Aspoň káva #67 aneb OSVČ a paušály

At least coffee 67, or self-employed persons and flat rates
A study by some pseudo-researchers writing under the PAQ research banner appeared on X. According to this study, self-employed persons with a turnover of up to two million per year are at an advantage because they are allowed to use a flat-rate tax calculation. The researchers cite some kind of representative sample. I don't know, I myself belonged to this category and I know that the flat rate mainly meant saving time for me, and also money for paying the accountant who processed my tax returns until I discovered the flat rate. And since my turnover was by no means staggering, every crown I didn't have to spend was good. Moreover, when working from home, I couldn't deduct operating costs anyway, precisely because I worked from home. This meant further savings for me, as I couldn't include car operating costs in my tax base, but I didn't have to pay road tax either. And with the low frequency of my trips, the road tax would have been really excessive.
The study and many of the participants compared self-employed people using flat rates with employees. Understandably, as always when it comes to any issue concerning self-employed people. How they pay low taxes and how employees pay extra for them. And the arguments that self-employed people don't actually have any paid leave, that in case of illness they are at home for free because social security only pays sick pay after three weeks, that they have to find jobs themselves, whereas employees have their jobs found for them by their employer, are not taken into account. At most, it is pointed out that self-employed people also include a new car in their expenses. This is obviously not the case with a flat rate.
However, the study overlooks another fact. It is common practice to compare the income of an employee, who has no wage costs, with the turnover of a self-employed person, where these costs must first be deducted to arrive at the tax base. However, another thing is completely overlooked. An employee receives their income, net of all benefits. Meanwhile, a self-employed person, even if they use a flat-rate tax calculation, still pays social security and health insurance on top of that. Month after month, regardless of their turnover. The advance payment simply has to be paid, even if they have to take out a loan to do so. On the other hand, there is another fact to counter the argument that they pay little and therefore have a small pension. At the end of the accounting period, when the benefits for the year are calculated, the actual amount of social security and health insurance payments is determined. If the sum of the advance payments does not reach the required amount, there will be an underpayment. It's annoying, but what can you do? However, if the calculated amount exceeds the total, there are only two options. Either the overpayment is refunded, or it is budgeted into further advance payments. So there is no possibility of increasing your insurance in any way and thus improving your pension calculation.
I know that self-employed people have the option of saving elsewhere, but employees have the same option.
Paradoxically, this study appears at a time when an increase in military spending has been approved. Do you think there is no connection? I am convinced that the connection is absolutely obvious. Steal as much money from people as possible so that there is enough for guns and tanks and it does not have to be taken from politicians.
It is very fortunate that no such amendment will be passed before the summer holidays, and then a month before the elections, no one will dare to do so.