[helge5]

Wrt to social security stuff, one should proactively run a "Statusfeststellungsverfahren" - you fill out some forms and the authorities will tell you how they declare you. That puts you on a safer side.

Also there _is_ an "avoiding the cost of social security". If they consider you properly self employed and independent, you do not pay gov social security stuff, but you need to insure yourself (using private insurance companies). That is why the process mentioned above is important. If you register self-employed but later they declare you as dependently-employed, gov social security has to be paid! Something you should avoid upfront, can be super expensive. So => "Statusfeststellungsverfahren"!

[throwaway9283i]

I do not want to save any money in taxes, health insurance, social insurance or pension fund. I am actually happy to pay all this. Nevertheless I heard horror stories even by doing so you are at risk they will f..k you anyway after a Prüfung (audit) within the first five years or so.

I even want to stay in the public health insurance (freiwillig gesetzlich versichert). I actually do not want to benefit from being self employed. I just want to make it legal.

[helge5]

I can feel your pain, but that is really not what this is about. It is all about the rules/laws :-)

Your's is an pretty edgy case. All people I know which have been employed dependently by a foreign company, have been employed by a local subsidiary (and I can understand that your foreign employer won't open one just for you).

Just a wild guess: If you are above the minimum income for dependent-employees allowed to be privately ensured, I assume all should be good. But I would still do the "status feststellungsverfahren", or maybe just call them. I think they have a hotline.

(In general many answers/threads here may not be really relevant for you as they are focused around self-employment. What you really want is to be a "dependently-employee-in-a-foreign-company". I have no idea how that works, maybe just do make an appointment w/ a work-lawyer).

[leethargo]

Before I started my current job with a company in Thailand, I met with a tax accountant that specializes in international tax law. She looked up the German-Thai agreement and explained to me that I could be employed there regulary and pay taxes in Germany exclusively.

With that info, I traveled there for the onboarding (and getting a working visa), only to learn that the local tax authorities disagreed. My boss then suggested to just have me invoice him for the time being, until a subsidiary is created in the EU. Still waiting after two years :-\

[leethargo]

Thanks for the hint about Statusfeststellungsverfahren, I will research that. I had previously filled the questionaire from Finanzamt and they had accepted my status of "freiberuflich" w.r.t. software dev.

The possibility to use private insurance depends on having some minimum amount of income.

Also, I currently use the option to use public insurance (voluntarily) so that I can easily switch back to it once I become employed again in the future. Apparently, there is some risk of not being accepted by the public insurers after one had quit.

[helge5]

"Statusfeststellungsverfahren" is an (gov) insurance thing (the process is run by the "Rentenversicherung" (the pension fund)), it has (I think, not a lawyer) nothing to do with the Finanzamt (German IRS). That is an entirely different thing.

> The possibility to use private insurance depends on having some minimum amount of income.

This is incorrect. If you are self-employed you are off the state records. You can yourself choose to insure yourself using the gov insurances ("Freiwilligenversicherung"). But that is _usually_ an awfully bad deal (though ethically the right thing to do and I personally hope they eventually do the "Bürgerversicherung", which will level the terms for everyone).

The minimum income thing is only for dependent(regular)-employees. They are forced to be in the gov-insurance unless they exceed a certain income. If they do, they can choose (which often makes sense because private insurance has way better benefits and is way cheaper if you (consistently) have a high income (I don't know the current rate, 14% for the employee and 12% for the employer [and both if you are self-employed?])).

> Also, I currently use the option to use public insurance (voluntarily) so that I can easily switch back to it once I become employed again in the future.

They have to take you back unless you are 50+ I think (google the details). If you are dependently employed you _have to_ be in the gov insurance unless you exceed the minimum income. Buckle up, it's the law! Because of that many privately insured people therefore often seek to get back into regular employment if they get closer to 50, to properly exploit the system.

> Apparently, there is some risk of not being accepted by the public insurers after one had quit.

This is age specific. Generally at least the "AOK" (kinda the fallback gov insurance company) has to always take you. In fact I think even private insurances _have to_ take you since quite a few years now - it's awfully expensive, but you are never supposed to be uninsured in Germany.

