No benifits for higher pay

ArabianKnight

When one is offered a job it's usually salary+ benefits. What if your salary is only 25k but you get full benefits?

How much are benefits worth and can you negotiate for a higher salary without benefits? Has anyone tried this tactic before?

erpadmin

ArabianKnight wrote: »

When one is offered a job it's usually salary+ benefits. What if your salary is only 25k but you get full benefits?

How much are benefits worth and can you negotiate for a higher salary without benefits? Has anyone tried this tactic before?

Define "full benefits"? That means different things to different people and they vary from person-to-person and job-to-job...

But $25k....that's great if you have roommates or live at home with mom and dad. Otherwise, not so much.

ArabianKnight

erpadmin wrote: »

Define "full benefits"? That means different things to different people and they vary from person-to-person and job-to-job...

But $25k....that's great if you have roommates or live at home with mom and dad. Otherwise, not so much.

Health, Life, Dental, 401k, PTO, ......25k is just an example I'm currently unemployed. Typical benefits one would expect I guess.

Mojo_666

I am in the UK and my opinion on benefits is that they are next to usless. I want £$£$. The Only worthwhile incentive I have seen offered by an employer is where if you have a perfect sick record you get an extra week off or an extra weeks pay the following year.

erpadmin

Mojo_666 wrote: »

I am in the UK and my opinion on benefits is that they are next to usless. I want £$£$. The Only worthwhile incentive I have seen offered by an employer is where if you have a perfect sick record you get an extra week off or an extra weeks pay the following year.

I wanted the OP to list his idea of full benefits so that we are on the same page. I agree with what you are saying, just not how you are saying it.

Benefits are not useless. You're in the UK, so the Crown is hooking up healthcare. (Currently) it's not the case in the US. Yes, 2014 will be a different story, but it's not here yet, so healthcare/medical is still something that has to be addressed by employers. (And I'm not going to discuss HealthCare as a political item here....)

However, to clarify your point, it's all about the money. The salary is indicative of what you're worth and a $25k salary you could earn at McDonalds or retail. If one is going to shoot for a entry-level salary, they should shoot for low-mid thirties. (Talkin' dollars, as the US is where I'm from). But I would never discount benefits....especially me as I medical coverage is very important. 401k, etc, is great if you're going to max it out and have a IRA to supplement it. Plus of course an employer match.

But to the OP, you definitely want to concentrate on salary. Good benefits will come with a decent salary...you don't have to negate one for the other (nor should you have to).

Mike-Mike

before getting laid off I worked for AT&T, it was union, and obviously they are a huge company. I had full benefits, all free, health, dental, vision, 401k, pension, my son's benefits were free too, life insurance, etc... you name it I got it.. and I got paid pretty good too... my base pay was 56k, but with overtime I made 80k last year...

the job sucked though, at least for me...

but again it was union and nothing was negotiated by me...

I am getting married next year, and my lady is a teacher, so I could hop on her benefit plan if need be, so when I go back to work, I would much rather have higher pay than great benefits

Mojo_666

erpadmin wrote: »

You're in the UK, so the Crown is hooking up healthcare.

Actually my taxes are hooking me up with health care, it's just a shame that my taxes also hook up the lazy folk with the same healthcare.

tpatt100

Mojo_666 wrote: »

Actually my taxes are hooking me up with health care, it's just a shame that my taxes also hook up the lazy folk with the same healthcare.

Well I would assume you guys have a progressive tax system like the US so the super rich are carrying the load for everyone beneath them.

Devilsbane

erpadmin wrote: »

However, to clarify your point, it's all about the money. The salary is indicative of what you're worth and a $25k salary you could earn at McDonalds or retail. If one is going to shoot for a entry-level salary, they should shoot for low-mid thirties. (Talkin' dollars, as the US is where I'm from). But I would never discount benefits....especially me as I medical coverage is very important. 401k, etc, is great if you're going to max it out and have a IRA to supplement it. Plus of course an employer match.

A $25k salary is not McDonalds or retail, not unless you are management at least. I worked in retail, most of those jobs start at about $8 an hour (16k) and at best you can get is a 35 cent raise per year. I worked in my retail job for about 3 years and left at just under $10 an hour (20k), and that is including the extra $1 per hour I got for starting work at 4AM.

Also, that yearly figures assume you work 40 hours a week. At least where I worked you don't. (And overtime was not an option. You go 5 minutes over 40 hours and you will get written up) Starting about 2 years ago they started cutting hours back. Those who were at 40 were bumped down to 35-38 and those that were in the mid to low 30's were dropped under 32 so that they couldn't get full time benefits. My mom has worked at the same place for almost 7 years now and has been maxed out. The highest yearly raise she can get now is $.10 an hour, and shes still under that $25k mark.

