vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"You should ask your employer to issue an updated payslip showing the correct gross salary, deductions and net salary, and then repay to the employer the difference between the net salary in your old (wrong) pay slip and the new (correct) one. You should also get them to confirm that they have corrected any information they sent HMRC. At the end of the tax year, when you get a P60 showing your salary for the year, make sure that it is consistent with the corrected salary amount, and check that the tax it shows as being deducted is also correct for that gross salary for the year. If you are still employed by them then you could just ask them to withhold the overpayment in your next salary payment, at which point the income tax would sort itself out because PAYE is calculated based on cumulative totals. If the overpayment had happened at the end of the tax year (March) then there'd be some risk of it messing up your tax payments. In some cases it's also possible that withholding from the next salary payment could make a difference to the total national insurance you end up paying - broadly, if you earn below the ""Primary Threshold"" of £8164/year, you might lose out. If you earn close to the ""Upper Earnings Limit"" of £45000/year, you could end up gaining."
"Even under the executive exemption, see Exemption for Executive Employees Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Section 13(a)(1) as defined by Regulations, 29 CFR Part 541, it seems that a minimum compensation is required. To qualify for the executive employee exemption, all of the following tests must be met: The employee must be compensated on a salary basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $455 per week... etc. There is one other possibility under FLSA Section 13(a)(1), as a ""bona fide exempt executive"". Exemption of Business Owners   Under a special rule for business owners, an employee who owns at least a bona fide 20-percent equity   interest in the enterprise in which employed, regardless of the type   of business organization (e.g., corporation, partnership, or other),   and who is actively engaged in its management, is considered a bona   fide exempt executive."
I feel like this is probably a good thing.   But:  I'm not sure it's going to lower the gender wage gap.  For starters: Women tend to make more than men in their early 20's. So women's **prior** salaries are often actually higher than men's at a certain point in their lives. Later on, of course, men tend to make more. But you could make the argument that asking about prior salaries actually *helps* women in their *early to mid* careers.  Secondly: The gender wage gap for same-skills/same-position is really, really narrow. So asking prior salaries would only seem to work in instances where the candidate was switching careers. Which is to say, it wouldn't help narrow the gender wage gap very often.  Lastly: This helps men just as much as women (which is a good thing, btw) and so it's not really a gender-related law.  All in all it seems like a good law though. HR departments are going to hate it though. And I bet they share data anyway and get around it without asking.
Unfortunately it's not that easy, not up to people, up to the boards of directors at said companies. If those boards see value in paying more for a CEO and less to what in their eyes are replaceable workers then CEO pay will stay where it is. There needs to be real solutions set in place to accomplish anything.  Ex. Where do pay cuts stop? Is it just CEOs? Because there are plenty of other executives who make millions as well. Even high level managers could make say $200k/ year while the people directly under them make $75k. So where is the cutoff point?  TL;DR: Saying to pay higher ups less is nice but isn't a solution without a plan of how to distribute money more evenly.
What's the basis for this statement? I think maybe we'd have a disagreement on the definition of fair?  E: fyi, many middle to low class Americans would have much worse lives if they baseline the min wage to $15. Companies pass that cost on, they don't eat it on their margins. But reddit wouldn't like or understand that, they'll keep bitching instead.
"Wow... where to start... Your ad hominem attack was when you shifted away from the discussion and started questioning me on whether or not I had been around low-skilled workers and even going as far as to give a judgment on if was around average people. The definition is ""(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."" You went away from the topic, and instead directed your argument at me, which has nothing to do with my position on minimum wage. You seek to discredit me as to say my views are invalid because, in your opinion, I haven't had enough experience with low skill workers. It doesn't matter if I have or hadn't, one's experience or lack thereof with low skilled workers doesn't make their position any more wrong or right. This is a textbook example of ad hominem. Your straw man was when you shifted the position to suggest things I didn't say in order to argue against them. The definition is ""an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."" You say I assumed things I never even mentioned, such as your claim that I would say rich people didn't earn their success and that poor people were not at fault for their low achievement. Once again, no where did I suggest this and this suggestion by you strayed away from my argument on paying people a live-able wage. Basically one could say this was brought up by you to argue about something you felt would be easier to defeat. There were clear reasons I threw those fallacies out. You condescendingly tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, yet you don't even get it right and overlook everything that was stated... smh Your whole response keeps proving my point. Once again, you are so focused on whether I've had experience working with or managing people (nice goal post moving btw), as if that makes your position more qualified (ad hominem again), when the reality is I can have a rational thought about something by reading up on logical and rational positions on this and seeing what the statistics and research say.
