Gross vs Net pay when arguing for salary increase.

[rubberduck]

Just after some opinions

When determining if you are due a salary increment, is it acceptable to use net pay as opposed to gross pay. Assuming your pay is broadly the same and you haven't changed tax codes, no additional salary sacrifice etc.

Reason I ask is if I inflation adjust my gross pay over the past 3 years it may have gone up by 1%, but if I inflation adjust my net pay it has gone down by 1% (numbers entirely made up but hopefully you get the idea).

Given my job is quite dependent on experience, I think being worse off in terms of actual take home (net) is grounds for a salary increment, even if I may have seen a small increase in gross (both inflation adjusted).

 

[rubberduck]

You generally ask re: gross pay as above. .

But why? Can you understand that you may have had an averaged gross that is above inflation % but your net is below? The argument will be that your gross salary has increased as a % that is above inflation -i.e. you have technically increased your inflation adjusted salary... But when you crunch the numbers and work out your take home pay it has fallen from what you used to earn 3 years ago in real terms.

Do you get my point?

 

[rubberduck]

I doubt it as everyone has different deductions from their salary whether it be salary sacrifice, taxable benefits, pension contributions, student loan etc. therefore most businesses won’t care about your net pay and I would imagine won’t base any negotiations on it due to the variables.

I specifically said in my OP to ignore these variables.

 

[rubberduck]

Gross always.

Trying to get a rise based on net etc etc is just silly. Why would the employer care?

So if you had a £50k job in the UK you would move to Switzerland for a £60k job??? I don't think so!