Well my employer pays something like 70% of the premium so I’m not sure how I pay that portion ? 
Because that 70% ultimately comes from the…fruits of your labor, not the employer’s pocket. There’s your net salary after taxes etc., your gross salary before taxes etc., and the total cost that your employer needs to bear to hire you, which is the gross plus the “employer’s” costs for health insurance and pensions etc. (I don’t know if there’s an official term for this in English - the last time I had the conversation it was in my shitty German, where I think there’s a word for it). The idea of course is that the value you bring to the company should exceed this final number.
If your employer wasn’t “paying” that 70%, your salary would be higher to compensate for it. It’s hardly going to come from the company’s or shareholders’ pockets. I just see this as an accounting/psychological thing, so that employees don’t easily see how much they’re actually paying for health insurance etc. by thinking that somebody else is paying for it.
It’s funny how people bend over backwards to accommodate these landlords. My real estate agent usually gave me two prices per listing: with tax and without. Her advice was to consider where I can save more: on cheaper rent or tax rebate.
I think a related question is why don’t/can’t the government enforce tax collection on these landlords?
7 Likes
That’s very theoretical. How much work experience do you have in Taiwan ? 
That’s the multi billion dollar question. I think Wang Jin Ping owned 80 apartments at one point. Just an example.
2 Likes
It’s more of a general point than anything specifically relating to Taiwan. 
Where do you think the money for the “employer contribution” comes from then, if not the value your labor brings to the company?
It’s the same as the difference between these two cases:
Case A: Your gross salary is 4000 units. You and your employer each pay 400 units for your health insurance. You think your gross salary is 4000 units and you’re paying 400 units (10%) for health insurance, which your employer is kindly matching. Your employer is nonetheless paying 4400 units to hire you, and the value you bring to the company should ideally exceed that.
Case B: Your gross salary is stated as 4400 units but you’re responsible for your own health insurance, so your net salary is the same, the cost to the employer is the same, but you perceive that you’re paying 800 units (18%) a month.
There isn’t a difference between the two cases, for either you or the employer, except a psychological one.
Another point is that both the “employer contribution” and the “employee contribution” are typically dealt with by the employer - you never see, handle, or receive the portion that’s explicitly deducted from your salary as it’s directly transferred from your employer’s bank account to the government/insurance company, in the same way as the “hidden” employer contribution. We’re just talking about shifting around the positions of some numbers in some spreadsheet/accounting software, as pretending to split things this way is more palatable to employees/voters. (I should note that I don’t have any problem at all with nationalized health insurance - I think it’s a great idea, and that access to affordable healthcare is, or should be, a basic human right.)
1 Like
Perhaps it’s because, like in many countries where tax evasion and avoidance is rampant, the people who are supposed to enforce the laws are the ones who flout them?
3 Likes
Yes there is. The employer’s contribution does not count as part of your income for purposes of minimum wage, average wage (under the Labor Standards Act), insured salary (labor insurance and employment insurance), or anything else.
Btw, if people want to flog a certain dead horse, here it lies. 
For the record, this is not something we condone. 
But that’s (i) entirely irrelevant to the point and (ii) obvious. I haven’t said anything at all about how income is legally considered by Taiwan or anywhere else, or that the “employer contribution” counts as “income” (it doesn’t, obviously, but that’s just a definitions/legal thing), because it doesn’t matter. My point is that the cost of insurance, including the employer contribution, is ultimately borne by the employee and compensated for by their labor.
If you disagree, same question again - where do you think that money ultimately comes from? When a scheme like this is introduced to an economy, do you think that companies are actually bearing this cost themselves and thereby accepting lower profit margins, or do you think the economy adjusts by way of lower salaries and/or higher prices (i.e., inflation) to offset this new cost (as above)?
Speaking of irrelevant and obvious… 
You can’t legally lower someone’s salary unless (1) you wait for the contract to expire (if it’s a term contract), or (2) you somehow got the person to sign a contract that allows the salary to be lowered.
Of course there’s attrition, if you think it’s worth it.