|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
navogel
Joined: 14 May 2013 Location: United States
|
Posted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:41 am Post subject: new? evidence re legality of 3.3%tax, no pension/health, IC |
|
|
Ok,
So a bit of backstory first: I got my first paycheck from my hagwon last week and there was no pension. It jump started a massive internet search for the facts regarding what is legal and what is not legal. I didnt care about the health insurance (dont go to the doc anyway) but I wanted that 4.5% employer contribution, dang it!
Here is my situation, and I suspect there are many others out there in the same boat:
I am currently getting 3.3% withheld from my taxes, no pension, and private health insurance - as per my contract my employer is paying half. (although to be fair it seemed like I was offered the option of national health insurance - but thoroughly "convinced" by the director I didnt need it)
This is what I did not know when I signed my employment contract:
There are two classifications of workers in Korea:
a. Employee
b. independent contractor
The Employee receives "wages" and gets 1.5-2%(ish) in tax withheld from their paycheck, but must pay into national health insurance and the national pension. (5.33% and 9% respectively) but half of each is paid for by the employer - which turns out to be awesome since you can get that entire 9% of the pension back when you leave korea! (if you are from the US.)
The independent contractor does not receive "wages" they get "business income" and must do their own taxes. They get 3.3% of taxes withheld and do not get enrolled in pension or national healthcare. (missing out on that extra 4.5% their employer would be paying)
It seems the big question on the boards seems to be whether or not being a IC (independent contractor) is legal for a hagwon employee or not.
Here is the evidence I found in an official NTS tax document:
| Quote: |
"Taxes Withheld Monthly from Salary by Employer
If you teach English as an independent contractor and are not under any employment agreement with the income payer("hakwon"), then the compensation you receive for teaching is classified as “business income.”
In this case, hakwon is required to withhold an amount equivalent to 3.3%(resident tax included) of your monthly pay from you each month, and you must make a final declaration of your income tax in May of the following year.
If you have an employment contract with the hakwon, then your compensation is categorized under “Wage and salary income,” for which your employer (hakwon) is subject to the liability of monthly withholding at an amount based on the Simplified Tax Table.
As of February 2009, the amount subject to income tax
(residence surtax included) withholding on ₩2,000,000 in salary is ₩24,794. However, the amount that are monthly withheld from your income also includes your contributions to the national pension scheme and other social insurance." |
This is taken directly from an official NTS pdf entitled "Foreign tax payers guide to Korean taxes 2009" page 53. Here is a link to download the document:
http://www.nts.go.kr/eng/resources/resour_21.asp?minfoKey=MINF7420080211223143&page=2
Now, MAYBE you could argue the law has changed, but I found supporting evidence from other tax PDFs... they dont spell it out as explicitly as the last document, but this seems pretty clear:
| Quote: |
| "If there is an employment contract, then the remuneration is categorized as a wage & salary income. Remuneration for the lecture in a temporary period is categorized as other income. If the employment status of the lecturer is independent contractor ("free-lancer") and the lecture is given repeatedly and continuously, then the remuneration is categorized as a business income. " |
This is from the PDF: Easy Guide for Foreigners' Year-end Tax Settlement 2012, pg 147, second to last question.
This seems pretty cut and dry... what am I missing??? Has someone already debunked this?
If not... the law says that if you signed a document says "employment contract/agreement" like mine does, you should be classified as a employee, getting health insurance AND pension, and going off the tax table (not 3.3%) for tax withholdings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ttompatz

Joined: 05 Sep 2005 Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
Posted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
welcome to the land of dodgy hagwons. You're not in Kansas any more there Toto.
Your options:
1) beat the dead horse and get fired (want to work in China do you?).
(losing your job without a LOR will typically mean NO work or visa until your old contract period has expired).
2) suck it up for a year and know better for next time.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
YTMND
Joined: 16 Jan 2012 Location: You're the man now dog!!
|
Posted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| If not... the law says that if you signed a document says "employment contract/agreement" like mine does, you should be classified as a employee, getting health insurance AND pension, and going off the tax table (not 3.3%) for tax withholdings. |
You are welcome to argue any law you want and file complaints. It doesn't guarantee you an audience though.
Choose how you want to fight this. Has your school paid for airfare to Korea? If so, you might want to negotiate ending after a few months, get a LOR and then work at another school with better conditions.
You could start out and play dumb. Call labor board and see if anyone there is willing to look at your contract. If they make the same conclusions you have then maybe this can help you move on. Chances are the school will prefer to hire another teacher who is just as naive rather than changing their ways.
I don't think they will get an epiphany, "You know foreign teacher, you are right!!! We should all pay pension and taxes."
It's not going to happen  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Stamos jr.
Joined: 07 Oct 2012 Location: Namsan
|
Posted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You could also threaten them and tell them that you'll go to the labor board unless they give you pension and insurance, and they might quietly give you an LOR if you agree to stay on until they find a replacement. That worked for me and allowed me to get out of that miserable racket quickly |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
faeriehazel
Joined: 04 Mar 2008
|
Posted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm curious - do E2s have legal recourse if they're hired as independent contractors? I was under the impression that it was technically legal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
Posted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| For an E-2? It's not legal (though ontheway will claim otherwise). Laws aren't necessarily followed here in Korea. There is a lot of law breaking going on. Tons of shadiness. On top of this, employees at the labor board are often lazy public servants who don't want to help you and who don't even know the laws. And the E-2 independent contractor thing isn't even under their jurisdistion I don't think. (If it's not, and they know it's not, they won't bother to help you.) Being treated fairly and legally will be a long uphill battle. (But yeah, sometimes mere threats of legal action (even if they can't be backed up) are enough). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
navogel
Joined: 14 May 2013 Location: United States
|
Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sure, I understand I could go at my employer and complain and all that...
But remember, (and honestly this is the most confusing thing about this whole thing) he has said I can choose to take National Health Insurance, and he would be paying half. Wouldnt that mean I would be automatically switched over to an employee status? At that point I could request to have less taxes taken out, and if he didnt enroll me in the pension, surely a call to the pension office would take care of it? It would essentially be forcing him to change my status on the sly, all while playing dumb.
Is there a way he could enroll me in the national health insurance plan and NOT switch me over to an "employee" from an IC?
I guess that is my question... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NYC_Gal 2.0

Joined: 10 Dec 2010
|
Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sure, you may not go to the doctor, until you get hit by a taxi or get some rare meningitis and need 50 million won. Get insurance. Every year we see people fund raising for this kind of thing. Be an adult. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
navogel
Joined: 14 May 2013 Location: United States
|
Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I guess I should have noted; I currently have private insurance for emergencies. just no coverage for doctors visits, sickness, etc. Although I suppose if I got some rare disease I would be sol. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NYC_Gal 2.0

Joined: 10 Dec 2010
|
Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| navogel wrote: |
| I guess I should have noted; I currently have private insurance for emergencies. just no coverage for doctors visits, sickness, etc. Although I suppose if I got some rare disease I would be sol. |
Wouldn't a rare disease that needs hospitalization be an emergency? I have supplemental health coverage as well, and it covers anything that requires a hospitalization. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| faeriehazel wrote: |
| I'm curious - do E2s have legal recourse if they're hired as independent contractors? I was under the impression that it was technically legal. |
You can complain at the labor board and get your dues, but you will have to also pay for the 4.5%*13.
You can do this after your contract is done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005 Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:02 am Post subject: Re: new? evidence re legality of 3.3%tax, no pension/health, |
|
|
| navogel wrote: |
Ok,
So a bit of backstory first: I got my first paycheck from my hagwon last week and there was no pension. It jump started a massive internet search for the facts regarding what is legal and what is not legal. I didnt care about the health insurance (dont go to the doc anyway) but I wanted that 4.5% employer contribution, dang it!
Here is my situation, and I suspect there are many others out there in the same boat:
I am currently getting 3.3% withheld from my taxes, no pension, and private health insurance - as per my contract my employer is paying half. (although to be fair it seemed like I was offered the option of national health insurance - but thoroughly "convinced" by the director I didnt need it)
This is what I did not know when I signed my employment contract:
There are two classifications of workers in Korea:
a. Employee
b. independent contractor
The Employee receives "wages" and gets 1.5-2%(ish) in tax withheld from their paycheck, but must pay into national health insurance and the national pension. (5.33% and 9% respectively) but half of each is paid for by the employer - which turns out to be awesome since you can get that entire 9% of the pension back when you leave korea! (if you are from the US.)
The independent contractor does not receive "wages" they get "business income" and must do their own taxes. They get 3.3% of taxes withheld and do not get enrolled in pension or national healthcare. (missing out on that extra 4.5% their employer would be paying)
It seems the big question on the boards seems to be whether or not being a IC (independent contractor) is legal for a hagwon employee or not.
