’t think of any excuses.

Besides, this for this “retirement” that we are promised, if we were paid gross, we would be free to put aside part of our salary and, of course, earn interest on it ^^.

In short, for me, life boils down to: birth, learning about life, studies, work, retirement, death. And I bet not even half the people can brag about enjoying life… it just disgusts me. I think I’m going to go live somewhere else ^^.

hisvin

If you find a country that is different from “birth, life learning, education, work, retirement, death”, you call me and I’ll go there right away.
: smiley:

Jayce

Except that as the majority of men are unable to put 50% of their salary aside in order to build up a pension, to get through years of unemployment, or to overcome a medical problem that can cost tens of thousands of euros… your country will be a country where the majority of people are unable to take care of themselves, and where pensioners are dying in total poverty…

Basically it is to be rich in a poor country : neutral:

Too many levies to ensure that everyone does exactly the same may not be livable, but neither is the opposite consisting of pure individualism.

hisvin

It’s more expensive, actually.

I had found this comparison quite interesting without being exhaustive.

P.S: It’s about SECU and not pensions. :poof:

Edited on 31/10/2010 at 13:26

chidory

Can you give me a list of the deductions that are useful for you in social security contributions then?

hisvin => No problem I think I’ll let everyone know ^^

Jayce => It’s not my fault people can’t put money away. And they don’t have to if they want to make the most of it and live from day to day. I do agree, though.

Compared to what I understand from your vision of my world (^^), it would still be better to find a balance or to make people choose to contribute or not.

I’m disgusted to throw away 25% of my salary when I’m not even sure I’m going to enjoy it when I’m old.

Besides, an elderly person will not be able to go paragliding or whatever with his retirement money simply because his body is no longer able to keep up. This person would probably have had a better chance of paragliding at a young age with the dues we took from him.

I think it’s completely unfair.

hisvin

Life is unfair.

Jayce

1 – When you retire, what do you do if you haven’t put anything aside?

2 – Once retired, there must be as many people who are able to paraglide as there are people who are not able to enjoy it… people who after 20 years of retirement are still able to run the marathon… afterwards, their priority is often quite different from that of the 20 year olds.

The middle ground is what everyone is looking for… and that’s why people vote for people who are supposed to lead the country to the middle ground they are looking for. Some believe that there should be a system that allows people to live properly even if they are ill, unemployed, or retired… others want to guarantee the minimum subsistence level and that it should be up to each individual to provide for more (with the whole problem of defining the minimum subsistence level). Globally, the vast majority of men are somewhere between these two visions, whether in France or in the rest of the world… even if some of them may have other objectives.

Edited on 31/10/2010 at 13:53

chidory

I’m totally on board with that.

Jayce => 1- People have to be able to plan ahead, to be able to manage by themselves and to take control of their life instead of always relying on others.

2 – There may be as many people who can take advantage of it as those who can’t, but there are still 50% of people who have been “fucked” (sorry about the term but I can’t find anything else). I recognize that their priorities are other than 20 year olds but they are also restricted by their age (even if some of them are very good as you point out)

ps : people not gents ^^.

Most people are in between, so why do we always have to be the ones screwing around? Yet another excuse for not liking politics. Instead of voting for politicians who are all worse than each other, why shouldn’t the people vote for every law on their own? It’s easy to say “you voted for him so assume”, but you vote between m-crap or m-crap and in the end you end up with m-crap (more or less stinking).

It would be so nice if we were going to vote for a law and not for a person. Moreover, the rate of non-voting or blank voting is increasingly high…

Edited on 31/10/2010 at 22:49

hisvin

Jayce

Tell me, how would you do it if it’s that easy?

For a guy who doesn’t even know what he’s paying for, you seem pretty sure of yourself and your ability not to make any wrong moves or need others: angel:

If the majority in France supports this system, it’s because they believe it’s one of the best solutions to avoid being cheated by a bank or whatever when they need money: neutral:

chidory

I’m not saying it’s easy, but at least give us a choice as to what…

Besides, it’s better to be sure than to doubt H24, right? ^^

You say that the majority supports it but at the same time very few people of my generation think about it, for them it’s normal so we don’t talk about it.

I’m not just saying it’s MAL but I’d like to understand and be shown that it’s something essential.

Feel free to show it to me ^^

[sz]gazton

“Which generation is my generation?

you want to have the rate of contributions: you take your pay slip
: smiley:

the retirement bracket A is 7.5% + AGFF TA 2%.

an employee at 1500 or 1700 of the mm branch of activity, will have as much payroll deduction (in %). no difference.

why are you demonstrating something about a subject that you haven’t taken the time to identify? document yourself beforehand: neutral:

KaPriChieuZe

What do you want us to show you? That the laws are right or wrong?

But you don’t have a choice! That’s the way it is, and unless the government decides otherwise, that’s the way it’s always going to be!

but don’t complain after your care is not well reimbursed (even if it’s becoming more and more the case as people contribute more and more :paf: ) and you don’t get enough benefits if you’re unemployed 😐

then it becomes political order…

JohnnyG

To bring the debate to the other side we have countries that do the “deductions” at the base and somewhere it’s simpler to say that everything you touch you can spend it without having to say “hold the taxes will arrive soon, I have to see if I can pay them”…

For the social security there is that to look at the USA it’s not people reputed to do social work but they realized that it cost them more money not to allow access to basic health care (everyone ends up in the hospital with the costs we know) so they start to do it. (at the same time, France, which has always had 10-15 years of delay with the USA on this kind of problem, is having fun scuttling the rescue… soon it will come back…

And for the “operating costs” of the state (well, security, tax, social) a little something: We n’t make the poorest suffer the costs because they don’t have much… we can’t take too much from the “rich” because they move abroad, so who suffers? the middle or even lower middle slices (the one who doesn’t have the right to aid and who in the end gets by less well than the lower slice).

BZValoche

It’s clear that the withholding tax for salaried employees would not be bad.

[sz]gazton

yes the Swiss model for that would be really good

hisvin

The companies didn’t want, from memory.

[sz]gazton

ba it’s still a lot of work for the accountant
:smiley:

hisvin

Well, that’s the problem.

The discussions between Father Grandet and Picsou, it never gives anything. Donkey:

chidory

I see that there are pros and cons, I understand that on some points of view it’s good to contribute but on another point of view it’s mmmmmmm ugly ^^.

Afterwards I don’t understand why the best methods (Switzerland?) are not taken up in other countries to see the result. It’s true that we then get into politics and I don’t intend to venture into such a field? I’m waiting for my paycheck and then I’ll come back and bitch about it ^^.

If you have further details GO!

You May Also Like