Should I request a lower raise to avoid a health-insurance premium raise threshold?











up vote
49
down vote

favorite
1












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?










share|improve this question









New contributor




BaronFiner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 2




    Possible duplicate of Raise causes me to lose pay
    – gilliduck
    yesterday






  • 4




    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
    22 hours ago






  • 16




    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
    18 hours ago






  • 1




    @11684, no, 1300 is the difference between a 2.28 % and a 3.3 % raise, i.e. about 1 % of the current salary.
    – ilkkachu
    17 hours ago






  • 12




    @ilkkachu Oh then I misread. Still, we can derive the actual salary.
    – 11684
    17 hours ago















up vote
49
down vote

favorite
1












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?










share|improve this question









New contributor




BaronFiner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 2




    Possible duplicate of Raise causes me to lose pay
    – gilliduck
    yesterday






  • 4




    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
    22 hours ago






  • 16




    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
    18 hours ago






  • 1




    @11684, no, 1300 is the difference between a 2.28 % and a 3.3 % raise, i.e. about 1 % of the current salary.
    – ilkkachu
    17 hours ago






  • 12




    @ilkkachu Oh then I misread. Still, we can derive the actual salary.
    – 11684
    17 hours ago













up vote
49
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
49
down vote

favorite
1






1





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?










share|improve this question









New contributor




BaronFiner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











At my company, per-year health-insurance premiums increase by $1044 once a salary is greater than or equal to A. A does not seem to change with time, and it is the highest value where a premium increase occurs. The premiums are piece-wise constant with respect to salary.



I currently make B, such that, if I received a 2.28% raise, I would make A. I expect my new salary to be between A and (A+$1300), with the latter being a 3.3% increase.



The only other factors that come to mind that would be affected by salary are 1) 10% company match for 401(k), and 2) raises are expressed in terms of percentages of existing salary; these percentages are functions of performance category and ratio of current salary to midpoint. Therefore, there is compounding, but the percentage can be reduced if the current salary is higher.



Based on some crude calculations that consider the premium increase and the 401(k) matching, it seems it would be better to make (A-$0.01) than it would be to make between A and (A+$950).



Therefore, if my new salary is between A and (A+$950), should I request (A-$0.01)? Are there other factors I should consider?







salary united-states performance-reviews raise






share|improve this question









New contributor




BaronFiner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




BaronFiner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago









smci

2,037820




2,037820






New contributor




BaronFiner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked yesterday









BaronFiner

331125




331125




New contributor




BaronFiner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





BaronFiner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






BaronFiner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 2




    Possible duplicate of Raise causes me to lose pay
    – gilliduck
    yesterday






  • 4




    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
    22 hours ago






  • 16




    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
    18 hours ago






  • 1




    @11684, no, 1300 is the difference between a 2.28 % and a 3.3 % raise, i.e. about 1 % of the current salary.
    – ilkkachu
    17 hours ago






  • 12




    @ilkkachu Oh then I misread. Still, we can derive the actual salary.
    – 11684
    17 hours ago














  • 2




    Possible duplicate of Raise causes me to lose pay
    – gilliduck
    yesterday






  • 4




    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
    22 hours ago






  • 16




    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
    18 hours ago






  • 1




    @11684, no, 1300 is the difference between a 2.28 % and a 3.3 % raise, i.e. about 1 % of the current salary.
    – ilkkachu
    17 hours ago






  • 12




    @ilkkachu Oh then I misread. Still, we can derive the actual salary.
    – 11684
    17 hours ago








2




2




Possible duplicate of Raise causes me to lose pay
– gilliduck
yesterday




Possible duplicate of Raise causes me to lose pay
– gilliduck
yesterday




4




4




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
22 hours ago




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
22 hours ago




16




16




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
18 hours ago




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
18 hours ago




1




1




@11684, no, 1300 is the difference between a 2.28 % and a 3.3 % raise, i.e. about 1 % of the current salary.
– ilkkachu
17 hours ago




@11684, no, 1300 is the difference between a 2.28 % and a 3.3 % raise, i.e. about 1 % of the current salary.
– ilkkachu
17 hours ago




12




12




@ilkkachu Oh then I misread. Still, we can derive the actual salary.
– 11684
17 hours ago




