Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators
Thanks to AndyPandy,DrFfybes,smokey01,bungeejumper,stockton, for Donating to support the site
Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
Forum rules
Direct questions and answers, this room is not for general discussion please
Direct questions and answers, this room is not for general discussion please
-
- 2 Lemon pips
- Posts: 242
- Joined: November 12th, 2016, 1:47 pm
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 10 times
Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
Hi,
The company i work for allows staff to request to take up to 6 months unpaid leave, once every 5 years. I'm considering requesting 3 months.
What would be the financial implications of doing so?
Due to paying less income tax, it looks like a no brainer as I roughly worked out that I would only actually see a loss of approx 1 months net pay. What happens with National Insurance and pension contributions? Will i simply have to work 3 months extra after the standard retirement date to get the same as had I not taken 3 months off? If so then i'm sure I can manage without having to do that.
Thanks
Andy
The company i work for allows staff to request to take up to 6 months unpaid leave, once every 5 years. I'm considering requesting 3 months.
What would be the financial implications of doing so?
Due to paying less income tax, it looks like a no brainer as I roughly worked out that I would only actually see a loss of approx 1 months net pay. What happens with National Insurance and pension contributions? Will i simply have to work 3 months extra after the standard retirement date to get the same as had I not taken 3 months off? If so then i'm sure I can manage without having to do that.
Thanks
Andy
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1055
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 12:26 pm
- Has thanked: 228 times
- Been thanked: 208 times
Re: Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
As things stand you need 35 full years of contributions to qualify for the full state pension. That’s a good bit less than many people work anyway, especially if you plan on working up to your ‘standard retirement date’ so depending how long you’ve worked already it might make no difference to you. It’s pro-rated anyway so 3 months is pretty insignificant.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3554
- Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
- Has thanked: 1213 times
- Been thanked: 1306 times
Re: Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
You can check your NI contributions record after the financial year end and pay any shortfall in contributions to ensure that that year is a qualifying year.
Mc2fool is an expert on this subject.
Mc2fool is an expert on this subject.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2060
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:25 am
- Has thanked: 231 times
- Been thanked: 492 times
Re: Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
This article by Steve Webb (former Pensions Minister) seems to cover your question. (https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pen ... d-out.html)
Extract: (written in 2020, so using the relevant limits for 2019/20)
So provided you earn at least 52 * £120 (the LEL for 2021/22) (i.e. £6240) in the relevant year, you'll have a qualifying year for State Pension purposes, and you won't need to pay voluntary NICs for that year.
Extract: (written in 2020, so using the relevant limits for 2019/20)
For a year of your working life to be a ‘qualifying year’ towards your state pension, you have to have paid (or been credited) with NI contributions on earnings equal to 52 times the weekly lower earnings limit.
As noted above, periods when you are earning below the lower earnings limit do not count towards this target.
But the good news is that weeks (or months) when you are earning more than the lower earnings limit help to make up for weeks (or months) when you were not earning (or earning below the LEL).
To give a simple example, suppose that you have a year in which you do no paid work for 26 weeks and then you do 26 weeks at an earnings level of £236 – double the lower earnings limit.
For the year as a whole, you have qualifying earnings of 52 times the LEL and this is therefore a qualifying year.
So provided you earn at least 52 * £120 (the LEL for 2021/22) (i.e. £6240) in the relevant year, you'll have a qualifying year for State Pension purposes, and you won't need to pay voluntary NICs for that year.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3499
- Joined: November 27th, 2016, 8:45 am
- Has thanked: 131 times
- Been thanked: 1278 times
Re: Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
chas49 wrote:So provided you earn at least 52 * £120 (the LEL for 2021/22) (i.e. £6240) in the relevant year, you'll have a qualifying year for State Pension purposes, and you won't need to pay voluntary NICs for that year.
Can confirm this is the case from recent experience; although I retired and stopped working on 31 December, the amount earned (and paid in NI) up to that point meant that although I was not working (or paying NI) for the rest of the year, that paid up to 31 December meant it still counted as a full qualifying year for State Pension.
quelquod wrote:As things stand you need 35 full years of contributions to qualify for the full state pension. That’s a good bit less than many people work anyway, especially if you plan on working up to your ‘standard retirement date’ so depending how long you’ve worked already it might make no difference to you.
That depends if someone was in a contracted out pension up to 2016 when the New State Pension was introduced, since if they were then they might need more than 35 years and in particular years after 2016 to get the full pension - the maths isn’t straightforward but the government pension website will tell you how many years you need to still pay NI for to get a full pension.
-
- 2 Lemon pips
- Posts: 242
- Joined: November 12th, 2016, 1:47 pm
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 10 times
Re: Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
richfool wrote:You can check your NI contributions record after the financial year end and pay any shortfall in contributions to ensure that that year is a qualifying year.
Mc2fool is an expert on this subject.
Hi
Thanks. I've just logged into the government website and it says i only need to contribute 9 more years to get the state pension of £179.60 a week. I'm only 43 and have worked full time since around the age of 17, so have 24? years left until state retirement age. What happens in 9 years then? Will i pay less national insurance?
Thanks
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 11089
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
- Has thanked: 1521 times
- Been thanked: 3074 times
Re: Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
Andy46 wrote:Thanks. I've just logged into the government website and it says i only need to contribute 9 more years to get the state pension of £179.60 a week. I'm only 43 and have worked full time since around the age of 17, so have 24? years left until state retirement age. What happens in 9 years then? Will i pay less national insurance?
Thanks
The way to pay less NI is to earn less. Which may also, depending on your circumstances, be achieved by earning in a more tax-efficient way (likely to mean sacrificing something else).
But it won't happen just because you've worked more years. The correlation between NI and pension could be politely described as tokenistic, and the correlation between NI and out-of-work benefits can actually be starkly negative. Or could: my knowledge of that pre-dates Universal Credit.
The difference between 9 and 24 years is your opportunity to take a career break. For example, to raise a family.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: November 7th, 2016, 4:21 pm
- Has thanked: 517 times
- Been thanked: 125 times
Re: Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
all above seem to cover the 'pension' aspects
but if I were you I would be watching situation carefully re your job
after all, if an employer can see clearly that he can manage without certain staff, he might consider extending the option!
companies cannot manage for long when overstaffed, if they need to be profitable.....what sector are you in?
but if I were you I would be watching situation carefully re your job
after all, if an employer can see clearly that he can manage without certain staff, he might consider extending the option!
companies cannot manage for long when overstaffed, if they need to be profitable.....what sector are you in?
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6050
- Joined: May 30th, 2021, 6:01 pm
- Has thanked: 1843 times
- Been thanked: 2068 times
Re: Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
Andy46 wrote:Hi
I'm only 43 and have worked full time since around the age of 17, so have 24? years left until state retirement age. What happens in 9 years then? Will i pay less national insurance?
Thanks
Sadly not
I wish that were the case, but come on.... this is the tax world, its not always logical
PS a minor factor, you would probably lose a quarter of your holidays
-
- 2 Lemon pips
- Posts: 242
- Joined: November 12th, 2016, 1:47 pm
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 10 times
Re: Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
pje16 wrote:Andy46 wrote:Hi
I'm only 43 and have worked full time since around the age of 17, so have 24? years left until state retirement age. What happens in 9 years then? Will i pay less national insurance?
Thanks
Sadly not
I wish that were the case, but come on.... this is the tax world, its not always logical
PS a minor factor, you would probably lose a quarter of your holidays
Hi
Oh yes thanks, I was already aware of the loss of annual leave ta.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6050
- Joined: May 30th, 2021, 6:01 pm
- Has thanked: 1843 times
- Been thanked: 2068 times
Re: Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
That's ok Andy46
I was thinking of going down to 4 days a week (for complex financial reasons that I won't go into here)
but it was pointed out to me that being on 80% of my salary i would become more attractive to make redundant
I hadn't thought of the obvious
I was thinking of going down to 4 days a week (for complex financial reasons that I won't go into here)
but it was pointed out to me that being on 80% of my salary i would become more attractive to make redundant
I hadn't thought of the obvious
-
- 2 Lemon pips
- Posts: 242
- Joined: November 12th, 2016, 1:47 pm
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 10 times
Re: Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
mutantpoodle wrote:all above seem to cover the 'pension' aspects
but if I were you I would be watching situation carefully re your job
after all, if an employer can see clearly that he can manage without certain staff, he might consider extending the option!
companies cannot manage for long when overstaffed, if they need to be profitable.....what sector are you in?
Hi,
Thanks for the advice. I work in the public sector though so honestly can't see that being an issue.
Thanks
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: November 7th, 2016, 4:21 pm
- Has thanked: 517 times
- Been thanked: 125 times
Re: Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
no if you in the public sector it probably will not be an issue
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5464
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
- Has thanked: 3389 times
- Been thanked: 1077 times
Re: Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
pje16 wrote:That's ok Andy46
I was thinking of going down to 4 days a week (for complex financial reasons that I won't go into here)
but it was pointed out to me that being on 80% of my salary i would become more attractive to make redundant
I hadn't thought of the obvious
Is that really the case though? After all by making you redundant then, the employer is only saving 80% overall of what they could save ? Or is it based on the up front cost of a 80% redundancy payment versus 100% and no consideration of the ongoing extra 20% saving afterwards?
that notwithstainding, its not people that are made redundant, but positions.
So if the position is redundant, it doesnt matter if its an 80% or 100% position - its the entire posisition irellevant of how much of a week somebody spends doing it ?
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 16628
- Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
- Has thanked: 4341 times
- Been thanked: 7536 times
Re: Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
Andy46 wrote:mutantpoodle wrote:all above seem to cover the 'pension' aspects
but if I were you I would be watching situation carefully re your job
after all, if an employer can see clearly that he can manage without certain staff, he might consider extending the option!
companies cannot manage for long when overstaffed, if they need to be profitable.....what sector are you in?
Hi,
Thanks for the advice. I work in the public sector though so honestly can't see that being an issue.
Thanks
That tells us something surely!
Dod
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6050
- Joined: May 30th, 2021, 6:01 pm
- Has thanked: 1843 times
- Been thanked: 2068 times
Re: Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
didds wrote:pje16 wrote:That's ok Andy46
I was thinking of going down to 4 days a week (for complex financial reasons that I won't go into here)
but it was pointed out to me that being on 80% of my salary i would become more attractive to make redundant
I hadn't thought of the obvious
Is that really the case though? After all by making you redundant then, the employer is only saving 80% overall of what they could save ? Or is it based on the up front cost of a 80% redundancy payment versus 100% and no consideration of the ongoing extra 20% saving afterwards?
that notwithstainding, its not people that are made redundant, but positions.
So if the position is redundant, it doesnt matter if its an 80% or 100% position - its the entire posisition irellevant of how much of a week somebody spends doing it ?
Touch wood I don't think me or my postion will be come redundant, not in the 5 or so years I have left
BUT
Redundancy is based on weekly pay and number of years in the job.
Weekly pay is the average you earned per week in the 12 weeks before you got your redundancy notice.
So if I go down to 80% say next month the fact that I have earned 100% for decades before does not count towards it
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5464
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
- Has thanked: 3389 times
- Been thanked: 1077 times
Re: Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
pje16 wrote:
So if I go down to 80% say next month the fact that I have earned 100% for decades before does not count towards it
But somebody else is earning 100%. And may have been there less long than you. So the time x avg pay maths doesnt necessarily work against you just because you are now 80%?
And if nobody else does your job, it it becomes redundant it doesnt matter what your average pay and longevity is - its redundant full stop.
I am probably howveer missing something completely
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6050
- Joined: May 30th, 2021, 6:01 pm
- Has thanked: 1843 times
- Been thanked: 2068 times
Re: Financial implications of taking 3 months upaid leave
i took it from here
https://www.gov.uk/calculate-your-redundancy-pay
and my advice on it was from some who employs people at a large plc firm
https://www.gov.uk/calculate-your-redundancy-pay
and my advice on it was from some who employs people at a large plc firm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests