Should I request a lower raise to avoid a health-insurance premium raise threshold?
up vote
56
down vote
favorite
At my company, per-year health-insurance premiums increase by $1044 once a salary is greater than or equal to A. A does not seem to change with time, and it is the highest value where a premium increase occurs. The premiums are piece-wise constant with respect to salary.
I currently make B, such that, if I received a 2.28% raise, I would make A. I expect my new salary to be between A and (A+$1300), with the latter being a 3.3% increase.
The only other factors that come to mind that would be affected by salary are 1) 10% company match for 401(k), and 2) raises are expressed in terms of percentages of existing salary; these percentages are functions of performance category and ratio of current salary to midpoint. Therefore, there is compounding, but the percentage can be reduced if the current salary is higher.
Based on some crude calculations that consider the premium increase and the 401(k) matching, it seems it would be better to make (A-$0.01) than it would be to make between A and (A+$950).
Therefore, if my new salary is between A and (A+$950), should I request (A-$0.01)? Are there other factors I should consider?
salary united-states performance-reviews raise
edited 17 hours ago
smci
2,037820
asked yesterday
BaronFiner
366125
New contributor
BaronFiner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
|
show 14 more comments
up vote
56
down vote
favorite
At my company, per-year health-insurance premiums increase by $1044 once a salary is greater than or equal to A. A does not seem to change with time, and it is the highest value where a premium increase occurs. The premiums are piece-wise constant with respect to salary.
I currently make B, such that, if I received a 2.28% raise, I would make A. I expect my new salary to be between A and (A+$1300), with the latter being a 3.3% increase.
The only other factors that come to mind that would be affected by salary are 1) 10% company match for 401(k), and 2) raises are expressed in terms of percentages of existing salary; these percentages are functions of performance category and ratio of current salary to midpoint. Therefore, there is compounding, but the percentage can be reduced if the current salary is higher.
Based on some crude calculations that consider the premium increase and the 401(k) matching, it seems it would be better to make (A-$0.01) than it would be to make between A and (A+$950).
Therefore, if my new salary is between A and (A+$950), should I request (A-$0.01)? Are there other factors I should consider?
salary united-states performance-reviews raise
edited 17 hours ago
smci
2,037820
asked yesterday
BaronFiner
366125
New contributor
BaronFiner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
Possible duplicate of Raise causes me to lose pay
– gilliduck
yesterday
11
I don't have an answer for you but don't forget, if you take a lower increase now, every pay increase for the rest of your tenure with the company will be lower as a result. Just... factor that in to whatever decision you come to.
– corsiKa
yesterday
24
Since you write that 1300 would be a 3.3% raise, we can derive your salary anyway, while using A and B instead of actual amounts makes the whole thing a bit confusing to read.
– 11684
yesterday
15
@ilkkachu Oh then I misread. Still, we can derive the actual salary.
– 11684
yesterday
4
There is a financial Stack Exchange, you know. money.stackexchange.com
– Kyle Delaney
22 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
up vote
56
down vote
favorite
up vote
56
down vote
favorite
At my company, per-year health-insurance premiums increase by $1044 once a salary is greater than or equal to A. A does not seem to change with time, and it is the highest value where a premium increase occurs. The premiums are piece-wise constant with respect to salary.
I currently make B, such that, if I received a 2.28% raise, I would make A. I expect my new salary to be between A and (A+$1300), with the latter being a 3.3% increase.
The only other factors that come to mind that would be affected by salary are 1) 10% company match for 401(k), and 2) raises are expressed in terms of percentages of existing salary; these percentages are functions of performance category and ratio of current salary to midpoint. Therefore, there is compounding, but the percentage can be reduced if the current salary is higher.
Based on some crude calculations that consider the premium increase and the 401(k) matching, it seems it would be better to make (A-$0.01) than it would be to make between A and (A+$950).
Therefore, if my new salary is between A and (A+$950), should I request (A-$0.01)? Are there other factors I should consider?
salary united-states performance-reviews raise
edited 17 hours ago
smci
2,037820
asked yesterday
BaronFiner
366125
New contributor
BaronFiner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
At my company, per-year health-insurance premiums increase by $1044 once a salary is greater than or equal to A. A does not seem to change with time, and it is the highest value where a premium increase occurs. The premiums are piece-wise constant with respect to salary.
I currently make B, such that, if I received a 2.28% raise, I would make A. I expect my new salary to be between A and (A+$1300), with the latter being a 3.3% increase.
The only other factors that come to mind that would be affected by salary are 1) 10% company match for 401(k), and 2) raises are expressed in terms of percentages of existing salary; these percentages are functions of performance category and ratio of current salary to midpoint. Therefore, there is compounding, but the percentage can be reduced if the current salary is higher.
Based on some crude calculations that consider the premium increase and the 401(k) matching, it seems it would be better to make (A-$0.01) than it would be to make between A and (A+$950).
Therefore, if my new salary is between A and (A+$950), should I request (A-$0.01)? Are there other factors I should consider?
salary united-states performance-reviews raise
salary united-states performance-reviews raise
edited 17 hours ago
smci
2,037820
asked yesterday
BaronFiner
366125
New contributor
BaronFiner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 17 hours ago
smci
2,037820
asked yesterday
BaronFiner
366125
New contributor
BaronFiner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 17 hours ago
smci
2,037820
edited 17 hours ago
smci
2,037820
edited 17 hours ago
smci
2,037820
2,037820
asked yesterday
BaronFiner
366125
New contributor
BaronFiner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
BaronFiner
366125
asked yesterday
BaronFiner
366125
366125
New contributor
BaronFiner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
BaronFiner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
BaronFiner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
Possible duplicate of Raise causes me to lose pay
– gilliduck
yesterday
11
I don't have an answer for you but don't forget, if you take a lower increase now, every pay increase for the rest of your tenure with the company will be lower as a result. Just... factor that in to whatever decision you come to.
– corsiKa
yesterday
24
Since you write that 1300 would be a 3.3% raise, we can derive your salary anyway, while using A and B instead of actual amounts makes the whole thing a bit confusing to read.
– 11684
yesterday
15
@ilkkachu Oh then I misread. Still, we can derive the actual salary.
