FabSwingers.com forum: Fixed wage increase v Percentage

By *eandmrsjones69 OP Couple
over a year ago

Middle England

Don't people realise that a percentage increase just further entrenches that the 'rich' get richer?

At 10%, 100k job gets a rise of 10k, someone on 20k gets 2k, so pay gap just increases. But the cost of living has just about affected them both equally.

Those on lower salaries get stuffed anyway. Why not have a fixed amount across the board? Not sure why anyone would just keep doing this.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In your example above what pay rise would you suggest?

Everyone gets £10k, or everyone gets £2k, or everyone gets something else?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *idnight RamblerMan
over a year ago

Pershore

That anomaly is addressed by graduated tax bands isn't it?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eandmrsjones69 OP Couple
over a year ago

Middle England

"That anomaly is addressed by graduated tax bands isn't it?"

To a degree but even at 50% higher rate that doesn't work and the actual money in your pocket is what counts.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eandmrsjones69 OP Couple
over a year ago

Middle England

"In your example above what pay rise would you suggest?

Everyone gets £10k, or everyone gets £2k, or everyone gets something else?"

Just used those figures to make the math simple! But just curious as to people's thoughts. Whether a flat increase was fairer or not.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ighty_tightyMan
over a year ago

Norfolk/Suffolk

If you are rewarding employees with a pay rise why should those that earn more receive less?

They are paid more because they a more valuable to the company and are being compensated accordingly.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eandmrsjones69 OP Couple
over a year ago

Middle England

"If you are rewarding employees with a pay rise why should those that earn more receive less?

They are paid more because they a more valuable to the company and are being compensated accordingly.

If everyone receives say £2000 why are they receiving less??

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *acey_RedWoman
over a year ago

Liverpool

Probably the fairest way would be a graduated percentage. Kind of like income tax but in reverse. So if the lowest earners get 10% the highest earners get maybe 5%. So in your example below, the person on 20k would get 2k more and the person on 100k would get 5k more. That seems more fair.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eandmrsjones69 OP Couple
over a year ago

Middle England

"Probably the fairest way would be a graduated percentage. Kind of like income tax but in reverse. So if the lowest earners get 10% the highest earners get maybe 5%. So in your example below, the person on 20k would get 2k more and the person on 100k would get 5k more. That seems more fair. "

Yes, that would also work, of course if you keep doing that (long into the future) they end up being paid the same. but yes as a starting point definitely

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atnip make me purrWoman
over a year ago

Reading

Though it's not fair it is reality. They need to retain the high earners who are harder to replace. I'm afraid those at the bottom are very easily replaceable.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *acey_RedWoman
over a year ago

Liverpool

"Though it's not fair it is reality. They need to retain the high earners who are harder to replace. I'm afraid those at the bottom are very easily replaceable."

It's not always that simple. In the NHS it feels like we have a constant stream of new directors. The posts we struggle to fill the most are nurses and junior doctors. F1s aren't usually an issue as there's often arrangements directly with the Universities but there's a high drop out rate in F2 and SHOs are like gold dust at the moment.

Another position that's becoming increasingly difficult to recruit to in hospitals is cleaners because quite fairly, people don't want to clean up blood, piss, shit and vomit on a regular basis when they can make the same money cleaning things like offices and shops.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *harpDressed ManMan
over a year ago

Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else

If inflation is 10%, then giving someone on 100k a 2k pay rise is not going to be successfully sold to them as "well, 100k is a lot anyway"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

"Don't people realise that a percentage increase just further entrenches that the 'rich' get richer?

At 10%, 100k job gets a rise of 10k, someone on 20k gets 2k, so pay gap just increases. But the cost of living has just about affected them both equally.

Those on lower salaries get stuffed anyway. Why not have a fixed amount across the board? Not sure why anyone would just keep doing this. "

All figures below are estimate, but serve to show meaning...

How does this work to support the country through taxes? A person who is earning 100k a year who gets a 10k rise, will be paying close to 4.5k in taxes. A person on 20k gets a 2k pay rise, will pay roughly £450.

which is better or worse for the country, your blanket payment idea or %?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ighty_tightyMan
over a year ago

Norfolk/Suffolk

"If you are rewarding employees with a pay rise why should those that earn more receive less?

They are paid more because they a more valuable to the company and are being compensated accordingly.

If everyone receives say £2000 why are they receiving less??"

Comparatively speaking they are. If they are worth more to the company why should they receive the same as everyone?

Pro rata or percentage wise makes sense

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread