When one has a loyal behavior one takes all the quotes and not partially to make them say what you want.
pedrodelavega wrote:Obamot wrote:Obviously it would be good for an independent, not to engage in "unprofitable" activities, that's not what I meant
That is what you wrote there:Obamot wrote:pedrodelavega wrote:If the craftsman does not break even, his work does not increase his income. If his work is strenuous, what happens?
No, he does not need to reach it, since he automatically receives the part of the income that allows him to live.
If I take the classic scheme used in industry and crafts, that of 3 thirds: 1/3 purchase goods, 1/3 FG, 1/3 profit, we can estimate that the RBI could cover 1/3 (when we have a couple it would still be CHF 5 ...)
So if we reason apart from the absurd, he could work without billing his hours, just by selling the supplies!
[In Blue the passage that you had voluntarily extracted] Curiously it is no longer contradictory for someone who can read with his brain.
pedrodelavega wrote:And then:I knew the 3-thirds rule on profits, not the one on turnover. 33% of turnover in profit is not bad. But if this 33% is only covered by the RBI, it may be better to stop working for nothing and enjoy your free timeObamot wrote:If I take the classic pattern that prevails in the industry and trade, that of the third 3: 1 / 3 purchase goods, 1 / 3 FG, 1 / 3 benef, it is estimated that the RBI could cover 1 / 3 (When we have a couple it would still 5'000 CHF ....) [...] - currently the system is cantonal [...] through the increase in mortgage rates [...] The RBI will also be an effective support to the primary sector, fringe of the population of the agricultural sector [. ..] one can redefine the notion of "added value", just as one can understand that it does not take much to "create income", since the constraints of "profitability" are a little more subjective. , if we admit for example the seasonal work, where there is "the full boom" (as in agriculture) then we sell a lot, there are profits, then follows a whole period of less important income, where we pull the devil a little by the tail ... There are indeed lots of activities that are "momentarily" NOT profitable
Well if you don't know this rule, what allows you to comment on it and contradict it?
Indeed, it wouldn't work that way in France for all kinds of reasons. I would not like an SME domiciled in France!
There are several freelancers in my family and I take stock / CPP every year and I know what I am talking about. You should settle here
I also said that it was cantonal and that it depended on the mortgage rate (therefore amount of rents ...)
If you take all of these parameters, you understand who I am talking to and why it becomes possible.