Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dr wadd
Some of these "benefits" seem entirely pointless to be defined as "benefits" in the first place. What's the point in having financial aid for something like transportation and the mortgage defined as a "benefit"? Why don`t you just put that money into the pay packets in the first instance?
|
Its a big US thing. With many of these benefits he is proposing the costs are deducted from your gross, not your net salary. By setting up a transport plan, you can say have $2k anually deducted from your gross to pay your season ticket, not from your net which would have been 3333 of your gross as a higher rate tax payer (UK tax rates). Similarly you can do one for medical expenses, cover your deductables, contact lens, glasses, prescription copayments and any not covered surgery (even cosmetic!) and take the cost from your gross.
This sort of benefit is a use or lose. If you don't spend the money in the tax year, the cash goes to the government, so you end up with a mad scrabble in December finding all the receipts you have forgotten to pay in so you can claim the cash before its gone forever.
I like the menu benefits options - I think the term free in a lot of this is a bit of a misnomer, at least in the UK approach, normally you sacrifice some of your cash salary for a benefit, as such there is a cost involved. This cost should be lower than the value you can purchase on the open market. Subsidised or group rate is more appropriate IMHO.
My current employeer is quiet tight on the holiday front. Whilst cash is the principal benefit, I would happily sacrifice some for an extra week off work each year. Pension benefits are important too, not to long a waiting period before you join and a healthy contribution. My current eer puts in 11% for my 3%. Thats an 11% payrise compared to not joining!