Talk about the possibility of the social insurance reduction scheme being blocked.

There seems to be a social insurance premium reduction scheme where monthly wages are minimized to lower the social insurance grade, reducing social insurance premiums, and significantly increasing bonuses with a limit on social insurance premiums.

It seems that this scheme is often used by high-income executives.

It appears that this scheme might be blocked, and it's likely they will either increase or abolish the upper limit on bonuses.

Well, I guess it can't be helped.

So, how about the 'Micro Corporate Scheme,' which is an employee insurance reduction scheme that I am using for recruitment?

To explain simply, instead of converting to a corporation, individuals can become corporate representatives while maintaining their individual business, allowing them to withdraw from expensive national health insurance, enroll in health insurance similar to that of company employees such as Kyokai Kenpo, and reduce social insurance premiums by minimizing executive compensation.

Monthly fees of less than 45000 yen that result in a salary income deduction of less than 0.55 million yen are often adopted, and I myself have adopted it.

Naturally, this is not enough to live on, so the main job is to work as an individual business owner to earn an income.

For the corporate side, there is a need for some business reality, so having no sales revenue is acceptable in extreme cases, as long as it is not a shell company.

When there is a certain level of sales as an individual business owner, the annual limit of national health insurance premiums, which increases every year, is exceeded, resulting in payments exceeding one million yen annually.

Including the national pension, it amounts to over one million yen.

By using the Micro-corporate scheme, social insurance premiums, including pensions, can be kept to around 0.3 million yen per year.

As for the annual maintenance costs for corporations, approximately 0.07 million yen for corporate residence tax and accountant fees are incurred. If the social insurance premiums decrease, it also means that the deduction amount decreases, resulting in an increase in income tax and residence tax.

Just considering the total, it results in a cost reduction of several hundred thousand yen per year, making it a very useful scheme.

So, when it comes to whether this "Micro-corporate scheme" will be blocked, I think it will not be blocked for about 10 years.

The "Bonus Maci-Maci scheme" mentioned at the beginning is simply a matter of raising the social insurance cap for bonuses through a legal revision.

However, for the "Micro-corporate scheme", an invention on how to block it is required.

I don't think it would be feasible to make it illegal to run a business as a sole proprietor while also having a corporation.

It seems unrealistic to have a legal revision like "If you run a business, you must always have a corporate status".

The next idea that comes to mind is to raise the social insurance premiums for the lowest grade, but it seems that it cannot be simply increased for the lowest grade alone, so it will be necessary to increase overall, which will impact the wallets of many 'ordinary company employees' in Japan, making it not so easy to proceed.

Well, it has been increasing, you know.

Taxes that have a clear and impactful increase like consumption tax receive a lot of media coverage and backlash, but those deducted from the salary slips of employees like income tax, resident tax, and social insurance premiums are less likely to be noticed.

Another approach is to calculate social insurance premiums by aggregating individual and corporate incomes.

This also cannot be achieved without a major reform of the health insurance system.

Unless a method is invented that is a suitable balance to block the 'micro corporate scheme' directly, it will not be blocked.

Even if some method is invented, it will not be implemented so quickly.

So, until it is blocked, I will continue to enjoy the benefits of this scheme.

However, I must confess that I have a feeling of "Is that really okay?".

I do not participate in the hometown tax payment.

Isn't it incomprehensible to reduce the tax revenue of your own municipality and increase the tax revenue of regions with no connection or relevance?

I can understand if there are some rational criteria set to lock in "home town" as the actual birthplace, but it's not the case, right?

Isn't it strange that municipalities offering crabs, meat, or toilet paper as return gifts become everyone's "hometown"?

This is why I am against something that is legal, but fundamentally flawed in terms of laws, with tax revenue not being distributed properly and even the situation resembling a octopus eating its own tentacle.

I also think that the "micro-corporation scheme" structurally might be the same, don't you?

Although there is a difference between the transformation of "tax revenue" into "social insurance premiums" and the transformation not being towards the distribution to municipalities, but towards the "social insurance funding".

Even though the 'benefits from hometown tax payment' are not significant enough to greatly impact one's life, choosing not to adopt the 'micro corporate scheme' would have too big of an impact on one's life, making you feel like you're bending your policies.

Well, but tens of thousands a year is too much! Spare me! And I'm suppressing the 'personality that tries to adhere to policies' within myself.

Oh, it's disgusting.

Humans are not solely driven by gains and losses, but depending on the magnitude of gains and losses, they become easier to move.

Apologies for the cringeworthy story.