This is why I asked, as there's an incoming kid I'd probably look at staying in your current role for now.
Stay at current place or leave for new pastures
- Thread starter BongoHunter
- Start date
Good point - not me, but I get your point.
Not only that, in some organisations they have structures in place that I don't think are even that fully understood by the exec, it's just the way things get done and kind of self-perpetuates. They don't want to break their wage structure by giving someone a £20k pay rise in the same job and there's a bit of inertia when it comes to creating new roles for people. In those cases, nobody is sat there will a calculator trying to minimise costs, it's more a "computer says no" situation in my experience (as a manager that wanted to give some people above inflation pay rises). The sums for denying pay rises simply don't add up if you actually do them, i.e. giving someone on below market rates a modest pay rise is cheaper than hiring a replacement.
This stat changes every time I see someone (usually recruiters) throw it out there, but regardless I don't think of it as a bad thing. Accepting a counter-offer (assuming it is competitive, unlike the OPs) and then presumably getting an even better offer in the not too distant future (implied by the fact they changed jobs) is kind of a win-win for the employee. They get more money today in a familiar environment, and then even MORE money soon after. It's like a double-payrise that probably gives them more money than if you just took the original offer that prompted the counter-offer. They don't have to worry about damaging their CV with perceived job hopping because it's just one change of employer.
I'd say accepting a counter offer and then leaving is arguably better than accepting a counter offer and staying because that implies stagnation, although obviously it depends on the circumstances.
Last edited:
Associate
Don’t forget you start loosing your personal allowance after 100k , the difference may sound great on paper, but after 100k you end up paying £1 for every £2 earned in tax or something ridiculous , and then you will end up getting a tax bill when doing your self assessment
I wasn't sure of the exact number, but it's more or less true.
£127k base with the chance to make £155k? Tough one.
Note your new kid will get 30hrs free from 9 months if you keep it below 100. And £2k/tax free childcare per year per kid.
I'd keep the current job at 100k and then look again when your newest kid starts school.
Note your new kid will get 30hrs free from 9 months if you keep it below 100. And £2k/tax free childcare per year per kid.
I'd keep the current job at 100k and then look again when your newest kid starts school.
Last edited:
I'd take the new job. The current one clearly has better work/life balance but staying basically means you're accepting not improving your quality of life for years to come. Hopefully you will make similar good moves over the next few years and this results in much higher take home eventually.
I understand why people often try to keep their income below 100k and that usually looks like the right decision when comparing current earnings to your next increase in isolation, but I worry about the opportunity cost of years of doing this.
I understand why people often try to keep their income below 100k and that usually looks like the right decision when comparing current earnings to your next increase in isolation, but I worry about the opportunity cost of years of doing this.
He can still the role paying more but the maths would still likely say to keep it below 100 with the latest childcare rules; plus EV; plus pension.
True - the biggest concern I have isn't keeping below 100k taxable if that works at the moment, it's if you don't take higher paying roles because "I need to keep below 100k anyway" and the compounding effect that could have over time.
Ah fair - yes I agree. In this instance tho with new baby etc. It feels like a lot of work maybe 3 years too soon.
Been a crazy busy week - decided to stay at the current place. I think being able to have more time and flexibility to help with the kids is the way to go for now.
Will look for a bit of a step up in pay in a few years once the kids are both in school.
Would be nice to earn more money, but we're not doing bad anyway - will just have to wait a few more years before getting a fancy car to put in the garage.
Will look for a bit of a step up in pay in a few years once the kids are both in school.
Would be nice to earn more money, but we're not doing bad anyway - will just have to wait a few more years before getting a fancy car to put in the garage.
Made a similar decision a few years ago (not quite as much money in play though).
Got offered a job with more money and nearly left, but decided to stay at my current place for the the paternity policy (which I used about 10 months later). Got promoted a month later and now about to get promoted again.
Admittedly in my case I didn't even show my current company the offer, it kinda just worked out.
Sounds like a solid plan, kids are only young once.
Last edited:
No amount of money ever bought a second of time.
Private medical care, cleaner, gardener, assistant etc. so I appreciate the sentiment but not exactly true lol
No amount of money earned ever bought a second of time. Better?
Your manager and your work won't remember when you worked late or did an extra day to complete something but your kids will remember when you come home late or miss an important event.
Last edited: