Thank you for the overview! What comes to my mind as similar is the Künstlersozialkasse (KSK) in Germany that is ruled by the special law called Künstlersozialversicherungsgesetz.
This artist social fund is open to anyone that works self-employed in an artistic job like visual artists, authors, journalists, musicians etc. and doesn’t have employees. You have to fill out a 9-page form to apply where you state what work you have already done and that you’re over the minimum income from artistic work of 3,900€/year. In the first three years of your work life, you don’t have to prove this minimum and this was also deferred during Covid-times.
If you get accepted then the KSK will pay the cost of your health-, care- and pension insurance which includes for example doctors, clinics, medicine, psychotherapy, rehabilitation clinics and dentists. You will have to state your income yearly and pay a portion to the KSK.
My company has to list all artists invoices that we paid in a year (by graphic designers, photographers, make up artists etc.) and submit it to the KSK. We are then charged a percentage (currently 4.2%) of this. Every company and self-employed person in Germany has to do this.
An analogue in EA could be a system where you:
have to prove that you’ve
either got EA funding for your work
you’re working at an EA org without insurance
you’re in the first 3 years of your EA career
pay a portion of your EA salary for the insurance
the insurance covers health insurance and other insurance-like services
Funders fill up the gap of the payments
This model would still have the issue of vetting applicants, but one clear criterion would be that you can only get in for the first three years without showing that you have minimum funding through grant approvals or EA-aligned jobs. If you don’t earn any EA money after that you would get excluded.
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.
Thank you for the overview! What comes to my mind as similar is the Künstlersozialkasse (KSK) in Germany that is ruled by the special law called Künstlersozialversicherungsgesetz.
This artist social fund is open to anyone that works self-employed in an artistic job like visual artists, authors, journalists, musicians etc. and doesn’t have employees. You have to fill out a 9-page form to apply where you state what work you have already done and that you’re over the minimum income from artistic work of 3,900€/year. In the first three years of your work life, you don’t have to prove this minimum and this was also deferred during Covid-times.
If you get accepted then the KSK will pay the cost of your health-, care- and pension insurance which includes for example doctors, clinics, medicine, psychotherapy, rehabilitation clinics and dentists. You will have to state your income yearly and pay a portion to the KSK.
The KSK is financed by three sources:
Payments by artists (50%)
Payment by the government (20%)
Payment by clients that employ the artists (30%)
My company has to list all artists invoices that we paid in a year (by graphic designers, photographers, make up artists etc.) and submit it to the KSK. We are then charged a percentage (currently 4.2%) of this. Every company and self-employed person in Germany has to do this.
An analogue in EA could be a system where you:
have to prove that you’ve
either got EA funding for your work
you’re working at an EA org without insurance
you’re in the first 3 years of your EA career
pay a portion of your EA salary for the insurance
the insurance covers health insurance and other insurance-like services
Funders fill up the gap of the payments
This model would still have the issue of vetting applicants, but one clear criterion would be that you can only get in for the first three years without showing that you have minimum funding through grant approvals or EA-aligned jobs. If you don’t earn any EA money after that you would get excluded.
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.