@ilkkachu Oh then I misread. Still, we can derive the actual salary.
– 11684
17 hours ago










7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
134
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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 14




    This is the best answer. In addition to satisfying the conditions listed in the question (and avoiding the heavy lift of changing the policies the company has explicitly chosen), it also addresses the underlying situation. If the idea is to lower premiums for workers under a certain salary, then the cliff between raise and breakeven means that the OP carries that burden personally for the company's choice. The company should pay for this odd arrangement, not the OP.
    – Upper_Case
    yesterday






  • 1




    @Joe Strazzere Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of rigidity in place such that 1) raises are only awarded once per year, based on a matrix that accounts for performance and current compensation ratio, and 2) they aren't negotiated; at best, I'm assuming I could get it lowered.
    – BaronFiner
    yesterday






  • 10




    @BaronFiner - I guess you do whatever you feel you must do. It makes no sense to me. In a different context, I was able to negotiate a more equitable benefit, when we were acquired and assimilated into the acquiring company's benefits plan. In my case it was vacation time rather than salary. But the plea for fairness worked. Good luck.
    – Joe Strazzere
    yesterday






  • 1




    @BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
    – thelem
    11 hours ago


















up vote
27
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.






share|improve this answer

















  • 15




    "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
    16 hours ago






  • 1




    @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
    5 hours ago




















up vote
15
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.






share|improve this answer





















  • If the raise was forever, surely that would be an argument for asking for the lower raise, if the higher raise would leave the OP worse off? Or are you considering that the medical cost threshold might be increased in subsequent years?
    – Time4Tea
    yesterday






  • 5




    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
    17 hours ago










  • Ok. I was confused by what you meant by 'the raise is forever'. I thought you meant it would be the only raise the OP would ever get (in that position).
    – Time4Tea
    5 hours ago










  • This should be the accepted answer. Always take more money. Even if you lose out in the short term, you win in the long term.
    – asgallant
    4 hours ago


















up vote
14
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).






share|improve this answer




























    up vote
    9
    down vote













    Health Premiums are pretax. They (a) reduce your tax liability, and (b) do not affect 401k contributions. Because of the effect on your tax liability, you will pay less in taxes in trade for more premium cost. The $1,300 more to your gross means you'll be saving more retirement, and get a larger matching 401(k).



    Even if it may seem outrageous upfront, it is pretty typical that crossing from A-$0.01 to A will still result in a slightly larger paycheck (or, at least, not significantly smaller, usually just a few dollars) as well as not negatively affecting your 401(k). Even more so, A+$1,300 will be a larger check than A-$0.01 upfront and over time.



    Of course, without knowing A, your salary, your tax liability, marital status, property ownership, premium differences, and so on, it's hard to say for certain if A or A-$0.01 would be beneficial, but A+$1,300 will definitely be beneficial overall, because it'll have a smaller tax impact because of the increased premiums, yet still be a boon for your 401(k). There's no good reason for pursuing a smaller salary in the hopes that it will produce larger paychecks, especially since it will have a negative impact on your retirement.






    share|improve this answer





















    • The value of A is easily computable from the information given. I'm not sure why OP was cagy about saying it.
      – prl
      5 hours ago


















    up vote
    4
    down vote













    Instead of refusing or downgrading the raise, why not ask for it to be deferred? Then you have not given up the rights to it while still keeping your pay below the all important threshold. It may also be easier for the company to implement than anything else.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    JDL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.

























      up vote
      2
      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.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 4




        "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
        17 hours ago











      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "423"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: false,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });






      BaronFiner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f124502%2fshould-i-request-a-lower-raise-to-avoid-a-health-insurance-premium-raise-thresho%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown




















      StackExchange.ready(function () {
      $("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function () {
      var showEditor = function() {
      $("#show-editor-button").hide();
      $("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
      StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
      };

      var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
      if(useFancy == 'True') {
      var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
      var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
      var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');

      $(this).loadPopup({
      url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
      loaded: function(popup) {
      var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
      var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
      var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');

      pTitle.text(popupTitle);
      pBody.html(popupBody);
      pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);
      }
      })
      } else{
      var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
      if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true) {
      showEditor();
      }
      }
      });
      });






      7 Answers
      7






      active

      oldest

      votes








      7 Answers
      7






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      134
      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.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 14




        This is the best answer. In addition to satisfying the conditions listed in the question (and avoiding the heavy lift of changing the policies the company has explicitly chosen), it also addresses the underlying situation. If the idea is to lower premiums for workers under a certain salary, then the cliff between raise and breakeven means that the OP carries that burden personally for the company's choice. The company should pay for this odd arrangement, not the OP.
        – Upper_Case
        yesterday






      • 1




        @Joe Strazzere Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of rigidity in place such that 1) raises are only awarded once per year, based on a matrix that accounts for performance and current compensation ratio, and 2) they aren't negotiated; at best, I'm assuming I could get it lowered.
        – BaronFiner
        yesterday






      • 10




        @BaronFiner - I guess you do whatever you feel you must do. It makes no sense to me. In a different context, I was able to negotiate a more equitable benefit, when we were acquired and assimilated into the acquiring company's benefits plan. In my case it was vacation time rather than salary. But the plea for fairness worked. Good luck.
        – Joe Strazzere
        yesterday






      • 1




        @BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
        – thelem
        11 hours ago















      up vote
      134
      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.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 14




        This is the best answer. In addition to satisfying the conditions listed in the question (and avoiding the heavy lift of changing the policies the company has explicitly chosen), it also addresses the underlying situation. If the idea is to lower premiums for workers under a certain salary, then the cliff between raise and breakeven means that the OP carries that burden personally for the company's choice. The company should pay for this odd arrangement, not the OP.
        – Upper_Case
        yesterday






      • 1




        @Joe Strazzere Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of rigidity in place such that 1) raises are only awarded once per year, based on a matrix that accounts for performance and current compensation ratio, and 2) they aren't negotiated; at best, I'm assuming I could get it lowered.
        – BaronFiner
        yesterday






      • 10




        @BaronFiner - I guess you do whatever you feel you must do. It makes no sense to me. In a different context, I was able to negotiate a more equitable benefit, when we were acquired and assimilated into the acquiring company's benefits plan. In my case it was vacation time rather than salary. But the plea for fairness worked. Good luck.
        – Joe Strazzere
        yesterday






      • 1




        @BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
        – thelem
        11 hours ago













      up vote
      134
      down vote










      up vote
      134
      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.






      share|improve this answer















      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.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited yesterday

























      answered yesterday









      Joe Strazzere

      240k117698996




      240k117698996








      • 14




        This is the best answer. In addition to satisfying the conditions listed in the question (and avoiding the heavy lift of changing the policies the company has explicitly chosen), it also addresses the underlying situation. If the idea is to lower premiums for workers under a certain salary, then the cliff between raise and breakeven means that the OP carries that burden personally for the company's choice. The company should pay for this odd arrangement, not the OP.
        – Upper_Case
        yesterday






      • 1




        @Joe Strazzere Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of rigidity in place such that 1) raises are only awarded once per year, based on a matrix that accounts for performance and current compensation ratio, and 2) they aren't negotiated; at best, I'm assuming I could get it lowered.
        – BaronFiner
        yesterday






      • 10




        @BaronFiner - I guess you do whatever you feel you must do. It makes no sense to me. In a different context, I was able to negotiate a more equitable benefit, when we were acquired and assimilated into the acquiring company's benefits plan. In my case it was vacation time rather than salary. But the plea for fairness worked. Good luck.
        – Joe Strazzere
        yesterday






      • 1




        @BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
        – thelem
        11 hours ago














      • 14




        This is the best answer. In addition to satisfying the conditions listed in the question (and avoiding the heavy lift of changing the policies the company has explicitly chosen), it also addresses the underlying situation. If the idea is to lower premiums for workers under a certain salary, then the cliff between raise and breakeven means that the OP carries that burden personally for the company's choice. The company should pay for this odd arrangement, not the OP.
        – Upper_Case
        yesterday






      • 1




        @Joe Strazzere Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of rigidity in place such that 1) raises are only awarded once per year, based on a matrix that accounts for performance and current compensation ratio, and 2) they aren't negotiated; at best, I'm assuming I could get it lowered.
        – BaronFiner
        yesterday






      • 10




        @BaronFiner - I guess you do whatever you feel you must do. It makes no sense to me. In a different context, I was able to negotiate a more equitable benefit, when we were acquired and assimilated into the acquiring company's benefits plan. In my case it was vacation time rather than salary. But the plea for fairness worked. Good luck.
        – Joe Strazzere
        yesterday