If you are just starting your first job in IT, take whatever you can get. Your pay will be at least what you are leaving but will also give you invaluable experience.

tpatt100

ArabianKnight wrote: »

When one is offered a job it's usually salary+ benefits. What if your salary is only 25k but you get full benefits?

How much are benefits worth and can you negotiate for a higher salary without benefits? Has anyone tried this tactic before?

I have had people call me with contracts that had no benefits but these were short term contracts (6 months or less).

I have not used health care, dental, etc from the majority of my employers because I was on my wife's since she tends to not change jobs like I do.

At my last job I declined health and dental and for declining health care I got 9 dollars added to each paycheck lol.

Mojo_666

tpatt100 wrote: »

Well I would assume you guys have a progressive tax system like the US so the super rich are carrying the load for everyone beneath them.

Yes, which is why the super rich go off shore and never pay taxes.

Gibraltar, Monte Carlo, etc etc, 2 hours flight time to the UK and with better weather to boot, so no, they do not really pay any taxes at all, the working and middle classes fund this country, the super rich bail out and the lazy just sponge.

Did you know that in Gibraltar the most you can be taxed is £30k? so the super rich all by appartments there but never even bother to move in to them and when they earn 10, 20, 50 100 million a year they pay 30k in taxes. cool huh

Devilsbane

Mojo_666 wrote: »

Yes, which is why the super rich go off shore and never pay taxes.

Gibraltar, Monte Carlo, etc etc, 2 hours flight time to the UK and with better weather to boot, so no, they do not really pay any taxes at all, the working and middle classes fund this country, the super rich bail out and the lazy just sponge.

Did you know that in Gibraltar the most you can be taxed is £30k? so the super rich all by appartments there but never even bother to move in to them and when they earn 10, 20, 50 100 million a year they pay 30k in taxes. cool huh

Thats how it normally works. Warren Buffet who is one of the richest guys in the world (and also happens to have his head screwed on right, unlike the rest of his peers) says that he could pay less in taxes than his secretary who has like a $50k salary.

Mojo_666

Devilsbane wrote: »

Thats how it normally works. Warren Buffet who is one of the richest guys in the world (and also happens to have his head screwed on right, unlike the rest of his peers) says that he could pay less in taxes than his secretary who has like a $50k salary.

Yeah and for the money they save they could buy multi million doller properties in every single tax haven and fund a private jet to get back "Home" when they need to, that is why the rich get richer.

ssampier

If you are given the chance to negotiate do so!

Often entry level jobs and government jobs have a strict salary chart, so you take what you can get.

I am a little embarrassed to say that I worked for $10 an hour with no benefits after college graduation. I was there 2 years, it sucked for sure, but you got to start somewhere, right?

erpadmin

Devilsbane wrote: »

If you are just starting your first job in IT, take whatever you can get. Your pay will be at least what you are leaving but will also give you invaluable experience.

I don't knock that, but one should always shoot higher than lower, but I'm not saying shoot for a $150k job either...but at leasts $30ks and $40ks. In the NYC-metro area, $25k is great if you're still living at home with mom or dad AND/OR you have roommates. If you're trying to raise a family with that, you are at poverty level (assuming you are the sole breadwinner, and despite the 21st century you still have households where this is the case [like mine]).

But hey, you do have to start somewhere and I did start near that ($26k, but we're talking about 1997...my dad was making $32k before he retired and moved out of state collecting pension and SS benes). Giving a $19k with no responsibilities a salary like that is just asking for trouble...(provided of course he received proper financial education beforehand....LOL).

tpatt100

Devilsbane wrote: »

Thats how it normally works. Warren Buffet who is one of the richest guys in the world (and also happens to have his head screwed on right, unlike the rest of his peers) says that he could pay less in taxes than his secretary who has like a $50k salary.

Well thats because the Bush tax cuts in 2003 cut the capital gains tax by 5 percent. Even though the super rich pay higher income taxes the majority of their income comes from investment revenue which was cut. So they pay less taxes from their true income which is investing.
(that is my understanding)

Top Earners Lose Cost of BMW If Bush Tax Cuts Expire - BusinessWeek

Sept. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Wealthy Americans have the price of a BMW convertible riding on the outcome of the Congressional battle over tax cuts set to expire this year.

A married New Yorker earning about $1 million in income, with an additional $50,000 in capital gains and $5,000 in dividends may pay about an extra $45,300 in federal income taxes, $2,500 in capital gains and $1,230 on dividends if Congress doesn’t extend the 2001 and 2003 tax reductions scheduled to end Dec. 31, says Alan Dlugash, a partner at Marks Paneth & Shron LLP, a New York-based accounting firm. That’s about a $50,000 hit, he said.

“These are very large tax increases,” said Dlugash, whose typical client has a net worth of $5 million to $10 million. His example assumes a taxpayer in the top bracket without deductions such as mortgage interest on a home or charitable donations.

An estimated 315,000 U.S. taxpayers earn more than $1 million, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. In 2011, federal income tax rates for the highest earners will go to 39.6 percent, up from 35 percent, and capital-gains rates will increase to 20 percent from 15 percent, unless Congress acts. Dividends, currently taxed at 15 percent, would be taxed as ordinary income with rates as high as 39.6 percent.

tpatt100

ssampier wrote: »

If you are given the chance to negotiate do so!

Often entry level jobs and government jobs have a strict salary chart, so you take what you can get.

I am a little embarrassed to say that I worked for $10 an hour with no benefits after college graduation. I was there 2 years, it sucked for sure, but you got to start somewhere, right?

I was making less than that, I quit a full time job that paid crap in order to take a part time job working 40 hours so I could go to college full time. I was working 40 hours but the hours were all over the place hence "part time".

Devilsbane

erpadmin wrote: »

I don't knock that, but one should always shoot higher than lower, but I'm not saying shoot for a $150k job either...but at leasts $30ks and $40ks. In the NYC-metro area, $25k is great if you're still living at home with mom or dad AND/OR you have roommates. If you're trying to raise a family with that, you are at poverty level (assuming you are the sole breadwinner, and despite the 21st century you still have households where this is the case [like mine]).

But hey, you do have to start somewhere and I did start near that ($26k, but we're talking about 1997...my dad was making $32k before he retired and moved out of state collecting pension and SS benes). Giving a $19k with no responsibilities a salary like that is just asking for trouble...(provided of course he received proper financial education beforehand....LOL).

I agree with you that with $25k it is difficult to pay rent/a morgage and to put food on the table. But most people are in that 20-30k range. The US per capita is something like $46k. But that number also takes into account millionaires and billionaires, and it takes a lot of people making very little to offset them.

What I'm trying to get at here, is your goal should be just finding something better than what you have. If he is already bringing in $25k, then $30k-$40k should be where he is looking. If he is sitting at 15-20 then $25k will seem like heaven. Don't be greedy and try to make a jump from 15 to 50 overnight because your skills probably won't justify that leap and you won't get the job.

erpadmin

Devilsbane wrote: »

What I'm trying to get at here, is your goal should be just finding something better than what you have. If he is already bringing in $25k, then $30k-$40k should be where he is looking. If he is sitting at 15-20 then $25k will seem like heaven. Don't be greedy and try to make a jump from 15 to 50 overnight because your skills probably won't justify that leap and you won't get the job.

Agreed on that! But I doubt 25k will make 15k-20k seem like heaven though. You gotta take into account tax bracket and other deductions that you might not have dealt with before.....it could just end up being a couple of hundred bucks more a check at the most.....nothing to scoff at, but not exactly getting you out of the cardboard box either.

To put it in perspective, I went from $26k-$32k at first job. Then 2nd job went from $40k-41k. Then got "9/11ed" (as did the company....). 8 months later went to $51k-$53k. Now currently, I went from $64k-$84k. (Thank you, Union ).

It's all about focus and a plan. Once you get both, you will get the salary you want.

eansdad

A simple answer is (assuming a good health, dental, vision and prescription plan) would be $8-15k depending on dependents. Under Obamacare you will have to have insurance whether paid by you or your employer (unless they fall into the to small category). That said the most I've ever seen someone get is $2/hr more for dropping insurance.

That is the simplest of answers.

ArabianKnight

eansdad wrote: »

A simple answer is (assuming a good health, dental, vision and prescription plan) would be $8-15k depending on dependents. Under Obamacare you will have to have insurance whether paid by you or your employer (unless they fall into the to small category). That said the most I've ever seen someone get is $2/hr more for dropping insurance.

That is the simplest of answers.

Yea, that's more along the answer I was looking for. I am an OIF vet and get free health care for 5 years, am single, and live with family so I wont need any benefits right now.

I was thinking to play it like Im saving the company money by waiving benifits and requesting a ~12k a year increase (during the interview). So not only will the interviewer fell like he or she saved the company money by letting me waive benefits I get a pay increase as well. Assuming the salary range for the position would be ~35-45k and benefits are worth ~20-25k I wonder if this is doable.

Paul Boz

I do not include benefits into my bottom line, nor do I include bonuses or any possible overtime. My last employer was notorious for @#$%ing employees over by denying raises based on benefits being included in total take-home. Just like I don't bank on bonuses always being there, I don't consider benefits because I expect them TO be there.

eansdad

Exactly, in the IT field we generally have some type of benefits package attached to our salary. Every job I've either interviewed for or held had some type of health plan whether if it was employer or employee paid for. A lot of places still look for quality in their people in technology since it is essential in today's world.

I doubt they would give anyone an extra $12k for not taking health insurance. Maybe an extra $4-5k but not $12k. For a job that starts at $25k they might not give more then $2k since they expect that the person will be looking for a new job after a year.

erpadmin

eansdad wrote: »

I doubt they would give anyone an extra $12k for not taking health insurance. Maybe an extra $4-5k but not $12k. For a job that starts at $25k they might not give more then $2k since they expect that the person will be looking for a new job after a year.

Alot of places won't waive healthcare until you can prove you have another source of healthcare (i.e. you're under your spouse's plan). Otherwise, you are obliged to accept it. Now, with 2014 looming, who knows how that will pan out.

chmorin

erpadmin wrote: »

Now, with 2014 looming, who knows how that will pan out.

Didn't you hear? The world is ending 2012. No need for health care.






Lord I can't even type that without having to put this here so people know im kidding...

Devilsbane

chmorin wrote: »

Didn't you hear? The world is ending 2012. No need for health care.

We still gotta make it until December though.

Forsaken_GA

Devilsbane wrote: »

I agree with you that with $25k it is difficult to pay rent/a morgage and to put food on the table.

I would strongly disagree with this. When I was making 40k, I lived like I made 20 so I could sock half of what I made away in savings (and I still do live like I make half of what I make). I had to cut back on a lot of things like eating out, expensive cell phone plan, etc, but it's not that hard to live on $25k if you actually try to live within your means, aka, act your wage.

Which is not to say that anyone should be satisfied with making $25k, but it's far cry from living on the streets.

Devilsbane

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

I would strongly disagree with this. When I was making 40k, I lived like I made 20 so I could sock half of what I made away in savings (and I still do live like I make half of what I make). I had to cut back on a lot of things like eating out, expensive cell phone plan, etc, but it's not that hard to live on $25k if you actually try to live within your means, aka, act your wage.

Which is not to say that anyone should be satisfied with making $25k, but it's far cry from living on the streets.

I strongly agree with acting your wage, and I really don't want to turn this into an argument or debate. But I do believe that it would be very difficult to provide for a family off of $25k. If you can do it, more power to you.

erpadmin

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

I would strongly disagree with this. When I was making 40k, I lived like I made 20 so I could sock half of what I made away in savings (and I still do live like I make half of what I make). I had to cut back on a lot of things like eating out, expensive cell phone plan, etc, but it's not that hard to live on $25k if you actually try to live within your means, aka, act your wage.

Which is not to say that anyone should be satisfied with making $25k, but it's far cry from living on the streets.

Time out though. When you make $40k, you're not bringing all of that home with you....after taxes and deductions, take home is around $28-$34, and that's maybe a little less or a little more depending on how your W-4 is looking like, plus what deductions you have (401k, health, etc., etc.,). When I was making 41, I brought home $28600 yearly net.

I myself am in a comfortable place in life where I can max out my 457(b) (government's answer to the 401(k)...not match here, folks), on top of making adjustments in my taxes so I may not see a refund, or very little, but I was able to do that by putting my COLA increases and raises straight into my 457(b). And this is on top of my pension deductions (yes, I get a pension too. I want to enjoy retirement, if I ever get that far....lmao).

So when someone is making $25k....it's almost like they're making $15k-$20k, unless they have kids....then you get into EICs and all of that. It's crazy!

Forsaken_GA

Devilsbane wrote: »

I strongly agree with acting your wage, and I really don't want to turn this into an argument or debate. But I do believe that it would be very difficult to provide for a family off of $25k. If you can do it, more power to you.

Well when you bring family into it, that's a different ballgame (that was not mentioned initially). Sure, it's hard to feed 5 kids off $25k, but still possible, just means someone's doing an awful lot of food preparation, plus you might as well take advantage of those government programs that they keep taxing us for.

tpatt100

Devilsbane wrote: »

I strongly agree with acting your wage, and I really don't want to turn this into an argument or debate. But I do believe that it would be very difficult to provide for a family off of $25k. If you can do it, more power to you.

I think you can feed a family but feed a family "well" is another. When I tried to eat less processed food and instead eat more fresh fruits and vegetables our grocery bill went up quite a bit.

Besides somebody making 25K and feeding 5 kids should set aside some money for birth control instead of food