Earned 150k, took home 28k: why he quit

Billed 150,000 € and earned 28,000 gross: he leaves the company

A worker who billed his company 150,000 euros plus VAT and received 28,000 gross —about 23,000 net— has resigned due to burnout. Ten hours daily on the phone, Monday to Friday, pressure to work extra hours on weekends, and a final demand: bill 200,000 plus VAT alone. The company, according to the case’s own account, is already losing consolidated clients he handled. The net profit, according to that account, would be around 60,000-70,000 euros per year.

The breakdown is the first stumbling block for anyone trying to judge it. And there are no two accounts that balance.

How much of 150,000 euros does the company actually keep?

From those 150,000, you must subtract the gross salary, Social Security, suppliers, operating expenses, and corporate tax. The most favorable calculation for the worker, according to the affected party’s version, is simple: 150,000 minus 30,000 in salary minus 30,000 in suppliers leaves 90,000; applying a 25% corporate tax, about 70,000 net remain. With that result, the margin would more than justify a raise.

On the other hand is the version arguing that the numbers don’t even break even. With Social Security, expenses, and taxes, a company may be losing money paying 28,000 gross for someone who bills 150,000. In the same vein, it is argued that the average gross margin of most companies hovers around 20%, and that an excellent profit is precisely that 20%. Anything beyond that must be deducted for reinvestment, reserves, liquidity, and contingencies.

The discrepancy is significant: depending on which side of the scale you look at, this is either abuse or a bad business. And both can be true simultaneously if the sector has margins of 3% or 60%.

What the boss takes: from 400,000 to three million billed

Comparable cases that cross the conversation draw a huge range. One account states that for 20 years he generated over one million euros in annual net profit and took home about 100,000 in salary and mileage. Another describes a factory owner who bills three million and keeps 50,000 per year. A third, a salesperson, billed 400,000 from an office, without going out into the field, and now, as a freelancer, feels more squeezed than his own employees.

The sarracena is not singular. The margin is set by competition and the real ability to profit: there are businesses with margins above 100% and others that barely cover costs. Measuring a salary against gross billing, without sector or expense structure, is like comparing apartment prices between different neighborhoods.

The liberal argument: if he doesn’t pay, let him crash

Here emerges the most uncomfortable response for those defending a raise. If the business owner does not value the departing employee, the market will punish him alone: the company will lose clients, billing, and profits, and if it is not an isolated case, it will eventually close, leaving space for others who do things better. The invisible hand, lowercase and without epic.

Against that, the colder wage argument. An employee’s salary is not raised because he produces more, because he is deemed indispensable, or because his colleague earns more. It is raised when competition offers more and he has the door open. The rest, according to that line, are mantras installed in the collective imagination for four decades.

Those who leave and take the client portfolio

The pattern repeats with alarming precision. A salesperson saw a boss’s relative brought in, trained alongside veterans, and eventually given his clients while he was fired. He went to the competition, recovered his portfolio —and some more— and in less than a year the old company closed.

It does not seem like an isolated case. When a capable person is replaced by inexperienced staff, performance drops, other departments bear the gap, and turnover feeds itself. Some have 20 years refusing to work for Spanish bosses, regardless of the company: a six-figure offer fell through after an interview with the boss in question.

Where the case stalls

Here the journey ends. Some see exploitation; others, a margin so tight that a raise was impossible. The precise calculation of net profit —what separates one from the other— is not on the table: it is handled as an estimate, and depending on who estimates, it comes out as either abuse or ruin. What the account takes for granted is that the worker has left and that the position required ten hours daily, with pressure for weekends; the loss of clients arrives as a comment conveyed by the affected party himself.