Reed.co.uk

PEACOCK_2

A FEW WEEKS AGO I DID SOME PHYSCOMETRY TESTING TO EARN £30 FOR THE AFTERNOON AS WAS ADVERTISED. HOWEVER WHEN I WAS PAID THE AMOUNT HAD DROPPED TO £22.13. I AM NOW ASKING MYSELF WHETHER IT WAS WORTH IT AND WHY COULDN'T I HAVE BEEN PAID IN CASH, AND WHY WAS IT TAXED AS IT WAS ONLY FOR £30. CAN ANYONE TELL ME PLEASE?:question: :easter_ba

honeypop

Is there a reason you think it should have been tax free? And why should you have been paid cash?

And what's it got to do with reed.co.uk, is it just because that's where you saw the job advertised? The positions have nothing to do with them, they are an agency, or was the work actually FOR them?

Hoddie_2

Something's not quite right here. They are correct to deduct income tax but should do so at 22%. £30 x 22% = £6.60 so you should have received a net payment of £23.40. If your total income within the tax year is low (below £7,185), you should be able to claim a repayment of some or all of the tax deducted by providing HMRC with evidence of your total income (P45s/P60s/etc).

PEACOCK_2

honeypop wrote:

Is there a reason you think it should have been tax free? And why should you have been paid cash?

And what's it got to do with reed.co.uk, is it just because that's where you saw the job advertised? The positions have nothing to do with them, they are an agency, or was the work actually FOR them?

The advertisement didn't say that I WOULD NOT earn £30 that afternoon so this is very unclear and considering it was a mere £30 anyway, why wasn't it cash? And yes I did do the job in the agency:p :rotfl: