German region to fine Tesla for illegal construction

That is just wrong. You have to tax the 1% of the list price, 0,5% for hybrid and electric and 0,1% for ebikes and bikes.

Also you don't have to pay the 45%. That is the highest tax bracket in the progessive system.

So you have to put the 1% (1000€ for a really expensive car you probably only get as a CEO) and assume that as payout. And then you tax that. For a good car you normally are in the range of 300-500€ a month for normal employees and then you can even pay the gas which is a bigger benefit for most people.

Also you don't have to pay taxes on unrealised gains, that is just bullshit. You have to pay taxes only when you realise those gains, e.g. when you pull the option and sell or keep the shares. As long as it is just options you don't have to pay anything.

But with your level of tax knowledge I would also be scared of the bad bad Finanzamt. OwO

This isn't really the reason that they don't give stock options like they do in USA for startups, though. I think it's a little unfair to say that you're taxed at ~45%; as far as I'm aware exercised options are taxed as income at the value they have when you exercise, not at a flat rate like capital gains. Beyond that, companies probably don't really care about giving employees a big tax bill, and you would only get taxed 25% on the capital gains when you sell the stock you've gained from exercising (after some amount of time, I think 1 year). It's fine for early stage startups that have a low valuation, although for later stage startups and established companies it would lead to a larger initial tax bill.

A bigger reason from the startup perspective as to why you don't give options to employees is because you become a voting member of the company and have to sign off on major changes (via a notary). Many startups skirt this issue by giving you "virtual options" which turn into money directly after some exit event, as if you got a bonus, and some startups let you pseudo-exercise by allowing you to put the exercised options into a pool controlled by a member of the board or company.

It's a lot more restricted compared to USA (it would be nice to be able to exercise really early when the company is tiny so your tax bill is low, or do something like an 83B election) but it's not that onerous and there are ways to get around some of the worst of it.

Correction, you have to declare (or whatever you call "anrechnen") 1% of the company car that you are allowed use in your free time, which often works out cheaper than a privately owned car. In the end you pay at max 45% of the 1% for it, although 45% only applies to every € over 250,000€/year. For every € between about 60,000€/year and 250,000€ you are taxed 42%.

35h/week is IG metall, i.e., "metal works" / mechanical engineering work, machine manufacturing, etc. Think Daimler, BMW, Thyssen, Porsche, VW, Bosch, ...

> Or is 35 the standard for government workers

Government workers typically have 40h/week, but govenrment supports 50% and 75% time (so 20h/week or 30h/week) with the corresponding reduction in salary.

> tech jobs

That's usually 40h/week unless you do a tech job at a "metal works" company like BMW, VW, Porsche, etc. in which case its 35h/week. Outside of these companies, you can negotiate your work time pretty much freely up to the legal limits for salaried employees.

Legal limit on a particular day is 10h/day, and you need 1 day off per week, so your max weekly workload can be 60h/week. However, the legal limit _on average_ is like 45-50h/week, so if you work 60h one week, you have to work 20 the next one to avoid violating the average limit.

These legal limits are actually very harshly enforced. It isn't uncommon for, e.g., chinese companies to get fined in germany for violating this, and after the first fine, they are required to report the exact work times of each employee. The fines grow significantly, so usually chinese companies end up closing the office and kicking everyone out after 40h/week to avoid getting close to a second fine.

You are allowed to reduce hours by law (at least at above 20 employees (and after probation time))

> This is a common myth, but you'll never get less money in your account by earning more. Never. (If other conditions remain the same, naturally)

That wasn't the original claim. If you're paying a high marginal tax rate, you may be making a nonnegative amount of money, but that doesn't mean it's a sufficient incentive to get you to do work when you'd sooner play video games.

But on top of that, it isn't even true. It's not unheard of for marginal rates in practice to exceed 100% as a result of overlapping benefits phase outs. You pay a 25% tax rate, an education benefit phases out at a rate of 25%, a housing benefit phases out at a rate of 30%, a childcare benefit phases out at a rate of 25%, you earn an extra $1 and the government takes $1.05.

This also doesn't account for the cost of earning the money. Your boss offers you an extra half shift, but then you pay the commuting cost (say $10) for 4 hours instead of 8. If your hourly rate is $10, maybe you still take it and make $30. If it's $10/hour but there is a 50% marginal rate, you spend two hours commuting and four hours working to come home with $10/day, and screw that. If the marginal rate was 80%, you're nominally "making" $8/day but in practice you're losing $2/day (and the six hours of time).

No, but you can earn more per year and earn much less per hour of work.

That’s the problem with Tesla in Germany: annual salary is 10-20% higher, hourly salary is 30% lower.

My friends quitting lost in yearly salary, but won huge in hourly rate.

In this case the environmental permit would be for the operational tanks not simply building some thing that looks like a tank but is never used. I keep pointing out that a chemical permit is not really violated if there aren’t any chemicals, but people in the comments here keep ignoring that point. It is not the building that would be against the permit but the chemicals. In this case the tanks were not used to store any chemicals so again they wouldn’t have been in Direct violation of a environmental use permit for chemicals.

It’s always weird how people seem to assume that Tesla has a death wish when it comes to permits and such when back-and-forth between regulators and large companies doing large projects is pretty normal and not evidence of massive environmental destruction. In any large project you will have some level of miscommunication or simply inspector concerns.

Simply building tanks that are not yet permitted to hold chemicals is noteworthy for inspectors but is not necessarily actual wrongdoing, especially if Tesla is in the process of trying to get them properly permitted for actual use.

Registering is one part of a thousand part process. Ask a small business owner, other than geography, would you rather operate in California or Texas. 9 out of 10 will say Texas.

Overall is probably not a great measure because a business exists somewhere, not everywhere. The US is I think really only big-business friendly. If you’re a little guy they could care less about you. New business formation is dwindling.

For example in most US states an employer can prevent you operating an unrelated side-business - how is that “business friendly”? The answer is it’s not - it’s capital-friendly. It has the effect of shutting out the broader populous from participating in business on their own terms. California gets this right!

There’s also the question of what level “overall” is measured. The US makes it easy to exploit workers and so suffers the consequence of having to support an impoverished strata of society which generates negative tax income to the government. In a society that prevents this, the government can receive more taxes from more people and offer more services, including making business formation easier - a virtuous cycle.