Isn't it a bit more like job recruiters?  I get an offer letter that a recruiter neither I nor the seller hired steps in, negotiates a lower pay for me, a higher pay from them and scoops the money inbetween?  This isn't adding value anywhere, that value was taken from my home and the business that now have less to work with, when everyone would be better off if the business and I came to a deal in the middle.  There is no added value, nothing is produced at all. Just skimming off the top.
(I'm assuming this is a publicly traded company, if not, things are somewhat different.) The objection that management might have that flows out of the fact that the pool of available options is fixed in size for the current year. (Or maybe several years depending on how they structured the compensation plan.) Within that pool they have allocated some to various key individuals and then some to to the ESOP pool. They don't want requests for more options than they planned to issue in that period. Suppose that many people notice that the companies prospects are good and offer to forgo some salary for options. This could easily eat up the whole pool and leave nothing for the rest of the year. If I was management here, I would want to structure it so that I had control over how many options were granted so that everyone eligible got some and the pool lasted until the end of the year.
"There are broadly two kinds of pension: final salary / defined benefit, and money purchase. The text you quote above, where it talks about ""pension"" it is referring to a final salary / defined benefit scheme. In this type of scheme you earn a salary of £X during your working life, and you are then entitled to a proportion of £X (the proportion depends on how long you worked there) as a pension. These types of scheme are relatively rare now (outside the public sector) because the employer is liable for making enough investments into a pot to have enough money to pay everyone's pension entitlements, and when the investments do poorly the liability for the shortfall ends up on the employer's plate. You might have heard about the ""black hole in public sector pensions"" which is what this refers to - the investments that the government have made to pay public sector workers' pensions has not in fact been sufficient. The other type of scheme is a money purchase scheme. In this scheme, you and/or your employer make payments into an investment pot which is locked away until you retire. Once you retire, that pot is yours but there are restrictions on what you can do with it - you can use it to purchase an annuity (I will give you my £X,000 pension pot in return for you giving me an annual income of £Y, say) and you can take some of it as a lump sum. The onus is on you to make sure that you (and/or your employer) have contributed enough to make a large enough pot to give you the income you want to live on, and to make a sensible decision about what to do with the pot when you retire and what to use it as income. With either type of scheme, you can claim this pension after you reach retirement age, whether or not you are still working. In some schemes you are also permitted to claim the pension earlier than retirement age if you have stopped working - it will depend on the rules of the scheme. What counts as ""retirement age"" depends on how old you are now (and whether you are male or female) as the government has been pushing this age out as people have been living longer.
I find indexing minimum wage to inflation helps put upward pressure on non minimum wages due to behavior of humans. If a person working at say $30/hr sees someone working at minimum wage getting a pay raise, the person at $30/hr is going to feel like they are falling behind and more likely to ask for a raise.   I do not shop at Wal-Mart due to how they treat their employees.
If an employer cannot pay it's employees a living wage, then it shouldn't be in business. I have run several businesses btw. There's no excuse or reason for less. This is why we need a raised minimum wage. Because greedy scumbags will always exist.
No, not necessarily.  A liveable wage is here defined as a wage which grants access to the basic necessities of life: food, water, a decent home, basic health care, either rent for a place close enough to your place of employment or enough money to afford transportation from somewhere cheaper, ETC.
It's not a case of my feelings it's equal compensation. If your skills are at the level of a minimum wage worker, you should be compensated as such. You can live of that very easily, it's the lifestyle choices which come along with it which cause people to be unable.
Find out what your take home pay will be. There should be someone in the company who can give you an idea there. Once you know that, setting up a budget is pretty straight forward. You need  Subtract the sum of all that from the take home pay. If you are negative, you will have to supplement with your savings. If you are positive, you can have some fun (or use surplus savings to have fun).
According to the TN DOL FAQ, the employer can choose how to pay wages.  Other options include checks and cash. However, it is the employer's choice, not the employees, on how to pay the wages. In case of direct deposit, the employee can choose the bank at which to receive the money. Why would opening an account be unpractical is beyond me. You can also use services like AMEX Serve, NetSpend, or even Walmart's MoneyCard.
It is.    So if we force companies to pay a living wage to everyone, why would a company pay skilled workers more?   If they had to pay everyone a minimum of 36-60k, why pay anyone else more? By setting a livable wage, the government would also be setting a possible maximum wage.   As a side note, the cost of goods would go up if a grocery store had to pay all of its employees a livable wage. Where is the happy medium and how would you calculate it?
Whenever you get a net pay raise of any kind (gross pay raise, lower taxes, bonus, whichever), increase your savings goal by a portion of that raise. Maybe give yourself 60% of the raise and bank the remaining 40%. That way, you are (hopefully!) always increasing the amount of money that you are setting aside, while also reaping some benefits right away. One major upside of this approach is that, if you lose your job, not only will you have that nest egg, you will also be used to living on less. So you will have more money in the bank and less monthly expenses, which puts you in a significantly better position than if you had only one of those, let alone neither.
Since you worked as an RA, the university should send you a W2 form. The taxable wages line in that form would be the sum of both the direct salary and employer paid benefits that are taxable. As such you should not need to do anything than enter the numbers that they provide you.
I am a worker in a (salaried) skilled position, and I get compensation time off or over time for my hours. Hell I even get paid more if I have to work at none standard hours of the day. Why shouldn't they?
But it goes both ways. Why should the people care about your business and if it's sustainable? The market will deem it unprofitable if he can't support paying his workers living wages.   If there are no minimum wages that a person can scrape by on then you have preditory companies taking advantage of people or the business offsetting the cost to the public (like tips). The public would be subsidizing the business.   I think you need to dig deeper into that logic.
Most people aren't 'paid pretty darn well' when looking at historical real wages.  This is the result of many things, one being corporate consolidation where any and all efficiencies are passed on to the executives and shareholders.  Meanwhile, your wife's salary has been slowly eroded away for the past 30 years.  I get trying to see the positive side but c'mon man, you gotta wake up.
Employers seem to only take, not give now.  I'm a salary worker and I work unpaid overtime and afterhours.  A lot of this was to get over a peak of work (Had to work a lot in a short period of time to fix problems that were creating more work).  However now I have been granted some flexibility and I have taken time out of my workday to do whatever I need as well.  It's often the minimum wage employees that I see abused the worst, they are easily replaceable by their employer and punishment for violating workers rights is a slap on the wrist.
Just for op's reference. A deferred wage entry would be something along the lines of the following scenario: you contract with a worker to perform some work at some point in the future, you would then book deferred wages for the amount to liabilities and deferred labor for that amount to assets, which would increase both and leave equity unchanged.
Agreed. A fair wage outweighs a tip every time (for the consumer anyway, not a guarantee for the worker).   The more services that can be had via an app that takes any of the worry regarding who to tip / how much out of the equation the better.
"Maybe people should stop looking too very easy, very unskilled labor positions to support them.  There's no such thing as a ""livable wage"".  That's a myth.  If you don't have the skills to do anything more complex than be a cashier at McDonald's, it is not up to the company to pay you more.  It is up to you to improve your skills.    These jobs will be eliminated soon enough anyway."
They are thinking they'll do an hourly rate in the beginning until we get sales and can make sure it's profitable, and then switch to solely being paid the percentage of the business I would own.   If it was a salary AND 15-20% I'd be happy with that :)
So to translate that to US English: taking an early retirement in lieu of impending layoffs.  If you have a layoff you're saying you have no need for the work and if you replace the workers then they come back to sue you (which seems to be what you're saying, and we have the same concept) but an early retirement is a voluntary exit with a compensation package such that any right to sue is forfeit because it was a consensual exit rather than mandatory.  Got it.  Thanks. :)
To clarify that legality of this (for those that question it), this is directly from IRS Publication 926 (2014) (for household employees): If you prefer to pay your employee's social security and Medicare taxes from your own funds, do not withhold them from your employee's wages. The social security and Medicare taxes you pay to cover your employee's share must be included in the employee's wages for income tax purposes. However, they are not counted as social security and Medicare wages or as federal unemployment (FUTA) wages. I am sorry this does not answer your question entirely, but it does verify that you can do this. UPDATE:  I have finally found a direct answer to your question!  I found it here: http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040sh/ar01.html Form W-2 and Form W-3 If you file one or more Forms W-2, you must also file Form W-3. You must report both cash and noncash wages in box 1, as well as tips and other compensation. The completed Forms W-2 and W-3 in the example (in these instructions) show how the entries are made. For detailed information on preparing these forms, see the General Instructions for Forms W-2 and W-3. Employee's portion of taxes paid by employer.    If you paid all of your employee's share of social security and Medicare taxes, without deducting the amounts from the employee's pay, the employee's wages are increased by the amount of that tax for income tax withholding purposes. Follow steps 1 through 3 below. (See the example in these instructions.) Enter the amounts you paid on your employee's behalf in boxes 4 and 6 (do not include your share of these taxes). Add the amounts in boxes 3, 4, and 6. (However, if box 5 is greater than box 3, then add the amounts in boxes 4, 5, and 6.) Enter the total in box 1.
