Any artist who receives insurance from their employer subsidises those who don’t
Artists outside of the KSK (either because they’ve not been very successful or they choose not to join) subsidise those inside
Highly profitable artists subsidise the less profitable ones (egalitarian component likely works better here as there is more variation in what artists earn, however, EAs are probably more happy to cross-subsidise each other)
People hiring artists have to complete additional paperwork
The total compensation for artists is likely slightly higher because people forget about these additional costs when considering what they can pay
I wasn’t as precise as I could and will try to clarify:
The German health-, care- and pension insurance system is set up where employees and employers each pay 50% of the fees. The fee is defined as a percentage of the income. High-income earners subsidise low-income workers in this way.
The KSK is a system on top only for self-employed artists who typically have to cover the 50% share that an employer would cover. 50% of the insurance is paid by the artists (same as what employees would pay), the government subsidises 20%, and clients cover 30%
Clients have to pay without knowing if the artist is part of the KSK, so there is some additional subsidising.
The additional paperwork for clients could be reduced if the artists would be allowed to collect the payments themselves, which I would like better.
I’m not in favour of how the KSK system works and wouldn’t recommend it as a model. However, I think their way of identifying an artist by type of work and minimum revenue from this work area is an interesting input.
So thinking about how this works overall:
The government is providing a 20% subsidy
Any artist who receives insurance from their employer subsidises those who don’t
Artists outside of the KSK (either because they’ve not been very successful or they choose not to join) subsidise those inside
Highly profitable artists subsidise the less profitable ones (egalitarian component likely works better here as there is more variation in what artists earn, however, EAs are probably more happy to cross-subsidise each other)
People hiring artists have to complete additional paperwork
The total compensation for artists is likely slightly higher because people forget about these additional costs when considering what they can pay
I wasn’t as precise as I could and will try to clarify:
The German health-, care- and pension insurance system is set up where employees and employers each pay 50% of the fees. The fee is defined as a percentage of the income. High-income earners subsidise low-income workers in this way.
The KSK is a system on top only for self-employed artists who typically have to cover the 50% share that an employer would cover. 50% of the insurance is paid by the artists (same as what employees would pay), the government subsidises 20%, and clients cover 30%
Clients have to pay without knowing if the artist is part of the KSK, so there is some additional subsidising.
The additional paperwork for clients could be reduced if the artists would be allowed to collect the payments themselves, which I would like better.
I’m not in favour of how the KSK system works and wouldn’t recommend it as a model. However, I think their way of identifying an artist by type of work and minimum revenue from this work area is an interesting input.