      • 1




        @BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
        – thelem
        11 hours ago








      14




      14




      This is the best answer. In addition to satisfying the conditions listed in the question (and avoiding the heavy lift of changing the policies the company has explicitly chosen), it also addresses the underlying situation. If the idea is to lower premiums for workers under a certain salary, then the cliff between raise and breakeven means that the OP carries that burden personally for the company's choice. The company should pay for this odd arrangement, not the OP.
      – Upper_Case
      yesterday




      This is the best answer. In addition to satisfying the conditions listed in the question (and avoiding the heavy lift of changing the policies the company has explicitly chosen), it also addresses the underlying situation. If the idea is to lower premiums for workers under a certain salary, then the cliff between raise and breakeven means that the OP carries that burden personally for the company's choice. The company should pay for this odd arrangement, not the OP.
      – Upper_Case
      yesterday




      1




      1




      @Joe Strazzere Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of rigidity in place such that 1) raises are only awarded once per year, based on a matrix that accounts for performance and current compensation ratio, and 2) they aren't negotiated; at best, I'm assuming I could get it lowered.
      – BaronFiner
      yesterday




      @Joe Strazzere Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of rigidity in place such that 1) raises are only awarded once per year, based on a matrix that accounts for performance and current compensation ratio, and 2) they aren't negotiated; at best, I'm assuming I could get it lowered.
      – BaronFiner
      yesterday




      10




      10




      @BaronFiner - I guess you do whatever you feel you must do. It makes no sense to me. In a different context, I was able to negotiate a more equitable benefit, when we were acquired and assimilated into the acquiring company's benefits plan. In my case it was vacation time rather than salary. But the plea for fairness worked. Good luck.
      – Joe Strazzere
      yesterday




      @BaronFiner - I guess you do whatever you feel you must do. It makes no sense to me. In a different context, I was able to negotiate a more equitable benefit, when we were acquired and assimilated into the acquiring company's benefits plan. In my case it was vacation time rather than salary. But the plea for fairness worked. Good luck.
      – Joe Strazzere
      yesterday




      1




      1




      @BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
      – thelem
      11 hours ago




      @BaronFiner Could you reduce your pay in some other way that you control, for example purchasing additional holiday or increasing your pension contributions?
      – thelem
      11 hours ago












      up vote
      27
      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.






      share|improve this answer

















      • 15




        "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
        16 hours ago






      • 1




        @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
        5 hours ago

















      up vote
      27
      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.






      share|improve this answer

















      • 15




        "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
        16 hours ago






      • 1




        @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
        5 hours ago















      up vote
      27
      down vote










      up vote
      27
      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.






      share|improve this answer












      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.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered yesterday









      mgarciaisaia

      1,263913




      1,263913








      • 15




        "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
        16 hours ago






      • 1




        @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
        5 hours ago
















      • 15




        "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
        16 hours ago






      • 1




        @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
        5 hours ago










      15




      15




      "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
      16 hours ago




      "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
      16 hours ago




      1




      1




      @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
      5 hours ago






      @Don, most U.S. employees don't have an employment contract, and I doubt the company would be willing to negotiate one to solve this.
      – prl
      5 hours ago












      up vote
      15
      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.






      share|improve this answer





















      • If the raise was forever, surely that would be an argument for asking for the lower raise, if the higher raise would leave the OP worse off? Or are you considering that the medical cost threshold might be increased in subsequent years?
        – Time4Tea
        yesterday






      • 5




        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
        17 hours ago










      • Ok. I was confused by what you meant by 'the raise is forever'. I thought you meant it would be the only raise the OP would ever get (in that position).
        – Time4Tea
        5 hours ago










      • This should be the accepted answer. Always take more money. Even if you lose out in the short term, you win in the long term.
        – asgallant
        4 hours ago















      up vote
      15
      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.






      share|improve this answer





















      • If the raise was forever, surely that would be an argument for asking for the lower raise, if the higher raise would leave the OP worse off? Or are you considering that the medical cost threshold might be increased in subsequent years?
        – Time4Tea
        yesterday