Here is the evidence I found in an official NTS tax document:
| Quote: |
"Taxes Withheld Monthly from Salary by Employer
If you teach English as an independent contractor and are not under any employment agreement with the income payer("hakwon"), then the compensation you receive for teaching is classified as “business income.”
In this case, hakwon is required to withhold an amount equivalent to 3.3%(resident tax included) of your monthly pay from you each month, and you must make a final declaration of your income tax in May of the following year.
If you have an employment contract with the hakwon, then your compensation is categorized under “Wage and salary income,” for which your employer (hakwon) is subject to the liability of monthly withholding at an amount based on the Simplified Tax Table.
As of February 2009, the amount subject to income tax
(residence surtax included) withholding on ₩2,000,000 in salary is ₩24,794. However, the amount that are monthly withheld from your income also includes your contributions to the national pension scheme and other social insurance." |
This is taken directly from an official NTS pdf entitled "Foreign tax payers guide to Korean taxes 2009" page 53. Here is a link to download the document:
http://www.nts.go.kr/eng/resources/resour_21.asp?minfoKey=MINF7420080211223143&page=2
Now, MAYBE you could argue the law has changed, but I found supporting evidence from other tax PDFs... they dont spell it out as explicitly as the last document, but this seems pretty clear:
| Quote: |
| "If there is an employment contract, then the remuneration is categorized as a wage & salary income. Remuneration for the lecture in a temporary period is categorized as other income. If the employment status of the lecturer is independent contractor ("free-lancer") and the lecture is given repeatedly and continuously, then the remuneration is categorized as a business income. " |
This is from the PDF: Easy Guide for Foreigners' Year-end Tax Settlement 2012, pg 147, second to last question.
This seems pretty cut and dry... what am I missing??? Has someone already debunked this?
If not... the law says that if you signed a document says "employment contract/agreement" like mine does, you should be classified as a employee, getting health insurance AND pension, and going off the tax table (not 3.3%) for tax withholdings. |
It is perfectly legal to be an Independent Contractor on an E2 visa. Immigration reads and accepts IC contracts that spell out the IC status, by name, in both English and Korean. There is no doubt that it is legal.
No law is needed to make this status legal, just as no law is needed to make it legal to wear blue shoes on Tuesday. It's legal because it's not illegal.
For something to be illegal there has to be a law, rule or regulation against that thing. There is no such law, rule or regulation that states that an E2 teacher may not be an IC. It may be a bad deal - it usually is - but it's legal.
Several posters have cried repeatedly that their fantasy about illegality must be true, because - boo hoo - they want it to be true - but not one of them has posted a single link to any law, rule or reuglation that makes it illegal to be an IC as an E2 teacher - because there is none.
If your contract specifically states that you are an IC, then you are. You agreed to it. You have no issues. However, legally you have to enroll yourself and pay the full amount of the National Health Insurance and the National Pension. Of course most such teachers never enroll themselves - which is illegal. Instead they pocket the savings and take the legal risks and health risks.
If your contract states that you are an employee, then that's how you should be registered. However, it is still not illegal for the tax, pension or health insurance offices to have you registered as an IC, even on an employment contract. Don't go hollering about it being "illegal" when you visit those offices. This implies to the workers that they are somehow involved in some nefarious, illegal scheme against you. They will react accordingly to such a personal insult. Remember it is legal for you to be an IC. Half of all Korean workers are in the same category with you.
What you have is a breach of contract issue, by your boss, and possibly an act of fraud, by your boss. Keep it in perspective. The workers in the Pension Office, Health Insurance Office, and Labor Office are not the ones who have breached your contract - and since you do have a contract, they may be able to help you. Just stay calm, show them what your contract says and ask for help.
There are also a variety of contract possibilites that do not specify that you are an IC nor that you are an employee. Such contracts have to be interpreted individually. In some cases you may be held to be an IC and in others, an employee, on a case by case basis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
navogel
Joined: 14 May 2013 Location: United States
|
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well believe me dude I wasnt trying to argue your points that some E2s are legal ICs. That tax document I found just says an "employment agreement" makes you an employee. From a tax perspective...
But please you tell me what you think of my contract:
a. no where does it mention contractor or independent contractor.
b. it does say 3.3% tax
c. It mentions employee twice:
"The employee should not teach classes or students at any other..."
"The term of this contract is from September 2013 to September 2014. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the employee and employer and supercedes all previous oral and written representations and understandings between the parties."