[throwaway9283i]

I might be wrong, but they only have to take one if you are below a certain age _and_ below the border income (Beitragsbemessungsgrenze). Always be careful w.r.t. these kinds of decisions because they could cost you an awful amount of money later.

[helge5]

If you are above the border income, the private version is less expensive (I might also be wrong, checkout https://www.finanztip.de/pkv/pkv-basistarif/). It only really affects people below that income (way too many!). It is the reverse, staying in the gov insurance costs you an awful lot of money upfront. It's the ethical but financially stupid thing.

[leethargo]

True, the private insurance is typicall less expensive now (when I researched, it was 50%-60% of what I pay), but you have no guarantee that it will stay that way. They could just increase the fees for everybody, in the future, or just increase it with your age, as the health risks go up.

[leethargo]

What you say about voluntary public insurance is true: I currently pay the full amount (both parts, for employer and employee).

It's based on an estimate for my yearly gross income based on last year's tax report. The insurance (TK) assured me that I would get refunded what I overpaid each year. This is relevant, since I work much reduced hours due to family obligations. But I still have to pay forward the higher estimates for tax and insurance now...

[throwaway9283i]

Depending on your health records, staying voluntarily in the public insurance is the best thing you can do.

[helge5]

That is the way more ethical thing, but it is almost never the best thing from either a financial and certainly not from a health perspective _if_ you exceed a certain income (and the barrier here is pretty low unless you have many kids, which depending on your income distribution you may have to privately insure separately).

If you are self-employed, the public insurance is really nothing more but another (rather unattractive) insurance company you can choose from.

[throwaway9283i]

A lot of people in IT knowing how to negotiate well will probably cross the border. I would, at least.

I agree it doesn't make sense from a financial perspective generally but it does depending on your health records/situation. I, for example, have a chronic disease which implicates monthly medication which is crazy expensive. I could enter a private insurance (because I have a Anwartschaft, thank god I kept this from since forever) but the monthly rate will drive to insane amounts when I'm getting older and/or adding the fact of kids (Familienversicherung).

Going back to public insurance after being in private insurance is highly problematic and probably even impossible without playing grey-zone games if you don't want to lower your salary dramatically below the income border for multiple years.

Disclaimer: my knowledge is based on internet research, I am not an expert on this and might be wrong.

[helge5]

@throwaway9283i - I think you are indeed wrong.

AFAIK if you are self-employed the gov insurance doesn't have to take you either! Yet both have to take you using that "base tariff" (600? Euro or sth) since a few years (before a self-employed could end up w/ no insurance at all, not possible anymore).

It is true that the private insurance increases significantly over the years, but it is still WAY less than the gov insurance. The costs for the gov insurance is about 25% of your salary (remember, it's split between employer and employee, but as a self-employed you have to pay both sides). Assuming an income of just 5k per month, that would be 1.25k! per month, or more than twice the base tariff.

It often becomes problematic for self-employed low-wage workers when they enter pension. Which they often don't setup, and hence can't even pay their health insurance :-/ (and then move into social security, which again provides everything)

That it is difficult to get back to the public insurance is just non-sense unless you exceed a certain age. In fact you have to, whether you want or not, by law.

[dx034]

> It is true that the private insurance increases significantly over the years, but it is still WAY less than the gov insurance. The costs for the gov insurance is about 25% of your salary (remember, it's split between employer and employee, but as a self-employed you have to pay both sides). Assuming an income of just 5k per month, that would be 1.25k! per month, or more than twice the base tariff.

It's actually about 15% in total. The maximum amount currently is around €750 for both employer and employee.

[dx034]

That's not necessarily true. It depends on how many kids you'd want to insure (they're free on public insurance but cost on private), if you have any risk factors (even common allergies can drive up the price of private insurance a lot), your income later in life and health inflation. Over your lifetime it's not unrealistic that you're worse off with private insurance. So unless you're keen on that higher level of care (or luxuries as it's mostly about waiting times rather than getting care at all), staying in public insurance can be smart even if you pay the maximum amount.