      • 5




        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
        17 hours ago










      • Ok. I was confused by what you meant by 'the raise is forever'. I thought you meant it would be the only raise the OP would ever get (in that position).
        – Time4Tea
        5 hours ago










      • This should be the accepted answer. Always take more money. Even if you lose out in the short term, you win in the long term.
        – asgallant
        4 hours ago













      up vote
      15
      down vote










      up vote
      15
      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.






      share|improve this answer












      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.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered yesterday









      gnasher729

      80.8k34145255




      80.8k34145255












      • If the raise was forever, surely that would be an argument for asking for the lower raise, if the higher raise would leave the OP worse off? Or are you considering that the medical cost threshold might be increased in subsequent years?
        – Time4Tea
        yesterday






      • 5




        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
        17 hours ago










      • Ok. I was confused by what you meant by 'the raise is forever'. I thought you meant it would be the only raise the OP would ever get (in that position).
        – Time4Tea
        5 hours ago










      • This should be the accepted answer. Always take more money. Even if you lose out in the short term, you win in the long term.
        – asgallant
        4 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
        yesterday






      • 5




        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
        17 hours ago










      • Ok. I was confused by what you meant by 'the raise is forever'. I thought you meant it would be the only raise the OP would ever get (in that position).
        – Time4Tea
        5 hours ago










      • This should be the accepted answer. Always take more money. Even if you lose out in the short term, you win in the long term.
        – asgallant
        4 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
      yesterday




      If the raise was forever, surely that would be an argument for asking for the lower raise, if the higher raise would leave the OP worse off? Or are you considering that the medical cost threshold might be increased in subsequent years?
      – Time4Tea
      yesterday




      5




      5




      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
      17 hours ago




      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
      17 hours ago












      Ok. I was confused by what you meant by 'the raise is forever'. I thought you meant it would be the only raise the OP would ever get (in that position).
      – Time4Tea
      5 hours ago




      Ok. I was confused by what you meant by 'the raise is forever'. I thought you meant it would be the only raise the OP would ever get (in that position).
      – Time4Tea
      5 hours ago












      This should be the accepted answer. Always take more money. Even if you lose out in the short term, you win in the long term.
      – asgallant
      4 hours ago




      This should be the accepted answer. Always take more money. Even if you lose out in the short term, you win in the long term.
      – asgallant
      4 hours ago










      up vote
      14
      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).






      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        14
        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).






        share|improve this answer























          up vote
          14
          down vote










          up vote
          14
          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).






          share|improve this answer












          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).







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered yesterday









          Acccumulation

          2,7061411




          2,7061411






















              up vote
              9
              down vote













              Health Premiums are pretax. They (a) reduce your tax liability, and (b) do not affect 401k contributions. Because of the effect on your tax liability, you will pay less in taxes in trade for more premium cost. The $1,300 more to your gross means you'll be saving more retirement, and get a larger matching 401(k).



              Even if it may seem outrageous upfront, it is pretty typical that crossing from A-$0.01 to A will still result in a slightly larger paycheck (or, at least, not significantly smaller, usually just a few dollars) as well as not negatively affecting your 401(k). Even more so, A+$1,300 will be a larger check than A-$0.01 upfront and over time.



              Of course, without knowing A, your salary, your tax liability, marital status, property ownership, premium differences, and so on, it's hard to say for certain if A or A-$0.01 would be beneficial, but A+$1,300 will definitely be beneficial overall, because it'll have a smaller tax impact because of the increased premiums, yet still be a boon for your 401(k). There's no good reason for pursuing a smaller salary in the hopes that it will produce larger paychecks, especially since it will have a negative impact on your retirement.






              share|improve this answer





















              • The value of A is easily computable from the information given. I'm not sure why OP was cagy about saying it.
                – prl
                5 hours ago















              up vote
              9
              down vote













              Health Premiums are pretax. They (a) reduce your tax liability, and (b) do not affect 401k contributions. Because of the effect on your tax liability, you will pay less in taxes in trade for more premium cost. The $1,300 more to your gross means you'll be saving more retirement, and get a larger matching 401(k).



              Even if it may seem outrageous upfront, it is pretty typical that crossing from A-$0.01 to A will still result in a slightly larger paycheck (or, at least, not significantly smaller, usually just a few dollars) as well as not negatively affecting your 401(k). Even more so, A+$1,300 will be a larger check than A-$0.01 upfront and over time.