– 11684
yesterday
4
There is a financial Stack Exchange, you know. money.stackexchange.com
– Kyle Delaney
22 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
2
Possible duplicate of Raise causes me to lose pay
– gilliduck
yesterday
11
I don't have an answer for you but don't forget, if you take a lower increase now, every pay increase for the rest of your tenure with the company will be lower as a result. Just... factor that in to whatever decision you come to.
– corsiKa
yesterday
24
Since you write that 1300 would be a 3.3% raise, we can derive your salary anyway, while using A and B instead of actual amounts makes the whole thing a bit confusing to read.
– 11684
yesterday
15
@ilkkachu Oh then I misread. Still, we can derive the actual salary.
– 11684
yesterday
4
There is a financial Stack Exchange, you know. money.stackexchange.com
– Kyle Delaney
22 hours ago
2
2
Possible duplicate of Raise causes me to lose pay
– gilliduck
yesterday
Possible duplicate of Raise causes me to lose pay
– gilliduck
yesterday
11
11
I don't have an answer for you but don't forget, if you take a lower increase now, every pay increase for the rest of your tenure with the company will be lower as a result. Just... factor that in to whatever decision you come to.
– corsiKa
yesterday
I don't have an answer for you but don't forget, if you take a lower increase now, every pay increase for the rest of your tenure with the company will be lower as a result. Just... factor that in to whatever decision you come to.
– corsiKa
yesterday
24
24
Since you write that 1300 would be a 3.3% raise, we can derive your salary anyway, while using A and B instead of actual amounts makes the whole thing a bit confusing to read.
– 11684
yesterday
Since you write that 1300 would be a 3.3% raise, we can derive your salary anyway, while using A and B instead of actual amounts makes the whole thing a bit confusing to read.
– 11684
yesterday
15
15
@ilkkachu Oh then I misread. Still, we can derive the actual salary.
– 11684
yesterday
@ilkkachu Oh then I misread. Still, we can derive the actual salary.
– 11684
yesterday
4
4
There is a financial Stack Exchange, you know. money.stackexchange.com
– Kyle Delaney
22 hours ago
There is a financial Stack Exchange, you know. money.stackexchange.com
– Kyle Delaney
22 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
up vote
150
down vote
Therefore, if my new salary is between A and (A+$950), should I
request (A-$0.01)?
Assuming you are able to request raises, it would seem to make a lot more sense to request (A+$1300).
You can use your argument about the net loss due to higher insurance costs to bolster your request.
answered yesterday
Joe Strazzere
240k117699996
17
This is the best answer. In addition to satisfying the conditions listed in the question (and avoiding the heavy lift of changing the policies the company has explicitly chosen), it also addresses the underlying situation. If the idea is to lower premiums for workers under a certain salary, then the cliff between raise and breakeven means that the OP carries that burden personally for the company's choice. The company should pay for this odd arrangement, not the OP.
– Upper_Case
yesterday
1
@Joe Strazzere Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of rigidity in place such that 1) raises are only awarded once per year, based on a matrix that accounts for performance and current compensation ratio, and 2) they aren't negotiated; at best, I'm assuming I could get it lowered.
– BaronFiner
yesterday
13
@BaronFiner - I guess you do whatever you feel you must do. It makes no sense to me. In a different context, I was able to negotiate a more equitable benefit, when we were acquired and assimilated into the acquiring company's benefits plan. In my case it was vacation time rather than salary. But the plea for fairness worked. Good luck.
– Joe Strazzere
yesterday
3
@BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
– thelem
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
37
down vote
Last time that happened at my company, we have negotiated to officially raise the salary to A - 0.01, but keep track of the intended salary C (being A < C < A + 950), so next raise would be based on C instead of A - 0.01.
That way, the affected employee kept the best salary they could, as the company couldn't pay A + 950 or higher, but the employee didn't miss the C - (A - 0.01) raise permanently - they only refused it while it wasn't a benefit for them.
This only works if there's trust between both parties - I don't think there's a legally binding instrument to agree on this.
answered yesterday
mgarciaisaia
1,363913
23
"I don't think there's a legally binding instrument to agree on this." Actually, that legally binding instrument would be a contract. I see no issue with specifying this in the employement contract or an addition to it.
– DonQuiKong
yesterday
2
@Don, most U.S. employees don't have an employment contract, and I doubt the company would be willing to negotiate one to solve this.
– prl
18 hours ago
2
@prl that's a myth. When you buy your groceries, you're entering into a contract with the store. You can do that without speaking a single word. Every employee has an employment contract. It might not be in written form, but it has the same legal value. Therefore if both sides agree on having the raise happen as explained, that's a contract. It's enforceable in court. Having it in writing just helps with proving it exists and what the agreement exactly is.
– DonQuiKong
8 hours ago
2
This is often referred to as a deferred raise. That’s a somewhat more general term, so the details would still need to be clarified explicitly, but a standard term can be helpful for getting the idea across quickly without making the arrangement sound overcomplicated.
– PLL
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
Consider that the raise is forever. If you get 1% less salary this year (and are happy about it), you will also get 1% less salary next year, and the year after, and the year after that. You gain a bit this year, but you will lose out all the following years.
Take the raise that you can get.
answered yesterday
gnasher729
80.8k34145256
If the raise was forever, surely that would be an argument for asking for the lower raise, if the higher raise would leave the OP worse off? Or are you considering that the medical cost threshold might be increased in subsequent years?
– Time4Tea
yesterday
7
Of course not. Let’s say next years raise is 2.5% and this year you pick 2% instead of 3%. Next year your total raise will be 4.5% instead of 5.5%, so you lose out. The year after that the total raise may be 7% instead of 8%, and so on.
– gnasher729
yesterday
Ok. I was confused by what you meant by 'the raise is forever'. I thought you meant it would be the only raise the OP would ever get (in that position).
– Time4Tea
18 hours ago
1
This should be the accepted answer. Always take more money. Even if you lose out in the short term, you win in the long term.
– asgallant
17 hours ago
This is the correct answer.
– isaace
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
Your company has a perverse incentive in place, and it would be a more constructive response to lobby for it be changed than to engage in shenanigans that simply perpetuate it rather than addressing it. You're proposing responding to one form of dysfunction with more dysfunction, which is bad for the company and likely for you. If you really can't get the policy changed, you'll have to decide whether $1000 is sufficient compensation for contributing to the dysfunction of the corporate world (and the risk of looking like an employee trying to game the system).
answered yesterday
Acccumulation
2,7441411
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
Health Premiums are pretax. They (a) reduce your tax liability, and (b) do not affect 401k contributions. Because of the effect on your tax liability, you will pay less in taxes in trade for more premium cost. The $1,300 more to your gross means you'll be saving more retirement, and get a larger matching 401(k).
Even if it may seem outrageous upfront, it is pretty typical that crossing from A-$0.01 to A will still result in a slightly larger paycheck (or, at least, not significantly smaller, usually just a few dollars) as well as not negatively affecting your 401(k). Even more so, A+$1,300 will be a larger check than A-$0.01 upfront and over time.
Of course, without knowing A, your salary, your tax liability, marital status, property ownership, premium differences, and so on, it's hard to say for certain if A or A-$0.01 would be beneficial, but A+$1,300 will definitely be beneficial overall, because it'll have a smaller tax impact because of the increased premiums, yet still be a boon for your 401(k). There's no good reason for pursuing a smaller salary in the hopes that it will produce larger paychecks, especially since it will have a negative impact on your retirement.
answered yesterday
phyrfox
38116
The value of A is easily computable from the information given. I'm not sure why OP was cagy about saying it.
– prl
18 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
Instead of refusing or downgrading the raise, why not ask for it to be deferred? Then you have not given up the rights to it while still keeping your pay below the all important threshold. It may also be easier for the company to implement than anything else.
answered yesterday
JDL
1612
New contributor
JDL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I don't think you should request a lower raise.
Although the situation of having to pay more for the same health coverage isn't pleasant, requesting a lower raise would set a bad precedent for yourself. Even though it is for financial reasons, it sends the message that you don't need/want more money. The next time you are considered for a raise, they may continue with the lower raise since you previously rejected a higher one.
Also, requesting A-$.01 means that it will take longer for you to get to A+$950. There is no guarantee that your next raise, if you accept A-$.01, will get you to A+$950 ( What will you do then? Reject a raise completely? ). You could end up losing more money than the extra cost of insurance for a shorter period.
answered yesterday
sf02
2,4302313
6
"it sends the message that you don't need/want more money" - really? If you say "Could you make my raise into X instead because that way I get to take home more money" I don't think that would send the message that you don't want more money...
– Chris
yesterday
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "423"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: false,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
BaronFiner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f124502%2fshould-i-request-a-lower-raise-to-avoid-a-health-insurance-premium-raise-thresho%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(function () {
$("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function () {
var showEditor = function() {
$("#show-editor-button").hide();
$("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
};
var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
if(useFancy == 'True') {
var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');
$(this).loadPopup({
url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
loaded: function(popup) {
var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');
pTitle.text(popupTitle);
pBody.html(popupBody);
pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);
}
})
} else{
var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true) {
showEditor();
}
}
});
});
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
150
down vote
Therefore, if my new salary is between A and (A+$950), should I
request (A-$0.01)?
Assuming you are able to request raises, it would seem to make a lot more sense to request (A+$1300).
You can use your argument about the net loss due to higher insurance costs to bolster your request.
answered yesterday
Joe Strazzere
240k117699996
17
This is the best answer. In addition to satisfying the conditions listed in the question (and avoiding the heavy lift of changing the policies the company has explicitly chosen), it also addresses the underlying situation. If the idea is to lower premiums for workers under a certain salary, then the cliff between raise and breakeven means that the OP carries that burden personally for the company's choice. The company should pay for this odd arrangement, not the OP.
– Upper_Case
yesterday
1
@Joe Strazzere Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of rigidity in place such that 1) raises are only awarded once per year, based on a matrix that accounts for performance and current compensation ratio, and 2) they aren't negotiated; at best, I'm assuming I could get it lowered.
– BaronFiner
yesterday
13
@BaronFiner - I guess you do whatever you feel you must do. It makes no sense to me. In a different context, I was able to negotiate a more equitable benefit, when we were acquired and assimilated into the acquiring company's benefits plan. In my case it was vacation time rather than salary. But the plea for fairness worked. Good luck.
– Joe Strazzere
yesterday
3
@BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
– thelem
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
150
down vote
Therefore, if my new salary is between A and (A+$950), should I
request (A-$0.01)?
Assuming you are able to request raises, it would seem to make a lot more sense to request (A+$1300).
You can use your argument about the net loss due to higher insurance costs to bolster your request.
answered yesterday
Joe Strazzere
240k117699996
17
This is the best answer. In addition to satisfying the conditions listed in the question (and avoiding the heavy lift of changing the policies the company has explicitly chosen), it also addresses the underlying situation. If the idea is to lower premiums for workers under a certain salary, then the cliff between raise and breakeven means that the OP carries that burden personally for the company's choice. The company should pay for this odd arrangement, not the OP.
– Upper_Case
yesterday
1
@Joe Strazzere Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of rigidity in place such that 1) raises are only awarded once per year, based on a matrix that accounts for performance and current compensation ratio, and 2) they aren't negotiated; at best, I'm assuming I could get it lowered.
– BaronFiner
yesterday
13
@BaronFiner - I guess you do whatever you feel you must do. It makes no sense to me. In a different context, I was able to negotiate a more equitable benefit, when we were acquired and assimilated into the acquiring company's benefits plan. In my case it was vacation time rather than salary. But the plea for fairness worked. Good luck.
– Joe Strazzere
yesterday
3
@BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
– thelem
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
150
down vote
up vote
150
down vote
Therefore, if my new salary is between A and (A+$950), should I
request (A-$0.01)?
Assuming you are able to request raises, it would seem to make a lot more sense to request (A+$1300).
You can use your argument about the net loss due to higher insurance costs to bolster your request.
answered yesterday
Joe Strazzere
240k117699996
Therefore, if my new salary is between A and (A+$950), should I
request (A-$0.01)?
Assuming you are able to request raises, it would seem to make a lot more sense to request (A+$1300).
You can use your argument about the net loss due to higher insurance costs to bolster your request.
answered yesterday
Joe Strazzere
240k117699996
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Joe Strazzere
240k117699996
answered yesterday
Joe Strazzere
240k117699996
answered yesterday
Joe Strazzere
240k117699996
240k117699996
17
This is the best answer. In addition to satisfying the conditions listed in the question (and avoiding the heavy lift of changing the policies the company has explicitly chosen), it also addresses the underlying situation. If the idea is to lower premiums for workers under a certain salary, then the cliff between raise and breakeven means that the OP carries that burden personally for the company's choice. The company should pay for this odd arrangement, not the OP.
– Upper_Case
yesterday
1
@Joe Strazzere Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of rigidity in place such that 1) raises are only awarded once per year, based on a matrix that accounts for performance and current compensation ratio, and 2) they aren't negotiated; at best, I'm assuming I could get it lowered.
– BaronFiner
yesterday
13
@BaronFiner - I guess you do whatever you feel you must do. It makes no sense to me. In a different context, I was able to negotiate a more equitable benefit, when we were acquired and assimilated into the acquiring company's benefits plan. In my case it was vacation time rather than salary. But the plea for fairness worked. Good luck.
– Joe Strazzere
yesterday
3
@BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
– thelem
yesterday
add a comment |
17
This is the best answer. In addition to satisfying the conditions listed in the question (and avoiding the heavy lift of changing the policies the company has explicitly chosen), it also addresses the underlying situation. If the idea is to lower premiums for workers under a certain salary, then the cliff between raise and breakeven means that the OP carries that burden personally for the company's choice. The company should pay for this odd arrangement, not the OP.
– Upper_Case
yesterday
1
@Joe Strazzere Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of rigidity in place such that 1) raises are only awarded once per year, based on a matrix that accounts for performance and current compensation ratio, and 2) they aren't negotiated; at best, I'm assuming I could get it lowered.
– BaronFiner
yesterday
13
@BaronFiner - I guess you do whatever you feel you must do. It makes no sense to me. In a different context, I was able to negotiate a more equitable benefit, when we were acquired and assimilated into the acquiring company's benefits plan. In my case it was vacation time rather than salary. But the plea for fairness worked. Good luck.
– Joe Strazzere
yesterday
3
@BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
– thelem
yesterday
17
17
This is the best answer. In addition to satisfying the conditions listed in the question (and avoiding the heavy lift of changing the policies the company has explicitly chosen), it also addresses the underlying situation. If the idea is to lower premiums for workers under a certain salary, then the cliff between raise and breakeven means that the OP carries that burden personally for the company's choice. The company should pay for this odd arrangement, not the OP.
– Upper_Case
yesterday
This is the best answer. In addition to satisfying the conditions listed in the question (and avoiding the heavy lift of changing the policies the company has explicitly chosen), it also addresses the underlying situation. If the idea is to lower premiums for workers under a certain salary, then the cliff between raise and breakeven means that the OP carries that burden personally for the company's choice. The company should pay for this odd arrangement, not the OP.
– Upper_Case
yesterday
1
1
@Joe Strazzere Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of rigidity in place such that 1) raises are only awarded once per year, based on a matrix that accounts for performance and current compensation ratio, and 2) they aren't negotiated; at best, I'm assuming I could get it lowered.
– BaronFiner
yesterday
@Joe Strazzere Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of rigidity in place such that 1) raises are only awarded once per year, based on a matrix that accounts for performance and current compensation ratio, and 2) they aren't negotiated; at best, I'm assuming I could get it lowered.
– BaronFiner
yesterday
13
13
@BaronFiner - I guess you do whatever you feel you must do. It makes no sense to me. In a different context, I was able to negotiate a more equitable benefit, when we were acquired and assimilated into the acquiring company's benefits plan. In my case it was vacation time rather than salary. But the plea for fairness worked. Good luck.
– Joe Strazzere
yesterday
@BaronFiner - I guess you do whatever you feel you must do. It makes no sense to me. In a different context, I was able to negotiate a more equitable benefit, when we were acquired and assimilated into the acquiring company's benefits plan. In my case it was vacation time rather than salary. But the plea for fairness worked. Good luck.
– Joe Strazzere
yesterday
3
3
@BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
– thelem
yesterday
@BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
– thelem
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
37
down vote
Last time that happened at my company, we have negotiated to officially raise the salary to A - 0.01, but keep track of the intended salary C (being A < C < A + 950), so next raise would be based on C instead of A - 0.01.
That way, the affected employee kept the best salary they could, as the company couldn't pay A + 950 or higher, but the employee didn't miss the C - (A - 0.01) raise permanently - they only refused it while it wasn't a benefit for them.
This only works if there's trust between both parties - I don't think there's a legally binding instrument to agree on this.
answered yesterday
mgarciaisaia
1,363913
23
"I don't think there's a legally binding instrument to agree on this." Actually, that legally binding instrument would be a contract. I see no issue with specifying this in the employement contract or an addition to it.
– DonQuiKong
yesterday
2
@Don, most U.S. employees don't have an employment contract, and I doubt the company would be willing to negotiate one to solve this.
– prl
18 hours ago
2
@prl that's a myth. When you buy your groceries, you're entering into a contract with the store. You can do that without speaking a single word. Every employee has an employment contract. It might not be in written form, but it has the same legal value. Therefore if both sides agree on having the raise happen as explained, that's a contract. It's enforceable in court. Having it in writing just helps with proving it exists and what the agreement exactly is.
– DonQuiKong
8 hours ago
2
This is often referred to as a deferred raise. That’s a somewhat more general term, so the details would still need to be clarified explicitly, but a standard term can be helpful for getting the idea across quickly without making the arrangement sound overcomplicated.
– PLL
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
37
down vote
Last time that happened at my company, we have negotiated to officially raise the salary to A - 0.01, but keep track of the intended salary C (being A < C < A + 950), so next raise would be based on C instead of A - 0.01.
That way, the affected employee kept the best salary they could, as the company couldn't pay A + 950 or higher, but the employee didn't miss the C - (A - 0.01) raise permanently - they only refused it while it wasn't a benefit for them.
This only works if there's trust between both parties - I don't think there's a legally binding instrument to agree on this.
answered yesterday
mgarciaisaia
1,363913
23
"I don't think there's a legally binding instrument to agree on this." Actually, that legally binding instrument would be a contract. I see no issue with specifying this in the employement contract or an addition to it.
– DonQuiKong
yesterday
2
@Don, most U.S. employees don't have an employment contract, and I doubt the company would be willing to negotiate one to solve this.
– prl
18 hours ago
2
@prl that's a myth. When you buy your groceries, you're entering into a contract with the store. You can do that without speaking a single word. Every employee has an employment contract. It might not be in written form, but it has the same legal value. Therefore if both sides agree on having the raise happen as explained, that's a contract. It's enforceable in court. Having it in writing just helps with proving it exists and what the agreement exactly is.
– DonQuiKong
8 hours ago
2
This is often referred to as a deferred raise. That’s a somewhat more general term, so the details would still need to be clarified explicitly, but a standard term can be helpful for getting the idea across quickly without making the arrangement sound overcomplicated.
– PLL
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
37
down vote
up vote
37
down vote
Last time that happened at my company, we have negotiated to officially raise the salary to A - 0.01, but keep track of the intended salary C (being A < C < A + 950), so next raise would be based on C instead of A - 0.01.
That way, the affected employee kept the best salary they could, as the company couldn't pay A + 950 or higher, but the employee didn't miss the C - (A - 0.01) raise permanently - they only refused it while it wasn't a benefit for them.
This only works if there's trust between both parties - I don't think there's a legally binding instrument to agree on this.
answered yesterday
mgarciaisaia
1,363913
Last time that happened at my company, we have negotiated to officially raise the salary to A - 0.01, but keep track of the intended salary C (being A < C < A + 950), so next raise would be based on C instead of A - 0.01.
That way, the affected employee kept the best salary they could, as the company couldn't pay A + 950 or higher, but the employee didn't miss the C - (A - 0.01) raise permanently - they only refused it while it wasn't a benefit for them.
This only works if there's trust between both parties - I don't think there's a legally binding instrument to agree on this.
answered yesterday
mgarciaisaia
1,363913
answered yesterday
mgarciaisaia
1,363913
answered yesterday
mgarciaisaia
1,363913
answered yesterday
mgarciaisaia
1,363913
1,363913
23
"I don't think there's a legally binding instrument to agree on this." Actually, that legally binding instrument would be a contract. I see no issue with specifying this in the employement contract or an addition to it.
– DonQuiKong
yesterday
2
@Don, most U.S. employees don't have an employment contract, and I doubt the company would be willing to negotiate one to solve this.
– prl
18 hours ago
2
@prl that's a myth. When you buy your groceries, you're entering into a contract with the store. You can do that without speaking a single word. Every employee has an employment contract. It might not be in written form, but it has the same legal value. Therefore if both sides agree on having the raise happen as explained, that's a contract. It's enforceable in court. Having it in writing just helps with proving it exists and what the agreement exactly is.
– DonQuiKong
8 hours ago
2
This is often referred to as a deferred raise. That’s a somewhat more general term, so the details would still need to be clarified explicitly, but a standard term can be helpful for getting the idea across quickly without making the arrangement sound overcomplicated.
– PLL
2 hours ago
add a comment |
23
"I don't think there's a legally binding instrument to agree on this." Actually, that legally binding instrument would be a contract. I see no issue with specifying this in the employement contract or an addition to it.
– DonQuiKong
yesterday
2
@Don, most U.S. employees don't have an employment contract, and I doubt the company would be willing to negotiate one to solve this.
– prl
18 hours ago
2
@prl that's a myth. When you buy your groceries, you're entering into a contract with the store. You can do that without speaking a single word. Every employee has an employment contract. It might not be in written form, but it has the same legal value. Therefore if both sides agree on having the raise happen as explained, that's a contract. It's enforceable in court. Having it in writing just helps with proving it exists and what the agreement exactly is.
– DonQuiKong
8 hours ago
2
This is often referred to as a deferred raise. That’s a somewhat more general term, so the details would still need to be clarified explicitly, but a standard term can be helpful for getting the idea across quickly without making the arrangement sound overcomplicated.
– PLL
2 hours ago
23
23
"I don't think there's a legally binding instrument to agree on this." Actually, that legally binding instrument would be a contract. I see no issue with specifying this in the employement contract or an addition to it.
– DonQuiKong
yesterday
"I don't think there's a legally binding instrument to agree on this." Actually, that legally binding instrument would be a contract. I see no issue with specifying this in the employement contract or an addition to it.
– DonQuiKong
yesterday
2
2
@Don, most U.S. employees don't have an employment contract, and I doubt the company would be willing to negotiate one to solve this.
– prl
18 hours ago
@Don, most U.S. employees don't have an employment contract, and I doubt the company would be willing to negotiate one to solve this.
– prl
18 hours ago
2
2
@prl that's a myth. When you buy your groceries, you're entering into a contract with the store. You can do that without speaking a single word. Every employee has an employment contract. It might not be in written form, but it has the same legal value. Therefore if both sides agree on having the raise happen as explained, that's a contract. It's enforceable in court. Having it in writing just helps with proving it exists and what the agreement exactly is.
– DonQuiKong
8 hours ago
@prl that's a myth. When you buy your groceries, you're entering into a contract with the store. You can do that without speaking a single word. Every employee has an employment contract. It might not be in written form, but it has the same legal value. Therefore if both sides agree on having the raise happen as explained, that's a contract. It's enforceable in court. Having it in writing just helps with proving it exists and what the agreement exactly is.
– DonQuiKong
8 hours ago
2
2
This is often referred to as a deferred raise. That’s a somewhat more general term, so the details would still need to be clarified explicitly, but a standard term can be helpful for getting the idea across quickly without making the arrangement sound overcomplicated.
– PLL
2 hours ago
This is often referred to as a deferred raise. That’s a somewhat more general term, so the details would still need to be clarified explicitly, but a standard term can be helpful for getting the idea across quickly without making the arrangement sound overcomplicated.
– PLL
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
Consider that the raise is forever. If you get 1% less salary this year (and are happy about it), you will also get 1% less salary next year, and the year after, and the year after that. You gain a bit this year, but you will lose out all the following years.
Take the raise that you can get.
answered yesterday
gnasher729
80.8k34145256
If the raise was forever, surely that would be an argument for asking for the lower raise, if the higher raise would leave the OP worse off? Or are you considering that the medical cost threshold might be increased in subsequent years?
– Time4Tea
yesterday
7
Of course not. Let’s say next years raise is 2.5% and this year you pick 2% instead of 3%. Next year your total raise will be 4.5% instead of 5.5%, so you lose out. The year after that the total raise may be 7% instead of 8%, and so on.
– gnasher729
yesterday
Ok. I was confused by what you meant by 'the raise is forever'. I thought you meant it would be the only raise the OP would ever get (in that position).
– Time4Tea
18 hours ago
1
This should be the accepted answer. Always take more money. Even if you lose out in the short term, you win in the long term.
– asgallant
17 hours ago
This is the correct answer.
– isaace
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
Consider that the raise is forever. If you get 1% less salary this year (and are happy about it), you will also get 1% less salary next year, and the year after, and the year after that. You gain a bit this year, but you will lose out all the following years.
Take the raise that you can get.
answered yesterday
gnasher729
80.8k34145256
If the raise was forever, surely that would be an argument for asking for the lower raise, if the higher raise would leave the OP worse off? Or are you considering that the medical cost threshold might be increased in subsequent years?
– Time4Tea
yesterday
7
Of course not. Let’s say next years raise is 2.5% and this year you pick 2% instead of 3%. Next year your total raise will be 4.5% instead of 5.5%, so you lose out. The year after that the total raise may be 7% instead of 8%, and so on.
– gnasher729
yesterday
Ok. I was confused by what you meant by 'the raise is forever'. I thought you meant it would be the only raise the OP would ever get (in that position).
– Time4Tea
18 hours ago
1
This should be the accepted answer. Always take more money. Even if you lose out in the short term, you win in the long term.
– asgallant
17 hours ago
This is the correct answer.
– isaace
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
up vote
18
down vote
Consider that the raise is forever. If you get 1% less salary this year (and are happy about it), you will also get 1% less salary next year, and the year after, and the year after that. You gain a bit this year, but you will lose out all the following years.
Take the raise that you can get.
answered yesterday
gnasher729
80.8k34145256
Consider that the raise is forever. If you get 1% less salary this year (and are happy about it), you will also get 1% less salary next year, and the year after, and the year after that. You gain a bit this year, but you will lose out all the following years.
Take the raise that you can get.
answered yesterday
gnasher729
80.8k34145256
answered yesterday
gnasher729
80.8k34145256
answered yesterday
gnasher729
80.8k34145256
answered yesterday
gnasher729
80.8k34145256
80.8k34145256
If the raise was forever, surely that would be an argument for asking for the lower raise, if the higher raise would leave the OP worse off? Or are you considering that the medical cost threshold might be increased in subsequent years?
– Time4Tea
yesterday
7
Of course not. Let’s say next years raise is 2.5% and this year you pick 2% instead of 3%. Next year your total raise will be 4.5% instead of 5.5%, so you lose out. The year after that the total raise may be 7% instead of 8%, and so on.
– gnasher729
yesterday
Ok. I was confused by what you meant by 'the raise is forever'. I thought you meant it would be the only raise the OP would ever get (in that position).
– Time4Tea
18 hours ago
1
This should be the accepted answer. Always take more money. Even if you lose out in the short term, you win in the long term.
– asgallant
17 hours ago
This is the correct answer.
– isaace
1 hour ago
add a comment |
If the raise was forever, surely that would be an argument for asking for the lower raise, if the higher raise would leave the OP worse off? Or are you considering that the medical cost threshold might be increased in subsequent years?
– Time4Tea
yesterday
7
Of course not. Let’s say next years raise is 2.5% and this year you pick 2% instead of 3%. Next year your total raise will be 4.5% instead of 5.5%, so you lose out. The year after that the total raise may be 7% instead of 8%, and so on.
– gnasher729
yesterday
Ok. I was confused by what you meant by 'the raise is forever'. I thought you meant it would be the only raise the OP would ever get (in that position).
– Time4Tea
18 hours ago
1
This should be the accepted answer. Always take more money. Even if you lose out in the short term, you win in the long term.
– asgallant
17 hours ago
This is the correct answer.
– isaace
1 hour ago
If the raise was forever, surely that would be an argument for asking for the lower raise, if the higher raise would leave the OP worse off? Or are you considering that the medical cost threshold might be increased in subsequent years?
– Time4Tea
yesterday
If the raise was forever, surely that would be an argument for asking for the lower raise, if the higher raise would leave the OP worse off? Or are you considering that the medical cost threshold might be increased in subsequent years?
– Time4Tea
yesterday
7
7
Of course not. Let’s say next years raise is 2.5% and this year you pick 2% instead of 3%. Next year your total raise will be 4.5% instead of 5.5%, so you lose out. The year after that the total raise may be 7% instead of 8%, and so on.
– gnasher729
yesterday
Of course not. Let’s say next years raise is 2.5% and this year you pick 2% instead of 3%. Next year your total raise will be 4.5% instead of 5.5%, so you lose out. The year after that the total raise may be 7% instead of 8%, and so on.
– gnasher729
yesterday
Ok. I was confused by what you meant by 'the raise is forever'. I thought you meant it would be the only raise the OP would ever get (in that position).
– Time4Tea
18 hours ago
Ok. I was confused by what you meant by 'the raise is forever'. I thought you meant it would be the only raise the OP would ever get (in that position).
– Time4Tea
18 hours ago
1
1
This should be the accepted answer. Always take more money. Even if you lose out in the short term, you win in the long term.
– asgallant
17 hours ago
This should be the accepted answer. Always take more money. Even if you lose out in the short term, you win in the long term.
– asgallant
17 hours ago
This is the correct answer.
– isaace
1 hour ago
This is the correct answer.
– isaace
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
Your company has a perverse incentive in place, and it would be a more constructive response to lobby for it be changed than to engage in shenanigans that simply perpetuate it rather than addressing it. You're proposing responding to one form of dysfunction with more dysfunction, which is bad for the company and likely for you. If you really can't get the policy changed, you'll have to decide whether $1000 is sufficient compensation for contributing to the dysfunction of the corporate world (and the risk of looking like an employee trying to game the system).
answered yesterday
Acccumulation
2,7441411
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
Your company has a perverse incentive in place, and it would be a more constructive response to lobby for it be changed than to engage in shenanigans that simply perpetuate it rather than addressing it. You're proposing responding to one form of dysfunction with more dysfunction, which is bad for the company and likely for you. If you really can't get the policy changed, you'll have to decide whether $1000 is sufficient compensation for contributing to the dysfunction of the corporate world (and the risk of looking like an employee trying to game the system).
answered yesterday
Acccumulation
2,7441411
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
up vote
17
down vote
Your company has a perverse incentive in place, and it would be a more constructive response to lobby for it be changed than to engage in shenanigans that simply perpetuate it rather than addressing it. You're proposing responding to one form of dysfunction with more dysfunction, which is bad for the company and likely for you. If you really can't get the policy changed, you'll have to decide whether $1000 is sufficient compensation for contributing to the dysfunction of the corporate world (and the risk of looking like an employee trying to game the system).
answered yesterday
Acccumulation
2,7441411
Your company has a perverse incentive in place, and it would be a more constructive response to lobby for it be changed than to engage in shenanigans that simply perpetuate it rather than addressing it. You're proposing responding to one form of dysfunction with more dysfunction, which is bad for the company and likely for you. If you really can't get the policy changed, you'll have to decide whether $1000 is sufficient compensation for contributing to the dysfunction of the corporate world (and the risk of looking like an employee trying to game the system).
answered yesterday
Acccumulation
2,7441411
answered yesterday
Acccumulation
2,7441411
answered yesterday
Acccumulation
2,7441411
answered yesterday
Acccumulation
2,7441411
2,7441411
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
Health Premiums are pretax. They (a) reduce your tax liability, and (b) do not affect 401k contributions. Because of the effect on your tax liability, you will pay less in taxes in trade for more premium cost. The $1,300 more to your gross means you'll be saving more retirement, and get a larger matching 401(k).
Even if it may seem outrageous upfront, it is pretty typical that crossing from A-$0.01 to A will still result in a slightly larger paycheck (or, at least, not significantly smaller, usually just a few dollars) as well as not negatively affecting your 401(k). Even more so, A+$1,300 will be a larger check than A-$0.01 upfront and over time.
Of course, without knowing A, your salary, your tax liability, marital status, property ownership, premium differences, and so on, it's hard to say for certain if A or A-$0.01 would be beneficial, but A+$1,300 will definitely be beneficial overall, because it'll have a smaller tax impact because of the increased premiums, yet still be a boon for your 401(k). There's no good reason for pursuing a smaller salary in the hopes that it will produce larger paychecks, especially since it will have a negative impact on your retirement.
answered yesterday
phyrfox
38116
The value of A is easily computable from the information given. I'm not sure why OP was cagy about saying it.
– prl
18 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
Health Premiums are pretax. They (a) reduce your tax liability, and (b) do not affect 401k contributions. Because of the effect on your tax liability, you will pay less in taxes in trade for more premium cost. The $1,300 more to your gross means you'll be saving more retirement, and get a larger matching 401(k).
Even if it may seem outrageous upfront, it is pretty typical that crossing from A-$0.01 to A will still result in a slightly larger paycheck (or, at least, not significantly smaller, usually just a few dollars) as well as not negatively affecting your 401(k). Even more so, A+$1,300 will be a larger check than A-$0.01 upfront and over time.
Of course, without knowing A, your salary, your tax liability, marital status, property ownership, premium differences, and so on, it's hard to say for certain if A or A-$0.01 would be beneficial, but A+$1,300 will definitely be beneficial overall, because it'll have a smaller tax impact because of the increased premiums, yet still be a boon for your 401(k). There's no good reason for pursuing a smaller salary in the hopes that it will produce larger paychecks, especially since it will have a negative impact on your retirement.
answered yesterday
phyrfox
38116
The value of A is easily computable from the information given. I'm not sure why OP was cagy about saying it.
– prl
18 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
up vote
10
down vote
Health Premiums are pretax. They (a) reduce your tax liability, and (b) do not affect 401k contributions. Because of the effect on your tax liability, you will pay less in taxes in trade for more premium cost. The $1,300 more to your gross means you'll be saving more retirement, and get a larger matching 401(k).
Even if it may seem outrageous upfront, it is pretty typical that crossing from A-$0.01 to A will still result in a slightly larger paycheck (or, at least, not significantly smaller, usually just a few dollars) as well as not negatively affecting your 401(k). Even more so, A+$1,300 will be a larger check than A-$0.01 upfront and over time.
Of course, without knowing A, your salary, your tax liability, marital status, property ownership, premium differences, and so on, it's hard to say for certain if A or A-$0.01 would be beneficial, but A+$1,300 will definitely be beneficial overall, because it'll have a smaller tax impact because of the increased premiums, yet still be a boon for your 401(k). There's no good reason for pursuing a smaller salary in the hopes that it will produce larger paychecks, especially since it will have a negative impact on your retirement.
answered yesterday
phyrfox
38116
Health Premiums are pretax. They (a) reduce your tax liability, and (b) do not affect 401k contributions. Because of the effect on your tax liability, you will pay less in taxes in trade for more premium cost. The $1,300 more to your gross means you'll be saving more retirement, and get a larger matching 401(k).
Even if it may seem outrageous upfront, it is pretty typical that crossing from A-$0.01 to A will still result in a slightly larger paycheck (or, at least, not significantly smaller, usually just a few dollars) as well as not negatively affecting your 401(k). Even more so, A+$1,300 will be a larger check than A-$0.01 upfront and over time.
Of course, without knowing A, your salary, your tax liability, marital status, property ownership, premium differences, and so on, it's hard to say for certain if A or A-$0.01 would be beneficial, but A+$1,300 will definitely be beneficial overall, because it'll have a smaller tax impact because of the increased premiums, yet still be a boon for your 401(k). There's no good reason for pursuing a smaller salary in the hopes that it will produce larger paychecks, especially since it will have a negative impact on your retirement.
answered yesterday
phyrfox
38116
answered yesterday
phyrfox
38116
answered yesterday
phyrfox
38116
answered yesterday
phyrfox
38116
38116
The value of A is easily computable from the information given. I'm not sure why OP was cagy about saying it.
– prl
18 hours ago
add a comment |
The value of A is easily computable from the information given. I'm not sure why OP was cagy about saying it.
– prl
18 hours ago
The value of A is easily computable from the information given. I'm not sure why OP was cagy about saying it.
– prl
18 hours ago
The value of A is easily computable from the information given. I'm not sure why OP was cagy about saying it.
– prl
18 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
Instead of refusing or downgrading the raise, why not ask for it to be deferred? Then you have not given up the rights to it while still keeping your pay below the all important threshold. It may also be easier for the company to implement than anything else.
answered yesterday
JDL
1612
New contributor
JDL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
Instead of refusing or downgrading the raise, why not ask for it to be deferred? Then you have not given up the rights to it while still keeping your pay below the all important threshold. It may also be easier for the company to implement than anything else.
answered yesterday
JDL
1612
New contributor
JDL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
Instead of refusing or downgrading the raise, why not ask for it to be deferred? Then you have not given up the rights to it while still keeping your pay below the all important threshold. It may also be easier for the company to implement than anything else.
answered yesterday
JDL
1612
New contributor
JDL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Instead of refusing or downgrading the raise, why not ask for it to be deferred? Then you have not given up the rights to it while still keeping your pay below the all important threshold. It may also be easier for the company to implement than anything else.
answered yesterday
JDL
1612
New contributor
JDL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
JDL
1612
New contributor
JDL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
JDL
1612
answered yesterday
JDL
1612
1612
New contributor
JDL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
JDL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
JDL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I don't think you should request a lower raise.
Although the situation of having to pay more for the same health coverage isn't pleasant, requesting a lower raise would set a bad precedent for yourself. Even though it is for financial reasons, it sends the message that you don't need/want more money. The next time you are considered for a raise, they may continue with the lower raise since you previously rejected a higher one.
Also, requesting A-$.01 means that it will take longer for you to get to A+$950. There is no guarantee that your next raise, if you accept A-$.01, will get you to A+$950 ( What will you do then? Reject a raise completely? ). You could end up losing more money than the extra cost of insurance for a shorter period.
answered yesterday
sf02
2,4302313
6
"it sends the message that you don't need/want more money" - really? If you say "Could you make my raise into X instead because that way I get to take home more money" I don't think that would send the message that you don't want more money...
– Chris
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I don't think you should request a lower raise.
Although the situation of having to pay more for the same health coverage isn't pleasant, requesting a lower raise would set a bad precedent for yourself. Even though it is for financial reasons, it sends the message that you don't need/want more money. The next time you are considered for a raise, they may continue with the lower raise since you previously rejected a higher one.
Also, requesting A-$.01 means that it will take longer for you to get to A+$950. There is no guarantee that your next raise, if you accept A-$.01, will get you to A+$950 ( What will you do then? Reject a raise completely? ). You could end up losing more money than the extra cost of insurance for a shorter period.
answered yesterday
sf02
2,4302313
6
"it sends the message that you don't need/want more money" - really? If you say "Could you make my raise into X instead because that way I get to take home more money" I don't think that would send the message that you don't want more money...
– Chris
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
I don't think you should request a lower raise.
Although the situation of having to pay more for the same health coverage isn't pleasant, requesting a lower raise would set a bad precedent for yourself. Even though it is for financial reasons, it sends the message that you don't need/want more money. The next time you are considered for a raise, they may continue with the lower raise since you previously rejected a higher one.
Also, requesting A-$.01 means that it will take longer for you to get to A+$950. There is no guarantee that your next raise, if you accept A-$.01, will get you to A+$950 ( What will you do then? Reject a raise completely? ). You could end up losing more money than the extra cost of insurance for a shorter period.
answered yesterday
sf02
2,4302313
I don't think you should request a lower raise.
Although the situation of having to pay more for the same health coverage isn't pleasant, requesting a lower raise would set a bad precedent for yourself. Even though it is for financial reasons, it sends the message that you don't need/want more money. The next time you are considered for a raise, they may continue with the lower raise since you previously rejected a higher one.
Also, requesting A-$.01 means that it will take longer for you to get to A+$950. There is no guarantee that your next raise, if you accept A-$.01, will get you to A+$950 ( What will you do then? Reject a raise completely? ). You could end up losing more money than the extra cost of insurance for a shorter period.
answered yesterday
sf02
2,4302313
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
sf02
2,4302313
answered yesterday
sf02
2,4302313
answered yesterday
sf02
2,4302313
2,4302313
6
"it sends the message that you don't need/want more money" - really? If you say "Could you make my raise into X instead because that way I get to take home more money" I don't think that would send the message that you don't want more money...
– Chris
yesterday
add a comment |
6
"it sends the message that you don't need/want more money" - really? If you say "Could you make my raise into X instead because that way I get to take home more money" I don't think that would send the message that you don't want more money...
– Chris
yesterday
6
6
"it sends the message that you don't need/want more money" - really? If you say "Could you make my raise into X instead because that way I get to take home more money" I don't think that would send the message that you don't want more money...
– Chris
yesterday
"it sends the message that you don't need/want more money" - really? If you say "Could you make my raise into X instead because that way I get to take home more money" I don't think that would send the message that you don't want more money...
– Chris
yesterday
add a comment |
BaronFiner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
BaronFiner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
BaronFiner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
BaronFiner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to The Workplace Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f124502%2fshould-i-request-a-lower-raise-to-avoid-a-health-insurance-premium-raise-thresho%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Possible duplicate of Raise causes me to lose pay
– gilliduck
yesterday
11
I don't have an answer for you but don't forget, if you take a lower increase now, every pay increase for the rest of your tenure with the company will be lower as a result. Just... factor that in to whatever decision you come to.
– corsiKa
yesterday
24
Since you write that 1300 would be a 3.3% raise, we can derive your salary anyway, while using A and B instead of actual amounts makes the whole thing a bit confusing to read.
– 11684
yesterday
15
@ilkkachu Oh then I misread. Still, we can derive the actual salary.
– 11684
yesterday
4
There is a financial Stack Exchange, you know. money.stackexchange.com
– Kyle Delaney
22 hours ago