Should I request a lower raise?
up vote
6
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
New contributor
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
6
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
New contributor
1
@dfundako It might be the case that at a certain salary level a more expansive health plan becomes available/becomes the only option. For the OP, the cliff is a problem, but wouldn't that also be temporary? That is, in the first year of your new salary of (A + $950) you'd be worse off, but a subsequent raise could put you ahead and then allow for further salary growth. Keeping your salary at (A - $0.01) for the rest of your career doesn't sound like the best move
– Upper_Case
6 hours ago
@Upper_Case I intend to exceed A. I just want to exceed it by enough that, when I do, my effective pay will be at least A. If I get increased to (A-$0.01) this year, I'll almost certainly get increased to (A+$2600) the following year.
– BaronFiner
6 hours ago
Is this your only health insurance option? Does your coverage also increase proportionally with the increase in cost?
– sf02
6 hours ago
I'm finding your wording really confusing, so I just want to clarify - because of this tiered insurance plan, there is a certain range of incomes where a higher salary results in a lower net income? And your raise would put you in that bracket? How much extra salary would it take to get you above that range?
– David K
6 hours ago
@DavidK Yes. Yes. Between A and (A+$950) would result in less than (A-$0.01). So I would need about $950 more than A to effectively make at least A.
– BaronFiner
6 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
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
New contributor
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
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 hours ago
New contributor
asked 6 hours ago
BaronFiner
1312
1312
New contributor
New contributor
1
@dfundako It might be the case that at a certain salary level a more expansive health plan becomes available/becomes the only option. For the OP, the cliff is a problem, but wouldn't that also be temporary? That is, in the first year of your new salary of (A + $950) you'd be worse off, but a subsequent raise could put you ahead and then allow for further salary growth. Keeping your salary at (A - $0.01) for the rest of your career doesn't sound like the best move
– Upper_Case
6 hours ago
@Upper_Case I intend to exceed A. I just want to exceed it by enough that, when I do, my effective pay will be at least A. If I get increased to (A-$0.01) this year, I'll almost certainly get increased to (A+$2600) the following year.
– BaronFiner
6 hours ago
Is this your only health insurance option? Does your coverage also increase proportionally with the increase in cost?
– sf02
6 hours ago
I'm finding your wording really confusing, so I just want to clarify - because of this tiered insurance plan, there is a certain range of incomes where a higher salary results in a lower net income? And your raise would put you in that bracket? How much extra salary would it take to get you above that range?
– David K
6 hours ago
@DavidK Yes. Yes. Between A and (A+$950) would result in less than (A-$0.01). So I would need about $950 more than A to effectively make at least A.
– BaronFiner
6 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
1
@dfundako It might be the case that at a certain salary level a more expansive health plan becomes available/becomes the only option. For the OP, the cliff is a problem, but wouldn't that also be temporary? That is, in the first year of your new salary of (A + $950) you'd be worse off, but a subsequent raise could put you ahead and then allow for further salary growth. Keeping your salary at (A - $0.01) for the rest of your career doesn't sound like the best move
– Upper_Case
6 hours ago
@Upper_Case I intend to exceed A. I just want to exceed it by enough that, when I do, my effective pay will be at least A. If I get increased to (A-$0.01) this year, I'll almost certainly get increased to (A+$2600) the following year.
– BaronFiner
6 hours ago
Is this your only health insurance option? Does your coverage also increase proportionally with the increase in cost?
– sf02
6 hours ago
I'm finding your wording really confusing, so I just want to clarify - because of this tiered insurance plan, there is a certain range of incomes where a higher salary results in a lower net income? And your raise would put you in that bracket? How much extra salary would it take to get you above that range?
– David K
6 hours ago
@DavidK Yes. Yes. Between A and (A+$950) would result in less than (A-$0.01). So I would need about $950 more than A to effectively make at least A.
– BaronFiner
6 hours ago
1
1
@dfundako It might be the case that at a certain salary level a more expansive health plan becomes available/becomes the only option. For the OP, the cliff is a problem, but wouldn't that also be temporary? That is, in the first year of your new salary of (A + $950) you'd be worse off, but a subsequent raise could put you ahead and then allow for further salary growth. Keeping your salary at (A - $0.01) for the rest of your career doesn't sound like the best move
– Upper_Case
6 hours ago
@dfundako It might be the case that at a certain salary level a more expansive health plan becomes available/becomes the only option. For the OP, the cliff is a problem, but wouldn't that also be temporary? That is, in the first year of your new salary of (A + $950) you'd be worse off, but a subsequent raise could put you ahead and then allow for further salary growth. Keeping your salary at (A - $0.01) for the rest of your career doesn't sound like the best move
– Upper_Case
6 hours ago
@Upper_Case I intend to exceed A. I just want to exceed it by enough that, when I do, my effective pay will be at least A. If I get increased to (A-$0.01) this year, I'll almost certainly get increased to (A+$2600) the following year.
– BaronFiner
6 hours ago
@Upper_Case I intend to exceed A. I just want to exceed it by enough that, when I do, my effective pay will be at least A. If I get increased to (A-$0.01) this year, I'll almost certainly get increased to (A+$2600) the following year.
– BaronFiner
6 hours ago
Is this your only health insurance option? Does your coverage also increase proportionally with the increase in cost?
– sf02
6 hours ago
Is this your only health insurance option? Does your coverage also increase proportionally with the increase in cost?
– sf02
6 hours ago
I'm finding your wording really confusing, so I just want to clarify - because of this tiered insurance plan, there is a certain range of incomes where a higher salary results in a lower net income? And your raise would put you in that bracket? How much extra salary would it take to get you above that range?
– David K
6 hours ago
I'm finding your wording really confusing, so I just want to clarify - because of this tiered insurance plan, there is a certain range of incomes where a higher salary results in a lower net income? And your raise would put you in that bracket? How much extra salary would it take to get you above that range?
– David K
6 hours ago
@DavidK Yes. Yes. Between A and (A+$950) would result in less than (A-$0.01). So I would need about $950 more than A to effectively make at least A.
– BaronFiner
6 hours ago
@DavidK Yes. Yes. Between A and (A+$950) would result in less than (A-$0.01). So I would need about $950 more than A to effectively make at least A.
– BaronFiner
6 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
12
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.
1
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
5 hours ago
@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
3 hours ago
1
@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
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
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 $1000 is sufficient compensation for contributing to the dysfunction of the corporate world (and the risk of looking like an employee trying to game the system).
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Last time that happened at my company, we have negotiated to officially raise the salary to A - 0.01
, but keep track of the intended salary C (being A < C < A + 950
), so next raise would be based on C instead of A - 0.01
.
That way, the affected employee kept the best salary they could, as the company couldn't pay A + 950
or higher, but the employee didn't miss the C - (A - 0.01)
raise permanently - they only refused it while it wasn't a benefit for them.
This only works if there's trust between both parties - I don't think there's a legally binding instrument to agree on this.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I don't think you should request a lower raise.
Although the situation of having to pay more for the same health coverage isn't pleasant, requesting a lower raise would set a bad precedent for yourself. Even though it is for financial reasons, it sends the message that you don't need/want more money. The next time you are considered for a raise, they may continue with the lower raise since you previously rejected a higher one.
Also, requesting A-$.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.
add a comment |
up vote
0
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.
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
3 hours ago
add a comment |
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();
}
}
});
});
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
12
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.
1
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
5 hours ago
@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
3 hours ago
1
@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
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
12
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.
1
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
5 hours ago
@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
3 hours ago
1
@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
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
up vote
12
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.
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.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
Joe Strazzere
239k116697995
239k116697995
1
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
5 hours ago
@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
3 hours ago
1
@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
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
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
5 hours ago
@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
3 hours ago
1
@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
1 hour ago
1
1
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
5 hours ago
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
5 hours ago
@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
3 hours ago
@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
3 hours ago
1
1
@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
1 hour ago
@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
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
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).
add a comment |
up vote
4
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).
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
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).
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 5 hours ago
Acccumulation
2,6061410
2,6061410
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
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.
add a comment |
up vote
2
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.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
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.
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 2 hours ago
mgarciaisaia
1,063812
1,063812
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+$950 ( What will you do then? Reject a raise completely? ). You could end up losing more money than the extra cost of insurance for a shorter period.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I don't think you should request a lower raise.
Although the situation of having to pay more for the same health coverage isn't pleasant, requesting a lower raise would set a bad precedent for yourself. Even though it is for financial reasons, it sends the message that you don't need/want more money. The next time you are considered for a raise, they may continue with the lower raise since you previously rejected a higher one.
Also, requesting A-$.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+$950 ( What will you do then? Reject a raise completely? ). You could end up losing more money than the extra cost of insurance for a shorter period.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
I don't think you should request a lower raise.
Although the situation of having to pay more for the same health coverage isn't pleasant, requesting a lower raise would set a bad precedent for yourself. Even though it is for financial reasons, it sends the message that you don't need/want more money. The next time you are considered for a raise, they may continue with the lower raise since you previously rejected a higher one.
Also, requesting A-$.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+$950 ( What will you do then? Reject a raise completely? ). You could end up losing more money than the extra cost of insurance for a shorter period.
I don't think you should request a lower raise.
Although the situation of having to pay more for the same health coverage isn't pleasant, requesting a lower raise would set a bad precedent for yourself. Even though it is for financial reasons, it sends the message that you don't need/want more money. The next time you are considered for a raise, they may continue with the lower raise since you previously rejected a higher one.
Also, requesting A-$.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.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
sf02
2,3332313
2,3332313
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
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.
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
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
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.
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
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
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.
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 3 hours ago
gnasher729
80.6k34145254
80.6k34145254
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
3 hours 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
3 hours 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
3 hours 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
3 hours ago
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%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
1
@dfundako It might be the case that at a certain salary level a more expansive health plan becomes available/becomes the only option. For the OP, the cliff is a problem, but wouldn't that also be temporary? That is, in the first year of your new salary of (A + $950) you'd be worse off, but a subsequent raise could put you ahead and then allow for further salary growth. Keeping your salary at (A - $0.01) for the rest of your career doesn't sound like the best move
– Upper_Case
6 hours ago
@Upper_Case I intend to exceed A. I just want to exceed it by enough that, when I do, my effective pay will be at least A. If I get increased to (A-$0.01) this year, I'll almost certainly get increased to (A+$2600) the following year.
– BaronFiner
6 hours ago
Is this your only health insurance option? Does your coverage also increase proportionally with the increase in cost?
– sf02
6 hours ago
I'm finding your wording really confusing, so I just want to clarify - because of this tiered insurance plan, there is a certain range of incomes where a higher salary results in a lower net income? And your raise would put you in that bracket? How much extra salary would it take to get you above that range?
– David K
6 hours ago
@DavidK Yes. Yes. Between A and (A+$950) would result in less than (A-$0.01). So I would need about $950 more than A to effectively make at least A.
– BaronFiner
6 hours ago