Employer but not employed

cattermole

With the £2000 savings in NI employer contributions I can't see why there isn't enough money to pay the employer's contribution to the pension.

I don't think Nanny was being deadly serious about dropping her PA's rate hence the wink.

The employee can pay in as much as they like, or just the minimum it does not increase the minimum amount the employer has to pay in which is 3% by 2018.

Your forgetting Nanny your authority is generous! Our authority has not increased the hourly rate since 2004 and in many cases has reduced it by £2+ an hour to around £8!!

It would have been a problem for me, because our Employer's NI bill was over £2000 but I doubt for many Users it is.

I can see the £10,000 amount being a reason for employers generally to employ people at less hours to avoid having to pay it.

cattermole

Icequeen99 wrote: »

My DP won't cover pension contributions. Is that the same for you Nannytone?

Did your payroll company advise you to tell your PA that regarding reducing their hourly rate? I believe employers can get in trouble if they encourage or force people not to join a pension scheme.

IQ

They can also get in trouble for just reducing their hourly rate, without going through very strict negotiations and end up at an Employment Tribunal! No payroll company should be suggesting such a thing and neither should the Council either, although they have been doing in our area, trying to force Users rates down and long standing staff's hourly rate.

nannytone_2

no one has suggested lowering the hourly rate but i have talked about it with my PA.
she knows that the money paid into the account is all there is, so if she wants to pay an amount it that doesn't leave enough to pay the employers contribution AND enough over to allow me to build a contingency, then something will have to give.
that would either be her hours or her rate of pay.
so either way, she would end up actually paying her contribution and the employers contribution ( indirectly because of the loss of hours)

Icequeen99

nannytone wrote: »

no one has suggested lowering the hourly rate but i have talked about it with my PA.
she knows that the money paid into the account is all there is, so if she wants to pay an amount it that doesn't leave enough to pay the employers contribution AND enough over to allow me to build a contingency, then something will have to give.
that would either be her hours or her rate of pay.
so either way, she would end up actually paying her contribution and the employers contribution ( indirectly because of the loss of hours)

Unless you have reached a 'capped' amount (like i have) then surely the LA should be giving you the extra money. Nothing should have to give.

As Cattermole says - you risk an employment tribunal. You cannot force an employee out of a pension scheme by threatening to reduce their hours or pay. I realise it isn't your fault regarding the money, but i would suggest you get some advice.

IQ

cattermole

Icequeen99 wrote: »

Unless you have reached a 'capped' amount (like i have) then surely the LA should be giving you the extra money. Nothing should have to give.

As Cattermole says - you risk an employment tribunal. You cannot force an employee out of a pension scheme by threatening to reduce their hours or pay. I realise it isn't your fault regarding the money, but i would suggest you get some advice.

IQ

I think in Nanny's case her and her PA were talking about more than the minimum employers amount being paid in that's how I understood it. So no obligation on Nanny to do it and that if she did do that something else would have to give.

If the employee themselves pays more in then that comes out of their wages and has no bearing on Nanny.

Icequeen99

But if the PA chose to pay in a lot of her pay - i am not quite understanding how that would affect Nanny any more than the minimum amount?

IQ

cattermole

Icequeen99 wrote: »

But if the PA chose to pay in a lot of her pay - i am not quite understanding how that would affect Nanny any more than the minimum amount?

IQ

Yes however I think the PA wanted Nanny to also pay in as much as possible to the pension ie more than the minimum.

I expect Nanny will clarify.

nannytone_2

thats it exactly.
we are going to pay the minimum allowed, but my PA said she was considering paying unto £200 a month into the scheme, which meant employer contributions would increase significantly.

i am very fair, and pay my PA the maximum the budget will allow.
there isn't an extra £200 floating around at the end of each month

Icequeen99

nannytone wrote: »

thats it exactly.
we are going to pay the minimum allowed, but my PA said she was considering paying unto £200 a month into the scheme, which meant employer contributions would increase significantly.

i am very fair, and pay my PA the maximum the budget will allow.
there isn't an extra £200 floating around at the end of each month

Sorry, wasn't suggesting you weren't fair. I will be facing this soon so it is good to hear how other manage.

I think what I (and cattermole) was getting at is that your PA could choose to pay £200 into the scheme but you wouldn't have to increase your part. Once the employer is paying their minimum amount, there is no obligation to match the employee as far as I can see.

IQ

cattermole

Icequeen99 wrote: »

Sorry, wasn't suggesting you weren't fair. I will be facing this soon so it is good to hear how other manage.

I think what I (and cattermole) was getting at is that your PA could choose to pay £200 into the scheme but you wouldn't have to increase your part. Once the employer is paying their minimum amount, there is no obligation to match the employee as far as I can see.

IQ

Yes this is exactly what I was saying, your PA can pay as much as she likes in you only have to pay the minimum amount Nanny. Which will be 3%.