Should I request a lower raise to avoid a health-insurance premium raise threshold?
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?
Update
I ended up creating a spreadsheet of possible scenarios and noted the significantly more limited range for which it would take more than a couple of years make up the difference. I would have expressed concern if I ended up in that range.
Fortunately, however, my increase for this year exceeded my expectations, to the point that the premium increase was not an issue.
salary united-states performance-reviews raise
asked Dec 11 '18 at 20:57
BaronFiner
426127
|
show 19 more comments
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?
Update
I ended up creating a spreadsheet of possible scenarios and noted the significantly more limited range for which it would take more than a couple of years make up the difference. I would have expressed concern if I ended up in that range.
Fortunately, however, my increase for this year exceeded my expectations, to the point that the premium increase was not an issue.
salary united-states performance-reviews raise
asked Dec 11 '18 at 20:57
BaronFiner
426127
22
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
Dec 12 '18 at 4:17
34
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
Dec 12 '18 at 8:24
19
@ilkkachu Oh then I misread. Still, we can derive the actual salary.
– 11684
Dec 12 '18 at 9:39
12
There is a financial Stack Exchange, you know. money.stackexchange.com
– Kyle Delaney
Dec 12 '18 at 17:26
6
Just a heads up, if your intention was to hide your salary by usingAandB, then I should point out that telling us thatB * 103.3% = B * 102.28% + $1,300is enough to calculate exactly whatBis.
– SamYonnou
Dec 13 '18 at 14:56
|
show 19 more comments
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?
Update
I ended up creating a spreadsheet of possible scenarios and noted the significantly more limited range for which it would take more than a couple of years make up the difference. I would have expressed concern if I ended up in that range.
Fortunately, however, my increase for this year exceeded my expectations, to the point that the premium increase was not an issue.
salary united-states performance-reviews raise
asked Dec 11 '18 at 20:57
BaronFiner
426127
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?
Update
I ended up creating a spreadsheet of possible scenarios and noted the significantly more limited range for which it would take more than a couple of years make up the difference. I would have expressed concern if I ended up in that range.
Fortunately, however, my increase for this year exceeded my expectations, to the point that the premium increase was not an issue.
salary united-states performance-reviews raise
salary united-states performance-reviews raise
asked Dec 11 '18 at 20:57
BaronFiner
426127
asked Dec 11 '18 at 20:57
BaronFiner
426127
edited Dec 17 '18 at 20:51
asked Dec 11 '18 at 20:57
BaronFiner
426127
asked Dec 11 '18 at 20:57
BaronFiner
426127
asked Dec 11 '18 at 20:57
BaronFiner
426127
426127
22
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
Dec 12 '18 at 4:17
34
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
Dec 12 '18 at 8:24
19
@ilkkachu Oh then I misread. Still, we can derive the actual salary.
– 11684
Dec 12 '18 at 9:39
12
There is a financial Stack Exchange, you know. money.stackexchange.com
– Kyle Delaney
Dec 12 '18 at 17:26
6
Just a heads up, if your intention was to hide your salary by usingAandB, then I should point out that telling us thatB * 103.3% = B * 102.28% + $1,300is enough to calculate exactly whatBis.
– SamYonnou
Dec 13 '18 at 14:56
|
show 19 more comments
22
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
Dec 12 '18 at 4:17
34
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
Dec 12 '18 at 8:24
19
@ilkkachu Oh then I misread. Still, we can derive the actual salary.
– 11684
Dec 12 '18 at 9:39
12
There is a financial Stack Exchange, you know. money.stackexchange.com
– Kyle Delaney
Dec 12 '18 at 17:26
6
Just a heads up, if your intention was to hide your salary by usingAandB, then I should point out that telling us thatB * 103.3% = B * 102.28% + $1,300is enough to calculate exactly whatBis.
– SamYonnou
Dec 13 '18 at 14:56
22
22
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
Dec 12 '18 at 4:17
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
Dec 12 '18 at 4:17
34
34
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
Dec 12 '18 at 8:24
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
Dec 12 '18 at 8:24
19
19
@ilkkachu Oh then I misread. Still, we can derive the actual salary.
– 11684
Dec 12 '18 at 9:39
@ilkkachu Oh then I misread. Still, we can derive the actual salary.
– 11684
Dec 12 '18 at 9:39
12
12
There is a financial Stack Exchange, you know. money.stackexchange.com
– Kyle Delaney
Dec 12 '18 at 17:26
There is a financial Stack Exchange, you know. money.stackexchange.com
– Kyle Delaney
Dec 12 '18 at 17:26
6
6
Just a heads up, if your intention was to hide your salary by using
A and B, then I should point out that telling us that B * 103.3% = B * 102.28% + $1,300 is enough to calculate exactly what B is.– SamYonnou
Dec 13 '18 at 14:56
Just a heads up, if your intention was to hide your salary by using
A and B, then I should point out that telling us that B * 103.3% = B * 102.28% + $1,300 is enough to calculate exactly what B is.– SamYonnou
Dec 13 '18 at 14:56
|
show 19 more comments
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
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 Dec 11 '18 at 21:57
Joe Strazzere
242k1187071003
29
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
Dec 11 '18 at 22:21
3
@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
Dec 11 '18 at 23:42
5
@BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
– thelem
Dec 12 '18 at 15:27
How common is it to request a raise of at least some minimum amount and actually get what you ask for? This answer is good for the best case scenario, but is perhaps unrealistic in its expectations of success.
– asgallant
Dec 13 '18 at 17:16
1
@BaronFiner "they aren't negotiated" They always are. You (or the company) just don't know how to do it. There's a difference. If you point out to them you're financially worse off after a raise because of their policies, I'm sure they'll see sense, or explain to you how you're wrong.
– UKMonkey
Dec 14 '18 at 12:08
add a comment |
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 Dec 12 '18 at 1:10
mgarciaisaia
1,493913
29
"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
Dec 12 '18 at 10:05
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
Dec 12 '18 at 21:50
7
@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
Dec 13 '18 at 7:25
8
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
Dec 13 '18 at 13:29
3
@DavidThornley it's not so much about trust, but you know, the manager changes, forgets, some kind of written agreement and many problems are gone.
– DonQuiKong
Dec 13 '18 at 18:07
|
show 1 more comment
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 Dec 11 '18 at 23:55
gnasher729
83k37148263
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
Dec 12 '18 at 0:34
8
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
Dec 12 '18 at 9:31
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
Dec 12 '18 at 21:11
2
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
Dec 12 '18 at 22:34
This is the correct answer.
– isaace
Dec 13 '18 at 14:44
add a comment |
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 Dec 11 '18 at 22:09
Acccumulation
3,1521512
add a comment |
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+$1,300 will definitely be beneficial overall, because it'll have a smaller tax impact because of the increased premiums, yet still be a boon for your 401(k). There's no good reason for pursuing a smaller salary in the hopes that it will produce larger paychecks, especially since it will have a negative impact on your retirement.
answered Dec 12 '18 at 14:07
phyrfox
38116
The value of A is easily computable from the information given. I'm not sure why OP was cagy about saying it.
– prl
Dec 12 '18 at 21:49
add a comment |
Instead of refusing or downgrading the raise, why not ask for it to be deferred? Then you have not given up the rights to it while still keeping your pay below the all important threshold. It may also be easier for the company to implement than anything else.
answered Dec 12 '18 at 8:59
JDL
1612
add a comment |
I don't think you should request a lower raise.
Although the situation of having to pay more for the same health coverage isn't pleasant, requesting a lower raise would set a bad precedent for yourself. Even though it is for financial reasons, it sends the message that you don't need/want more money. The next time you are considered for a raise, they may continue with the lower raise since you previously rejected a higher one.
Also, requesting A-$.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 Dec 11 '18 at 21:39
sf02
3,7602519
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
Dec 12 '18 at 9:32
add a comment |
I'm answering this in Workplace mode, not Financial mode, as this is the Workplace stack. That is, whats best for you career wise, not what maximizes dollars and cents mathematically.
$1044 a year is $87/month more for insurance. Your raise would at least offset most of that increased cost. Net result is you are quibbling over a few dollars, or few tens of dollars, a month.
My advice... take the raise they offer. Don't be 'that person' who causes trouble for HR and gains a reputation of being difficult. Point it out to them if you want, but don't cause a stink over this. And instead, put this mental effort into finding some other way to save a few dollars a month.
BTW, I think making employees pay more for (presumably) the same insurance based on their income is a terrible policy.
answered Dec 14 '18 at 4:50
GrandmasterB
3,56321616
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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
});
}
});
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();
}
}
});
});
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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 Dec 11 '18 at 21:57
Joe Strazzere
242k1187071003
29
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
Dec 11 '18 at 22:21
3
@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
Dec 11 '18 at 23:42
5
@BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
– thelem
Dec 12 '18 at 15:27
How common is it to request a raise of at least some minimum amount and actually get what you ask for? This answer is good for the best case scenario, but is perhaps unrealistic in its expectations of success.
– asgallant
Dec 13 '18 at 17:16
1
@BaronFiner "they aren't negotiated" They always are. You (or the company) just don't know how to do it. There's a difference. If you point out to them you're financially worse off after a raise because of their policies, I'm sure they'll see sense, or explain to you how you're wrong.
– UKMonkey
Dec 14 '18 at 12:08
add a comment |
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 Dec 11 '18 at 21:57
Joe Strazzere
242k1187071003
29
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
Dec 11 '18 at 22:21
3
@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
Dec 11 '18 at 23:42
5
@BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
– thelem
Dec 12 '18 at 15:27
How common is it to request a raise of at least some minimum amount and actually get what you ask for? This answer is good for the best case scenario, but is perhaps unrealistic in its expectations of success.
– asgallant
Dec 13 '18 at 17:16
1
@BaronFiner "they aren't negotiated" They always are. You (or the company) just don't know how to do it. There's a difference. If you point out to them you're financially worse off after a raise because of their policies, I'm sure they'll see sense, or explain to you how you're wrong.
– UKMonkey
Dec 14 '18 at 12:08
add a comment |
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 Dec 11 '18 at 21:57
Joe Strazzere
242k1187071003
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 Dec 11 '18 at 21:57
Joe Strazzere
242k1187071003
edited Dec 11 '18 at 22:22
answered Dec 11 '18 at 21:57
Joe Strazzere
242k1187071003
answered Dec 11 '18 at 21:57
Joe Strazzere
242k1187071003
answered Dec 11 '18 at 21:57
Joe Strazzere
242k1187071003
242k1187071003
29
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
Dec 11 '18 at 22:21
3
@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
Dec 11 '18 at 23:42
5
@BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
– thelem
Dec 12 '18 at 15:27
How common is it to request a raise of at least some minimum amount and actually get what you ask for? This answer is good for the best case scenario, but is perhaps unrealistic in its expectations of success.
– asgallant
Dec 13 '18 at 17:16
1
@BaronFiner "they aren't negotiated" They always are. You (or the company) just don't know how to do it. There's a difference. If you point out to them you're financially worse off after a raise because of their policies, I'm sure they'll see sense, or explain to you how you're wrong.
– UKMonkey
Dec 14 '18 at 12:08
add a comment |
29
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
Dec 11 '18 at 22:21
3
@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
Dec 11 '18 at 23:42
5
@BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
– thelem
Dec 12 '18 at 15:27
How common is it to request a raise of at least some minimum amount and actually get what you ask for? This answer is good for the best case scenario, but is perhaps unrealistic in its expectations of success.
– asgallant
Dec 13 '18 at 17:16
1
@BaronFiner "they aren't negotiated" They always are. You (or the company) just don't know how to do it. There's a difference. If you point out to them you're financially worse off after a raise because of their policies, I'm sure they'll see sense, or explain to you how you're wrong.
– UKMonkey
Dec 14 '18 at 12:08
29
29
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
Dec 11 '18 at 22:21
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
Dec 11 '18 at 22:21
3
3
@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
Dec 11 '18 at 23:42
@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
Dec 11 '18 at 23:42
5
5
@BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
– thelem
Dec 12 '18 at 15:27
@BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
– thelem
Dec 12 '18 at 15:27
How common is it to request a raise of at least some minimum amount and actually get what you ask for? This answer is good for the best case scenario, but is perhaps unrealistic in its expectations of success.
– asgallant
Dec 13 '18 at 17:16
How common is it to request a raise of at least some minimum amount and actually get what you ask for? This answer is good for the best case scenario, but is perhaps unrealistic in its expectations of success.
– asgallant
Dec 13 '18 at 17:16
1
1
@BaronFiner "they aren't negotiated" They always are. You (or the company) just don't know how to do it. There's a difference. If you point out to them you're financially worse off after a raise because of their policies, I'm sure they'll see sense, or explain to you how you're wrong.
– UKMonkey
Dec 14 '18 at 12:08
@BaronFiner "they aren't negotiated" They always are. You (or the company) just don't know how to do it. There's a difference. If you point out to them you're financially worse off after a raise because of their policies, I'm sure they'll see sense, or explain to you how you're wrong.
– UKMonkey
Dec 14 '18 at 12:08
add a comment |
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 Dec 12 '18 at 1:10
mgarciaisaia
1,493913
29
"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
Dec 12 '18 at 10:05
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
Dec 12 '18 at 21:50
7
@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
Dec 13 '18 at 7:25
8
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
Dec 13 '18 at 13:29
3
@DavidThornley it's not so much about trust, but you know, the manager changes, forgets, some kind of written agreement and many problems are gone.
– DonQuiKong
Dec 13 '18 at 18:07
|
show 1 more comment
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 Dec 12 '18 at 1:10
mgarciaisaia
1,493913
29
"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
Dec 12 '18 at 10:05
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
Dec 12 '18 at 21:50
7
@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
Dec 13 '18 at 7:25
8
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
Dec 13 '18 at 13:29
3
@DavidThornley it's not so much about trust, but you know, the manager changes, forgets, some kind of written agreement and many problems are gone.
– DonQuiKong
Dec 13 '18 at 18:07
|
show 1 more comment
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 Dec 12 '18 at 1:10
mgarciaisaia
1,493913
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 Dec 12 '18 at 1:10
mgarciaisaia
1,493913
answered Dec 12 '18 at 1:10
mgarciaisaia
1,493913
answered Dec 12 '18 at 1:10
mgarciaisaia
1,493913
answered Dec 12 '18 at 1:10
mgarciaisaia
1,493913
1,493913
29
"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
Dec 12 '18 at 10:05
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
Dec 12 '18 at 21:50
7
@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
Dec 13 '18 at 7:25
8
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
Dec 13 '18 at 13:29
3
@DavidThornley it's not so much about trust, but you know, the manager changes, forgets, some kind of written agreement and many problems are gone.
– DonQuiKong
Dec 13 '18 at 18:07
|
show 1 more comment
29
"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
Dec 12 '18 at 10:05
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
Dec 12 '18 at 21:50
7
@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
Dec 13 '18 at 7:25
8
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
Dec 13 '18 at 13:29
3
@DavidThornley it's not so much about trust, but you know, the manager changes, forgets, some kind of written agreement and many problems are gone.
– DonQuiKong
Dec 13 '18 at 18:07
29
29
"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
Dec 12 '18 at 10:05
"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
Dec 12 '18 at 10:05
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
Dec 12 '18 at 21:50
@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
Dec 12 '18 at 21:50
7
7
@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
Dec 13 '18 at 7:25
@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
Dec 13 '18 at 7:25
8
8
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
Dec 13 '18 at 13:29
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
Dec 13 '18 at 13:29
3
3
@DavidThornley it's not so much about trust, but you know, the manager changes, forgets, some kind of written agreement and many problems are gone.
– DonQuiKong
Dec 13 '18 at 18:07
@DavidThornley it's not so much about trust, but you know, the manager changes, forgets, some kind of written agreement and many problems are gone.
– DonQuiKong
Dec 13 '18 at 18:07
|
show 1 more comment
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 Dec 11 '18 at 23:55
gnasher729
83k37148263
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
Dec 12 '18 at 0:34
8
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
Dec 12 '18 at 9:31
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
Dec 12 '18 at 21:11
2
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
Dec 12 '18 at 22:34
This is the correct answer.
– isaace
Dec 13 '18 at 14:44
add a comment |
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 Dec 11 '18 at 23:55
gnasher729
83k37148263
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
Dec 12 '18 at 0:34
8
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
Dec 12 '18 at 9:31
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
Dec 12 '18 at 21:11
2
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
Dec 12 '18 at 22:34
This is the correct answer.
– isaace
Dec 13 '18 at 14:44
add a comment |
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 Dec 11 '18 at 23:55
gnasher729
83k37148263
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 Dec 11 '18 at 23:55
gnasher729
83k37148263
answered Dec 11 '18 at 23:55
gnasher729
83k37148263
answered Dec 11 '18 at 23:55
gnasher729
83k37148263
answered Dec 11 '18 at 23:55
gnasher729
83k37148263
83k37148263
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
Dec 12 '18 at 0:34
8
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
Dec 12 '18 at 9:31
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
Dec 12 '18 at 21:11
2
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
Dec 12 '18 at 22:34
This is the correct answer.
– isaace
Dec 13 '18 at 14:44
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
Dec 12 '18 at 0:34
8
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
Dec 12 '18 at 9:31
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
Dec 12 '18 at 21:11
2
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
Dec 12 '18 at 22:34
This is the correct answer.
– isaace
Dec 13 '18 at 14:44
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
Dec 12 '18 at 0:34
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
Dec 12 '18 at 0:34
8
8
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
Dec 12 '18 at 9:31
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
Dec 12 '18 at 9:31
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
Dec 12 '18 at 21:11
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
Dec 12 '18 at 21:11
2
2
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
Dec 12 '18 at 22:34
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
Dec 12 '18 at 22:34
This is the correct answer.
– isaace
Dec 13 '18 at 14:44
This is the correct answer.
– isaace
Dec 13 '18 at 14:44
add a comment |
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 Dec 11 '18 at 22:09
Acccumulation
3,1521512
add a comment |
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 Dec 11 '18 at 22:09
Acccumulation
3,1521512
add a comment |
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 Dec 11 '18 at 22:09
Acccumulation
3,1521512
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 Dec 11 '18 at 22:09
Acccumulation
3,1521512
answered Dec 11 '18 at 22:09
Acccumulation
3,1521512
answered Dec 11 '18 at 22:09
Acccumulation
3,1521512
answered Dec 11 '18 at 22:09
Acccumulation
3,1521512
3,1521512
add a comment |
add a comment |
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 Dec 12 '18 at 14:07
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
Dec 12 '18 at 21:49
add a comment |
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 Dec 12 '18 at 14:07
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
Dec 12 '18 at 21:49
add a comment |
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 Dec 12 '18 at 14:07
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 Dec 12 '18 at 14:07
phyrfox
38116
answered Dec 12 '18 at 14:07
phyrfox
38116
answered Dec 12 '18 at 14:07
phyrfox
38116
answered Dec 12 '18 at 14:07
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
Dec 12 '18 at 21:49
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
Dec 12 '18 at 21:49
The value of A is easily computable from the information given. I'm not sure why OP was cagy about saying it.
– prl
Dec 12 '18 at 21:49
The value of A is easily computable from the information given. I'm not sure why OP was cagy about saying it.
– prl
Dec 12 '18 at 21:49
add a comment |
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 Dec 12 '18 at 8:59
JDL
1612
add a comment |
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 Dec 12 '18 at 8:59
JDL
1612
add a comment |
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 Dec 12 '18 at 8:59
JDL
1612
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 Dec 12 '18 at 8:59
JDL
1612
answered Dec 12 '18 at 8:59
JDL
1612
answered Dec 12 '18 at 8:59
JDL
1612
answered Dec 12 '18 at 8:59
JDL
1612
1612
add a comment |
add a comment |
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+$950 ( What will you do then? Reject a raise completely? ). You could end up losing more money than the extra cost of insurance for a shorter period.
answered Dec 11 '18 at 21:39
sf02
3,7602519
6
"it sends the message that you don't need/want more money" - really? If you say "Could you make my raise into X instead because that way I get to take home more money" I don't think that would send the message that you don't want more money...
– Chris
Dec 12 '18 at 9:32
add a comment |
I don't think you should request a lower raise.
Although the situation of having to pay more for the same health coverage isn't pleasant, requesting a lower raise would set a bad precedent for yourself. Even though it is for financial reasons, it sends the message that you don't need/want more money. The next time you are considered for a raise, they may continue with the lower raise since you previously rejected a higher one.
Also, requesting A-$.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+$950 ( What will you do then? Reject a raise completely? ). You could end up losing more money than the extra cost of insurance for a shorter period.
answered Dec 11 '18 at 21:39
sf02
3,7602519
6
"it sends the message that you don't need/want more money" - really? If you say "Could you make my raise into X instead because that way I get to take home more money" I don't think that would send the message that you don't want more money...
– Chris
Dec 12 '18 at 9:32
add a comment |
I don't think you should request a lower raise.
Although the situation of having to pay more for the same health coverage isn't pleasant, requesting a lower raise would set a bad precedent for yourself. Even though it is for financial reasons, it sends the message that you don't need/want more money. The next time you are considered for a raise, they may continue with the lower raise since you previously rejected a higher one.
Also, requesting A-$.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+$950 ( What will you do then? Reject a raise completely? ). You could end up losing more money than the extra cost of insurance for a shorter period.
answered Dec 11 '18 at 21:39
sf02
3,7602519
I don't think you should request a lower raise.
Although the situation of having to pay more for the same health coverage isn't pleasant, requesting a lower raise would set a bad precedent for yourself. Even though it is for financial reasons, it sends the message that you don't need/want more money. The next time you are considered for a raise, they may continue with the lower raise since you previously rejected a higher one.
Also, requesting A-$.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 Dec 11 '18 at 21:39
sf02
3,7602519
edited Dec 11 '18 at 21:47
answered Dec 11 '18 at 21:39
sf02
3,7602519
answered Dec 11 '18 at 21:39
sf02
3,7602519
answered Dec 11 '18 at 21:39
sf02
3,7602519
3,7602519
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
Dec 12 '18 at 9:32
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
Dec 12 '18 at 9:32
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
Dec 12 '18 at 9:32
"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
Dec 12 '18 at 9:32
add a comment |
I'm answering this in Workplace mode, not Financial mode, as this is the Workplace stack. That is, whats best for you career wise, not what maximizes dollars and cents mathematically.
$1044 a year is $87/month more for insurance. Your raise would at least offset most of that increased cost. Net result is you are quibbling over a few dollars, or few tens of dollars, a month.
My advice... take the raise they offer. Don't be 'that person' who causes trouble for HR and gains a reputation of being difficult. Point it out to them if you want, but don't cause a stink over this. And instead, put this mental effort into finding some other way to save a few dollars a month.
BTW, I think making employees pay more for (presumably) the same insurance based on their income is a terrible policy.
answered Dec 14 '18 at 4:50
GrandmasterB
3,56321616
add a comment |
I'm answering this in Workplace mode, not Financial mode, as this is the Workplace stack. That is, whats best for you career wise, not what maximizes dollars and cents mathematically.
$1044 a year is $87/month more for insurance. Your raise would at least offset most of that increased cost. Net result is you are quibbling over a few dollars, or few tens of dollars, a month.
My advice... take the raise they offer. Don't be 'that person' who causes trouble for HR and gains a reputation of being difficult. Point it out to them if you want, but don't cause a stink over this. And instead, put this mental effort into finding some other way to save a few dollars a month.
BTW, I think making employees pay more for (presumably) the same insurance based on their income is a terrible policy.
answered Dec 14 '18 at 4:50
GrandmasterB
3,56321616
add a comment |
I'm answering this in Workplace mode, not Financial mode, as this is the Workplace stack. That is, whats best for you career wise, not what maximizes dollars and cents mathematically.
$1044 a year is $87/month more for insurance. Your raise would at least offset most of that increased cost. Net result is you are quibbling over a few dollars, or few tens of dollars, a month.
My advice... take the raise they offer. Don't be 'that person' who causes trouble for HR and gains a reputation of being difficult. Point it out to them if you want, but don't cause a stink over this. And instead, put this mental effort into finding some other way to save a few dollars a month.
BTW, I think making employees pay more for (presumably) the same insurance based on their income is a terrible policy.
answered Dec 14 '18 at 4:50
GrandmasterB
3,56321616
I'm answering this in Workplace mode, not Financial mode, as this is the Workplace stack. That is, whats best for you career wise, not what maximizes dollars and cents mathematically.
$1044 a year is $87/month more for insurance. Your raise would at least offset most of that increased cost. Net result is you are quibbling over a few dollars, or few tens of dollars, a month.
My advice... take the raise they offer. Don't be 'that person' who causes trouble for HR and gains a reputation of being difficult. Point it out to them if you want, but don't cause a stink over this. And instead, put this mental effort into finding some other way to save a few dollars a month.
BTW, I think making employees pay more for (presumably) the same insurance based on their income is a terrible policy.
answered Dec 14 '18 at 4:50
GrandmasterB
3,56321616
answered Dec 14 '18 at 4:50
GrandmasterB
3,56321616
answered Dec 14 '18 at 4:50
GrandmasterB
3,56321616
answered Dec 14 '18 at 4:50
GrandmasterB
3,56321616
3,56321616
add a comment |
add a comment |
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
22
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
Dec 12 '18 at 4:17
34
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
Dec 12 '18 at 8:24
19
@ilkkachu Oh then I misread. Still, we can derive the actual salary.
– 11684
Dec 12 '18 at 9:39
12
There is a financial Stack Exchange, you know. money.stackexchange.com
– Kyle Delaney
Dec 12 '18 at 17:26
6
Just a heads up, if your intention was to hide your salary by using
AandB, then I should point out that telling us thatB * 103.3% = B * 102.28% + $1,300is enough to calculate exactly whatBis.– SamYonnou
Dec 13 '18 at 14:56