"If you're not getting pay stubs showing withholding then you're working ""under the table"", which (a) is illegal, (b) is a deal for the employer because they don't have to pay any of the employment taxes including their share of your SocSec and (c) is screwing you because you'll still need to pay taxes on every dime they pay your but won't have anything set aside for it unless you're doing that yourself. Which I'm guessing you're not.  Call the local labor board or whatever."
In general no, if you just have one employer and work there with the same salary for the whole year.  Typically an employer does tax withholding by extrapolating your monthly income to the entire year and withholding the right amount so that at the end, what is withheld is what you owe.  It's not a surprise to them when your income crosses a tax bracket threshold, because they knew how much they were paying you and knew when you would cross into another bracket, so they factored that in. If you have multiple jobs or only worked for part of the year, or if your income varied from month to month (e.g., you got a raise) there could be a discrepancy between what is withheld and what you owe, because each employer only knows about what it's paying you, not what money you may have earned from other sources.  (Even here, though, the discrepancy wouldn't be due to the tax brackets per se.)  You can adjust your withholdings on form W-4 if needed, to tell the employer to withhold more or less than they otherwise would.
Yes. W4 determines how much your employer will withhold from your wages. Leaving everything at default would mean that your salary is your only taxable income, and you only take default deductions. Your employee will calculate your tax withholding based on that. But, if your salary is >200k, I assume that you have other income (investment/capital gains, interest on your bank account), which you will have to pay taxes on. You're probably going to have some deductible expenses (business/partnership expenses, mortgage interest, donations, college funds etc) as well. So it is very likely, unless you're really not smart about money, that you have more to do with your taxes than just the employers' withholding.
"My employer decided to pay my salary in India after I submit a form W-8BEN. This means that the wages / salary is deemed accrued for work from India. Hence your employer need not withhold and pay taxes on this wage in US. Is this payment taxable in the States since I am staying outside of States? Should I declare this income to IRS in case if I go back to the States later this year? No tax is due as the work is done outside on US. If you go back this would be similar to as you had gone first. Depending on your ""tax residency status"" you would have to declare all assets. If my US employer wires my US salary to my NRE account is that taxable in India? This is still taxable in India. It is advised that you have the funds transferred into a regular savings account. Please note you have to pay taxes in advance as per prescribed due dates in Sept, Dec, March. how does the Indian tax man identify if it is a taxable income and not just the regular remittance. This question is off topic here. Whether income taxes finds out about this is irrelevant. By law one is required to pay taxes on income earned in India."
"There are two different issues that you need to consider: and The answers to these two questions are not always the same. The answer to the first is described in some detail in Publication 17 available on the IRS website. In the absence of any details about your situation other than what is in your question (e.g. is either salary from self-employment wages that you or your spouse is paying you, are you or your spouse eligible to be claimed as a dependent by someone else, are you an alien, etc), which of the various rule(s) apply to you cannot be determined, and so I will not state a specific number or confirm that what you assert in your question is correct. Furthermore, even if you are not required to file an income-tax return, you might want to choose to file a tax return anyway. The most common reason for this is that if your employer withheld income tax from your salary (and sent it to the IRS on your behalf) but your tax liability for the year is zero, then, in the absence of a filed tax return, the IRS will not refund the tax withheld to you. Nor will your employer return the withheld money to you saying ""Oops, we made a mistake last year"". That money is gone: an unacknowledged (and non-tax-deductible) gift from you to the US government. So, while ""I am not required to file an income tax return and I refuse to do voluntarily what I am not required to do"" is a very principled stand to take, it can have monetary consequences. Another reason to file a tax return even when one is not required to do so is to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) if you qualify for it. As Publication 17 says in Chapter 36, qualified persons must File a tax return, even if you: (a) Do not owe any tax, (b) Did not earn enough money to file a return, or (c) Did not have income taxes withheld from your pay. in order to claim the credit. In short, read Publication 17 for yourself, and decide whether you are required to file an income tax return, and if you are not, whether it is worth your while to file the tax return anyway.
Check cashing is not tax reportable. The way people pay income tax is by either withholding via an employer, self made payments, or when they file. Rather or not they cash their checks or where they do so has nothing to do with any of that.