It is also signed as "employer" and "employee"
d. It also says this:
"Health Insurance: The Teacher will be covered by Health Insurance. According to the government guideline for teachers, the monthly insurance charge will be shared by the Institute and the Teacher."
So...
Should I request full national health insurance, pension (which should come along with it) and a lower tax rate?
Or maybe just start with the health insurance per the contract? Once I get national health insurance, he should HAVE to sign me up for the pension, right? He should also HAVE to pay me back the tax refund from the 3.3% bc as an employee he is filing my taxes.
What would you do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hogwonguy1979

Joined: 22 Dec 2003 Location: the racoon den
|
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| navogel wrote: |
Well believe me dude I wasnt trying to argue your points that some E2s are legal ICs. That tax document I found just says an "employment agreement" makes you an employee. From a tax perspective...
But please you tell me what you think of my contract:
a. no where does it mention contractor or independent contractor.
b. it does say 3.3% tax
c. It mentions employee twice:
"The employee should not teach classes or students at any other..."
"The term of this contract is from September 2013 to September 2014. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the employee and employer and supercedes all previous oral and written representations and understandings between the parties."
It is also signed as "employer" and "employee"
d. It also says this:
"Health Insurance: The Teacher will be covered by Health Insurance. According to the government guideline for teachers, the monthly insurance charge will be shared by the Institute and the Teacher."
So...
Should I request full national health insurance, pension (which should come along with it) and a lower tax rate?
Or maybe just start with the health insurance per the contract? Once I get national health insurance, he should HAVE to sign me up for the pension, right? He should also HAVE to pay me back the tax refund from the 3.3% bc as an employee he is filing my taxes.
What would you do? |
I'd go to labor, tax office whatever, this may be a good test case for labor given all the language that says "employer" and "employee" and given that in the contract it says you can't work for anybody else that to me quacks like an employer/employee, Now I'd check the Korean language to double check. If you were an IC there shouldn't be any mention of the not working for other people. Also there have been contracts posted here that now say in them "Independent Contractor" instead of employee so they know the difference and are trying to screw you |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Stamos jr.
Joined: 07 Oct 2012 Location: Namsan
|
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| navogel wrote: |
Well believe me dude I wasnt trying to argue your points that some E2s are legal ICs. That tax document I found just says an "employment agreement" makes you an employee. From a tax perspective...
But please you tell me what you think of my contract:
a. no where does it mention contractor or independent contractor.
b. it does say 3.3% tax
c. It mentions employee twice:
"The employee should not teach classes or students at any other..."
"The term of this contract is from September 2013 to September 2014. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the employee and employer and supercedes all previous oral and written representations and understandings between the parties."
It is also signed as "employer" and "employee"
d. It also says this:
"Health Insurance: The Teacher will be covered by Health Insurance. According to the government guideline for teachers, the monthly insurance charge will be shared by the Institute and the Teacher."
So...
Should I request full national health insurance, pension (which should come along with it) and a lower tax rate?
Or maybe just start with the health insurance per the contract? Once I get national health insurance, he should HAVE to sign me up for the pension, right? He should also HAVE to pay me back the tax refund from the 3.3% bc as an employee he is filing my taxes.
What would you do? |
I already explained this but it got deleted, so I guess I'll explain it again. You aren't doing anything sly, and he knows what he's doing: stealing your money, exploiting you, and employing you illegally so he doesn't have to pay you, from everything that I ever read, your legal benefits. As I said, I blackmailed them for a few months, got out of the hagwon racket, paid back the money for the months that I didn't pay (which is nonsense), then got stuck with the bills the next time, but it was complicated and pretty much not worth paying it back at that point. I constantly had problems with this issue, but I could be wrong. Every time I leveled this issue with the people i worked for they went out of their way to accommodate me or tell me that I could enroll myself with them paying me back, but my tax rate always stayed at 3.3%. You can enroll yourself and he'll probably pay you back, but i doubt your tax rate will change, seems they bare no responsibility when you sign yourself up, even if they accompany you there. If you're only a month or two in I'd try to exploit it or just get out of the situation by threatening your boss, subtly, of course. You aren't going to change the reality of the situation, you're getting screwed on purpose. He'd probably rather replace you and send you on your way if you push hard enough, and might compensate you for keeping your mouth shut. Who knows. But it's not complicated, you're getting rubbed down. Exploit it or use it as a weapon.
Cc. Mapo topia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|