When we work, we produce wealth, part of which goes directly into the pockets of our employer, this is the famous surplus value alienated by the bosses according to Marxist theories. When the boss has taken his margin, he must pay social security contributions on our salary which go directly to the State. Just like our boss, we are also liable for social security contributions which are directly taken from our gross income. Not content with having eaten part of the income from our work before it even arrives in our bank account, the State still taxes us with an income tax.
Let's take a small fictitious example which represents reality very well:
A company generates CHF 10,000 in turnover per employee.
Salary costs represent 50% of turnover. The average employee therefore represents a salary cost of CHF 5,000 (salary and social security contributions).
After removing the social security contributions paid by the employer, the gross salary of this employee amounts to CHF 4,000.
After removing the social security contributions paid by the employee, the employee's net salary amounts to CHF 3,500.
If we take away taxes, we get a net salary of CHF 3,150.
And finally we remove the acquisition costs from the income (transportation costs, clothing, food, etc.), and we end up with a residue of CHF 2,635.
Not to mention that when you can finally spend the modest fruits of your labor, you still have to pay VAT.
In short, the residual salary of this employee represents only 1/4 of the turnover that he has actually created. Everything else goes into the pockets of the State and those of his employer.
The worst part is that there is nothing scandalous about all this. It is normal for the boss to cover his operating costs to continue to ensure the viability of his company and to be able to invest to make it progress. It is also normal for shareholders to be paid for the risk they take by investing in the company. And it is also normal, up to a certain point, for the State to be paid because it provides the infrastructure so that all this can work.
But in the end, it still does you a lot of good because most of the time you don't work for yourself, but for others.
This means that you work uselessly most of the timeThey say you don't get rich by working and now we understand better why.
In comparison, the income of a rentier, which come from its capital
- are not alienated by the bosses (they are the owners)
- are less taxed by the State (there are no payroll taxes)
- are generally significantly less demanding in terms of income acquisition costs (management can mainly be done from home).
It's up to you to decide whether you want to continue working in a vacuum...
Discover more from dividendes
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Français 
English 
Italiano 
Deutsch 
Español 
Português
What the hell?! What is this reasoning?
"But in the end, it still doesn't do you any good because most of the time you don't work for yourself, but for others.
This means that you are working for nothing most of the time.”
Living in society obviously also means working for others! Not to mention all the public sectors that are often and for many close to free: education, health which sooner or later are useful etc... If we don't pay the State, we will have to pay someone at some point or another for these sectors, which amounts to the same thing.
If it is to work only for oneself, and therefore to draw all the profits in an individualistic manner, one must leave society and go to a desert island!
And what is this solution? Becoming a Rentier!?
So by refusing to let the money that is the fruit of our work be taken from us, we take the money from the work of others, every month, with a certain passivity in addition!
“It’s up to you to decide whether you want to continue working in a vacuum…”
So it is better to make others work "in a vacuum" - it's much better!
It's a fair return of the crank. After having worked so hard for others, we reverse the roles.
It is clear that you do not become a rentier overnight, except for a few rare exceptions. So you have to give, give a lot even, for many years.
In the end, we reap the fruits of our labor and others must pay the price in turn.
In a way, I understand your point of view. It's a bit like the principle of pensions, new workers work for the old ones.
But I think there is a big problem in these systems and it is the lack of solidarity. Rather than saying to yourself, I worked hard and sometimes it was really tiring, and therefore saying to yourself maybe that I don't wish that on the new generations and therefore that we can find different solutions to avoid finding ourselves in this situation. Well, many people say to themselves, I struggled, it's normal that other human beings struggle in turn. Already, it goes badly in a stable economic context, but if unemployment increases and net salaries decrease while rental or pension prices increase, it becomes perfectly unfair, and it makes the task very difficult! And, in a more united society, we wouldn't say to ourselves: we worked, let the new workers get by even if the context is tougher.
Another point, many rentiers became so by receiving an inheritance, how does this correspond to a grueling work extending over years? Some receive quite substantial inheritances and others almost nothing…
Finally, we agree that to become a rentier, you have to work and put a lot of money aside in order to invest, while meeting your basic personal needs (housing, food, etc.). However, in our societies, each job is granted a fairly specific salary: a cleaning lady, although it is a particularly difficult, low-valued and boring job, will have a very low salary and will probably not be able to put enough money aside to become a rentier at the end of her career. Whereas an engineer, working 35 hours sitting in front of a desk, therefore in comfortable conditions, doing more interesting and rewarding work, will easily receive a salary three times higher and will therefore be able to become a rentier.
Which seems unfair to me: it is not those who work the hardest who reap the rewards.
I think we need to find new ways of operating, to stop this permanent competition, so that solidarity and sharing take precedence, that we revalue people enough so that everyone can give what they do best. That a retiree is not put in the parasite box and that he continues to contribute his stone to the building, certainly in a different way than through employment for example. This is only one path among many others…
What do you think?
French ENFP, Swiss INTJ, we necessarily have very different points of view, due to our personalities and also due to our morals.
I agree with you on the principle of solidarity, but it remains a great idea on paper that is unfortunately not feasible in practice.
I don't want to wait for the State or some higher authority to allow me to work less because the burden of work would be better distributed... and the wealth with it.
Here we are not talking about rentiers who have become so by inheritance, but about those who have chosen to become so through the fruit of their work, their savings and a judicious choice of investment. My E-Book is also called "Profession Rentier", because it is the "active" side of the rentier that is valued. This has nothing to do with the one who is lucky (or rather unlucky) to have fortune fall on his head.
Income and profession do not change this approach. I know executives who earn high incomes who end up in the red every month. On the other hand, I know cleaning ladies who have managed to save enough money to pay for their children's studies.
But I agree, it is not those who work the hardest who reap the rewards, at least not at work. In fact, very often the opposite happens.
The approach to financial independence aims precisely to correct this error: everyone must be able to re-appropriate the fruits of their labor, in one way or another, and in particular by using the same methods as those who exploit them and do not work. That is to say by becoming the owner of companies, even if it is only with a few shares.
This may seem a bit cynical to some, especially an ENFP :-), but it is a pragmatic approach and one that works.
It is also a way to regain, each at their own level, this solidarity to which you aspire. Each person thus becomes both a worker and (a little) an owner.
But I agree that I have a very liberal and even libertarian thought sometimes...