              Of course, without knowing A, your salary, your tax liability, marital status, property ownership, premium differences, and so on, it's hard to say for certain if A or A-$0.01 would be beneficial, but A+$1,300 will definitely be beneficial overall, because it'll have a smaller tax impact because of the increased premiums, yet still be a boon for your 401(k). There's no good reason for pursuing a smaller salary in the hopes that it will produce larger paychecks, especially since it will have a negative impact on your retirement.






              share|improve this answer





















              • The value of A is easily computable from the information given. I'm not sure why OP was cagy about saying it.
                – prl
                5 hours ago













              up vote
              9
              down vote










              up vote
              9
              down vote









              Health Premiums are pretax. They (a) reduce your tax liability, and (b) do not affect 401k contributions. Because of the effect on your tax liability, you will pay less in taxes in trade for more premium cost. The $1,300 more to your gross means you'll be saving more retirement, and get a larger matching 401(k).



              Even if it may seem outrageous upfront, it is pretty typical that crossing from A-$0.01 to A will still result in a slightly larger paycheck (or, at least, not significantly smaller, usually just a few dollars) as well as not negatively affecting your 401(k). Even more so, A+$1,300 will be a larger check than A-$0.01 upfront and over time.



              Of course, without knowing A, your salary, your tax liability, marital status, property ownership, premium differences, and so on, it's hard to say for certain if A or A-$0.01 would be beneficial, but A+$1,300 will definitely be beneficial overall, because it'll have a smaller tax impact because of the increased premiums, yet still be a boon for your 401(k). There's no good reason for pursuing a smaller salary in the hopes that it will produce larger paychecks, especially since it will have a negative impact on your retirement.






              share|improve this answer












              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.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 12 hours ago









              phyrfox

              37115




              37115












              • The value of A is easily computable from the information given. I'm not sure why OP was cagy about saying it.
                – prl
                5 hours ago


















              • The value of A is easily computable from the information given. I'm not sure why OP was cagy about saying it.
                – prl
                5 hours ago
















              The value of A is easily computable from the information given. I'm not sure why OP was cagy about saying it.
              – prl
              5 hours ago




              The value of A is easily computable from the information given. I'm not sure why OP was cagy about saying it.
              – prl
              5 hours ago










              up vote
              4
              down vote













              Instead of refusing or downgrading the raise, why not ask for it to be deferred? Then you have not given up the rights to it while still keeping your pay below the all important threshold. It may also be easier for the company to implement than anything else.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              JDL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                up vote
                4
                down vote













                Instead of refusing or downgrading the raise, why not ask for it to be deferred? Then you have not given up the rights to it while still keeping your pay below the all important threshold. It may also be easier for the company to implement than anything else.






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                JDL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                  up vote
                  4
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  4
                  down vote









                  Instead of refusing or downgrading the raise, why not ask for it to be deferred? Then you have not given up the rights to it while still keeping your pay below the all important threshold. It may also be easier for the company to implement than anything else.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  JDL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  Instead of refusing or downgrading the raise, why not ask for it to be deferred? Then you have not given up the rights to it while still keeping your pay below the all important threshold. It may also be easier for the company to implement than anything else.







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  JDL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  JDL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered 17 hours ago









                  JDL

                  1411




                  1411




                  New contributor




                  JDL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  JDL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  JDL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                      up vote
                      2
                      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.






                      share|improve this answer



















                      • 4




                        "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
                        17 hours ago















                      up vote
                      2
                      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.






                      share|improve this answer



















                      • 4




                        "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
                        17 hours ago













                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      2
                      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.






                      share|improve this answer














                      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.







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited yesterday

























                      answered yesterday









                      sf02

                      2,4222313




                      2,4222313








                      • 4




                        "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
                        17 hours ago














                      • 4




                        "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
                        17 hours ago








                      4




                      4




                      "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
                      17 hours ago




                      "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
                      17 hours ago










                      BaronFiner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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





















































                      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











                      Popular posts from this blog

                      A CLEAN and SIMPLE way to add appendices to Table of Contents and bookmarks

                      Calculate evaluation metrics using cross_val_predict sklearn

                      Insert data from modal to MySQL (multiple modal on website)