Why would you ever turn down a raise in salary?
"I don't know of a situation where rejecting a raise would make sense. Often, one can be in a phaseout of some benefit, so that even though you're in a certain tax bracket, the impact of the next $100 is greater than the bracket rate alone. Taxation of social security benefits is one such anomaly. It can be high, but never over 100%. Update - The Affordable Care Act contains such an anomaly - go to the Kaiser Foundation site, and see the benefit a family of three might receive. A credit for up to $4631 toward their health care insurance cost. But, increase the income to above $78120 Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) and the benefit drops to zero. The fact that the next dollar of income will cost you $4631 in the lost credit is an example of a step-function in the tax code. I'd still not turn down the raise, but I'd ask that it be deposited to my 401(k). And when reconciling my taxes each April, I'd use an IRA in case I still went over a bit. Consider, it's April, and your MAGI is $80,120. Even if you don't have to cash to deposit to the IRA, you borrow it, from a 24% credit card if need be. Because the $2000 IRA will trigger not just $300 less Federal tax, but a $4631 health care credit.  Note - the above example will apply to a limited, specific group who are funding their own health care expense and paying above a certain percent of income. It's not a criticism of ACA, just a mathematical observation appropriate to this question. For those in this situation, a close look at their projected MAGI is in order.  Another example - the deduction for college tuition and fees.  This is another ""step function."" Go a dollar over the threshold, $130K joint, and the deduction drops from $4000 to $2000. You can claim that a $2000 deduction is a difference of 'only' $500 in tax due, but the result is a quick spike in the marginal rate. For those right at this number, it would be worth it to increase their 401(k) deduction to get back under this limit." "I probably wouldn't turn down a raise, but there are some circumstances in which you might hesitate. Having a disproportionately high salary for your type of role or the value you are providing to the company makes you an attractive layoff target in an economic downturn. I've heard anecdotally of lots of corporate lawyers getting laid off because they were getting raises every year, and ended up with such ridiculous salaries that when the economy went south, the company basically asked ""why are we paying these people so much?"" Same thing happens in lots of places - Circuit City lays off the experienced, highly-paid salespeople and brings in cheap-o high school students (that didn't work out well for them, but they did it anyway). Still, even knowing that, I'd accept the pay raise. You're making more money the whole time you're employed, and prior salary is the biggest predictor of the salary you can negotiate at a new position." "My answer has nothing to do with tax brackets or mathematics (I'm taking advantage of the leeway your question allowed), but rather it has to do with career goals and promotion.  Large companies often have large ""Policies & Procedures"" booklets to go with them.  One policy that sometimes exists which would make it a bad idea to accept a raise is: Employee cannot be given more than one   salary increase in a 12-month period This means that if you accept a standard-of-living or merit increase of say, 2% or 3% in April, and then you apply for a job that would otherwise warrant a pay grade increase, you may be forced to wait until the following year to get bumped to the proper pay grade. Of course, this totally depends on the company, but it would be advisable to check your company's H.R. policy on that, if you're considering a move (even a lateral one) in the future." If you have children in a university institution, then your annual salary is reported via financial aid forms. The small raise could be the difference between full tuition covered and only half tuition covered. I had a colleague turn down a raise once because he believed that female colleagues were already being paid well below his salary and it was unfair to further increase this gap. For very public figures raises are often declined as a form of leadership: showing that management is willing to forgo bonuses and salary increases as a form of solidarity with the employee population.  Some leaders forgo a salary altogether (or take a $1/year salary). I would turn down a 20% raise in salary without thinking, if they would offer that I can have a 4 day work week. I even take a 10% cut for this! Here in Germany there is a special case. I am studying (and working a little on the side) and still receiving child benefits from the state which is like 190€/m. Because I am getting this I don't have to pay tuition which is 1k/y. If my side income would get over the boundary (which is like 9k/y) I would lose those benefits (~3.3k) and would have to pay insurance myself (I dont know how much that would be. 50-100/m I guess.) So getting a raise from 8k to 10k sounds nice as it is a 25% raise, but it actually means getting less. I once turned down a raise because I didn't agree with the employee review that supposedly substantiated the raise.  I felt the review to be superficial and incomplete.   Then I refused to sign it, or take the accompanying raise, due to that fact. In the UK, recent changes to pension taxation mean that from April 2011, people earning between £150,000 and £180,000 total and making large pension contributions (>£50,000 or so) will pay a marginal tax rate on additional salary of >100%. This is because pension contributions normally attract tax relief at the highest marginal rate - i.e. 40% if the gross salary is above about £40,000, and 50% for salaries above £150,000. But after April 2011, the rate of relief will be tapered down for gross salaries above £150,000, reaching 20% for a gross salary of £180,000. So for example if you earn £175,000 and make a contribution of £50,000, then an additional £1,000 in salary will incur £500 of direct tax, and also lead to a 1% reduction in tax relief (from 25% to 24%), costing another £500. Once you factor in National Insurance of another 1% or so, the net effect of the pay rise is negative. In the UK, the government has recently announced that Child Benefit will no longer be paid to those who earn over £44k. This means that if you currently earn £43,999, and your employer offers you a raise of £10 per annum to £44,009, then you could be over £1k worse off as a result. The only valid reason from a financial point of view is if the raise is a promotion or comes with conditions that are unacceptable to you. You may not want added supervisory responsibilties, for example. You need to use discretion when refusing advancement though, at places where I have worked, declining a raise or promotion is seen as a career killer for some circumstances. At least with US tax law where you only pay taxes at the higher rate for the income above the minimum for that tax bracket, you will always wind up ahead taking the raise if you are simply concerned with after tax (FICA) income.  For example, assume you were making $8,350 (the top end of the 10% bracket in the US), and got a $100 raise, you would be taxed roughly as follows: After Tax Income Before Raise: $8,350 x (100% - 10%) After Tax Income After Raise: $8,350 x (100%-10%) +  $100 x (100%-15%) You can easily see that the second number is always higher than the first as long as the raise is a positive amount (obviously). I recently was offered $1/hr raise. I turned it down because 1.)I had been looking for other jobs and the extra $150 per month wasn't enough money to keep me from exploring other options so it would look bad to take a raise and leave a month later. You never want to burn bridges. 2.) Raises aren't given out everyday. The business I work for is having financial troubles and the $1/hr was probably the best they could do at the time. If business picks up and they can afford to give me more money they won't do it because the record will show that I just got a raise.  One good extra is that your boss will be flabergasted that you just turned down a raise and you may gain a lot of respect from your superiors. Don't confuse strategically turning down a raise and letting others sway your opinion because they don't wanna cough up the cash. Sometimes it's not entirely about take-home pay.  A pay raise can affect other things like: These things need to be considered since they also affect quality of life. There is currently a bill in Washington that will change the limit for salaried employees receiving overtime pay. It will be raised to $50400. I work 4 hours of overtime each week, which if the bill is passed, equates to an additional $7800 annually. If my company raises my salary to just above the limit then they would not have to pay the overtime. That would only be a raise of approx. $3000. Why would I want to take the raise, and still have to work the overtime, when I can choose to not take the raise and possibly not have to work it any longer. I would rather have the time off, but if I'm going to have to work it, then I'll take the more than double overtime pay. There are some student loan repayment programs and the like where, if a raise would bump you past a certain threshold, you become ineligible and are suddenly left holding the whole bag, or alternately the payoff for having your loans forgiven/repaid drops considerably. It can make financial sense to avoid crossing those thresholds. "This would never apply for tax ""brackets"". It's not as though making an extra dollar will put you into an entire separate bracket, the IRS isn't that bad. They bump up the ""brackets"" every $50, so you will never turn down a raise because it would cause you to lose income. However if your raise would preclude you from contributing to your IRA because it pushes you over $110,000 then yes, you could turn it down or explain to your boss that it would need to be just a little bit higher to cover your IRA contribution loss." "One ""economic reason"" to turn down a raise is if your company gives bonuses based on performance reviews. When you get a raise in salary, your boss usually expects a better performance from you. That being said, if you get the raise, and your performance review is worse, you might get a smaller annual income." "In Australia there are cases for the argument. 1) We have laws against unfair dismissal that do not apply above certain thresholds. Your position is more secure with the lower salary. 2) Tax benefits for families are unfairly structured such that take home pay may actually be less, again due to a threshold. This tends to benefit charities as people need to shed the taxable income if a repayment of benefits would otherwise be triggered. 3) You do not want to ""just cross"" a tax bracket in a year where levies are being raised for natural disasters or budget shortfall. In this case a raise could be deferred ?" It would make sense to refuse a raise when it pushes your effective marginal 'tax' (including reduced benefits) above 100%.  The working poor (family of 4, 20K-40K in the US) often face marginal rates above 100% when you consider the phase out of various government benefits (EITC, insurance, housing,etc.)  You can see the research here and here. Jurisdictions will vary but I can imagine calculation methods for child support where the raise could become significant in the present with long future ramifications as well, even if the job is temporary or the parent wanted to step away from working full-time to attend school. The timing of the raise might coincide with disclosure of income to an ex-spouse or to the court related and it might be preferable to postpone the increase. Of course the court would probably frown on declining the raise for only these reasons. If it found out it might impute the higher income anyway. And I'm not suggesting that people dodge responsibility for their kids. We've all seen those cases where child support is not particularly equitable between the two parties and/or the kids do not necessarily benefit by the transfer of money. I wouldn't blame a parent for thoughtfully and unselfishly considering this type of second-order effect and consulting an attorney as with so many other financial implications of divorce. Regardless of personal moral objections it's certainly an answer to the question in technical terms that somebody somewhere has taken into account. I recently rejected an offer at a different firm that would have provided a 14k yearly increase. The reason for the rejection was because I would have had to give up two work from home days, my commute would have been about an hour and half each way, I would have lost about 14 extra days of PTO and holiday pay, and the new company didn't match anything for 401k.
The market doesn't know or care why you bought.  What you are asking is effectively 'this share went down in price after I bought. Is there anything I can do?'. Consider what you are asking for - if there were anything you could do, then no one would ever make a loss. How do you suppose that would work? "As a contractor, I have done this exact calculation many times so I can compare full time employment offers when they come. The answer varies greatly depending on your situation, but here's how to calculate it: So, subtracting the two and you get I've run many different scenarios with multiple plans and employers, and in my situation with a spouse and 1 child, the employer plans usually ended up saving me approximately $5k per year. So then, to answer your question: ...salary is ""100k"", ""with healthcare"", or then ""X"" ""with no healthcare"" - what do we reckon? I reckon I would want to be paid $5K more, or $105K. This is purely hypothetical though and assumes there are no other differences except for with or without health insurance. In reality, contractor vs employee will have quite a few other differences. But in general, the calculation varies by company and the more generous the employer's health benefits, the more you need to be compensated to make up for not having it. Note: the above numbers are very rough, and there are many other factors that come into play, some of which are: As a side note, many years ago, during salary talks with a company, I was able to negotiate $2K in additional yearly salary by agreeing not to take the health insurance since I had better insurance through my spouse. Health insurance in the US was much cheaper back then so I think closer to $5K today would be about right and is consistent with my above ballpark calculation. I always wondered what would have happened if I turned around and enrolled the following year. I suspect had I done that they could not have legally lowered my salary due to my breaking my promise, but I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't get a raise that year either." "How will 45K-60K ""end up in your pocket""?  Are you selling your home?  Where are you going to live?  You talk about moving to Arizona, what is so magical about that place? Congratulations on making a wise purchase.  Some people with new found money use it to correct past mistakes.  However, if they do not change their behavior they end up in the same situation just less them money they once had. While 50K income is respectable at your age, it is below the national average for households.  One factor in having a college education is those with them tend to experience shorter and fewer periods of unemployment especially for males.  Nothing will ever replace hustle, however.  I'd ask you to have a plan to raise your income.  Can you double it in 5 years?   You need to get rid of the revolving debt.  Do that out of current income.  No need to touch the house proceeds for something so small.  Shoot for 9 months. Then you need to get rid of the speeding fines and the vehicle loan.  That is a lot of vehicle for your income.  Again, I would do that out of current income or by selling the vehicle and moving to something more inline with your income.   As far as to moving or flipping foreclosures that is more of a question that has to do with your hopes and dreams.  Do you want to move your children every 3 years?  What if you move to Arizona and it turns out to be quite horrible?  You and your wife need to sit down and discuss what is best for your family." "Read the prospectus carefully. In the case of Prosper, you're really making a loan to Prosper, which is in turn linked to the borrower's payments. Also, the rates are really high. If I was looking for money, I'm not sure why someone with ""AA"" credit would ever go with a Prosper loan." To be fair early in my career I did request significant raises as the job duties expanded.  I provided justification and showed that I was worth it, the company agreed.  My company is also in a growth phase so it made sense to them. So you may want to consider a jump or two to maximize your base salary.  However if you are happy somewhere, and they company is happy with you, you may want to just speak to your manager and find out what your options are.  Do some homework on the market for someone in your position and show just cause. It doesn't really make a difference to be honest.  I work in a place where salary is dependent on position, and all the positions are known so you can just go look up anyone's salary.  There's no strife involved. "The key is to say something like ""after looking around, I think my salary is well below market value, and think I deserve a raise for the good work I've done X, Y, and Z""  Since they've just hired someone like you, they know the market value is indeed higher, and you don't need to resort to ""But HE gets XXX! Me too!""" It does have to do with supply and demand in a sense.  My salary, as an engineer, has relatively little to do with the supply and demand of the parts my employers company makes.  My salary does, however, depend (in part) on the supply of fellow engineers that have comparable skill sets to mine and the demand that companies have for engineers with comparable skill sets to mine.