Biometric! Crackdown! on Illegal! Immigrants!
Filed under: Getting to New Zealand, Hubby's Views, NZIS & Immigration issues
In a headline that would bring pleasure to the ears of many Daily Mail or Daily Express readers, encapsulating many of the papers favourite subjects, NZ is to crack down in illegal immigrants, and share the information with the UK.
So what is behind the headlines?
Many (economic) refugee’s arriving in UK/Europe have in the past ‘lost’ their passports while on the flight over. Thereby making it very difficult for immigration authorities to prove who they are, or whether they are genuine refugees. Net result, they spend a protracted time in Europe while their refugee case is investigated and they can’t be returned to the country they flew in from. Since they don’t have a passport and their actual country of citizenship can’t be proven one way or the other. You can’t put someone on a plane and send then ‘home’ without a passport unless you can prove that the country you are sending them to is ‘home’.
One way to avoid this problem is by finger printing all non-resident arrivals. So when someone shows up without passport, you can potentially prove who they are, without their co-operation. The Americans have been doing this for a while, whether you need a visa before you fly or not.
(Which is why we refuse to fly through the US on the way back to the UK, and apparently we aren’t the only ones, because AirNZ started Flying Via Hong Kong a few years back to cater to people who refused to fly via Los Angeles).
What the NZ sharing of information means here is that if someone turns up in Australia on one passport, and whether they seek refugee status or not, then try and enter NZ on another passport (or ‘lose’ their passport on the plane to NZ) – the NZ authorities will be able to check their fingerprints with Australia when the person first entered. By return, the Australian authorities can then check NZ records. Net result, fewer ‘undesirable’ people are let into either country. Undesirable here is anyone who isn’t traveling on a genuine passport that belongs to them and correctly identifies them.
This helps with the bigger issue of criminal gangs establishing what appears to be genuine travel records on a fake passport. Using a patsy means that when the real criminal wants to enter a country, the passport looks used and genuine. Unless of course finger prints are taken each time. In which case Immigration authorities can determine that you’re using a fake passport. And you suddenly become ‘undesirable’.
The scope is being widened, to include Canada, the UK & the USA. Which casts a much wider net.
Why you may ask, is NZ part of this? Surely there aren’t that many criminals trying to sneak into the US via NZ? or the other way around?
Well, NZ has often been seen as a bit of a soft target for criminals looking to enter other friendly countries, or for obtaining fake passports. And NZ, for all it’s anti-nuclear stance, is still part of the friendly intelligence community. So the net result is that NZ passports are considered friendly, and less suspicious. NZ sharing finger print info is more likely to be of benefit to the other countries when checking on people arriving there, than of benefit to NZ for people arriving here.
So, NZ cracking down in illegal immigrants is more about stopping people using fake passports and keeping them out of any friendly country. Rather than turning a tide of economic refugee’s, which to be honest we really don’t have here.
But the headline was good!
Wairarapa weekend – attempt 3
Avalon wrote the other week about our inaugural attempt at the Wairarapa weekend.
Last weekend we did a bit better, skipping the breakfast out I went all the way to Moore Wilson’s to get supplies. We hopped in the car and made our way home. Got there by about midday in the end.
This weekend we tried again.
It was all planned, I had no afternoon meetings, we could head away by 4pm, home by 6pm for dinner. Sweet, as they say.
Except it didn’t quite go like that.
By Thursday afternoon I was feeling so ill with a cold I needed Avalon to come collect me from across town. I wasn’t in a fit state to work the next day. So I figured, we’d head back lazily during the day Friday. Only Avalon then had a late lunch organised.
So Friday came, we’re both feeling tired & unwell, & don’t get up til 11am. Avalon heads off for lunch an hour later, leaving me to pack. By 3:30 I’m ready – it was really slow work packing. And by 4:30 we’re away.
About the time we’d have left if I’d been at work.
Ho hum.
But we’re home just after 6pm, and settled in. Ready to leap to our feet Saturday morning and make the most of being home when we wake up.
Which was 11:50am Saturday morning. Well at least we made the morning.
Next weekend we may try the train, which as it leaves Wellington approx 8:30 am means we’ll have to be up and awake to get out for the weekend.
Wellington life; the three minute commute
When we first emigrated to Wellington, the new apartment with a new job were pretty close. Two sets of lifts, two sets of pedestrian traffic lights and six minutes later I’m in the office.
A far cry from the typical 2 hours drive each way, which in some cases took me more than six minutes to walk from one end of the car park into the office. And lets just ignore the 4+ hours it took to get into central London using a car, train, underground & my feet.
Contracting means I’m floating around town a lot now, a different office different months. Right at the moment I’m in an office on Tory St. While we live in an apartment on…
Tory St. 
I’m timed the commute, from leaving my desk, getting into the lift, walking across the road, back into a lift and getting in the apartment door it takes 3 minutes.
Which is kinda nice.
It means I can pop home for a coffee break, some decent lunch or when I’ve forgotten something.
Or when Avalon is about to throw the Laptop out of the window. 
So it’s not far off working from home, I don’t get to wander around in jeans & t-shirt though.
Avalon and Hubby: Making the most of city living!
Only in New Zealand: Fish & donuts (??)
I was passing through Auckland airport the other week and happened to glance at the Dunkin Donuts stand. {as you do, on the way through.. Apart from the batter & sugar a donut is great for a low carb, high protein diet}
Anyhow, I spotted they had a special new donut.
With a chocolate fish on it.
The only irritating thing was that I forgot to take a photo. I wasn’t about to buy a tray and gob them all myself on the next flight otherwise I could have flown there without a plane on the sugar high. And I may have remembered to take a photo.
So I had a quick look at their NZ Website, to try and find you a photo.
Without luck
I did however find two gems;
Yes, read it again. You’re never far from a DD’s, unless you’re anywhere outside of Auckland. Ho hum. In fact it is not unknown for some folks from Auckland flying down to Wellington for the day, to buy a couple of insulated cartons. Holding about four boxes of two dozen donuts each. What a way to win friends & influence people in the capital, with 16 dozen donuts!
On the plus side, the DD international website does provide some redemption for us.
You’re never far from a DD’s in Australia, as long as you’re nowhere outside of Auckland.
The Aussies may have Ikea, but at least NZ Auckland has DD’s.
What if economists ran the world?
With all this talk of politicians fiddling their expenses and paying for all sorts of entertainment with taxpayer funded credit cards, there’s some question about whether other people could run the place better.
I was listening to a Freakeconomics radio podcast (From the 24th March, you’ll find it on iTunes) the other day about how great the world would be if we ditched politicians and let economists run the world.
humpfh
Anyway, it went something along these lines;
Economists, mostly ignored.
[A small affectation normally reserved for great things like The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy.]
Milton Freedman – a great man, with high intellect and amazing theories about how to run the optimum capitalist economy.
Which the then new president of Estonia adopted whole heartedly.
And then discovered that Freedman never had any experience of putting any of these economic ideas into practice.
So undeterred by this lack of practical experience to look at, those young crazy Estonians went ahead with the reforms.
Like privitisation, abolition of import duties/taxes, and a flat tax rate for all sources of income.
Sound familiar? Like NZ’s free trade deal with China, negotiations for similar with India, and the fervent dream of a free trade deal with the USA.
And Nationals’ changes to taxation which are bringing company, trust & personal tax rates into alignment. So perhaps we’re already living in an economists dream society?
Moving on. What would an exhaulted US economist do if he got the keys to the White House?
Abolish the Education department
Abolish the minimum wage
Legalise all drugs
ohhh interesting – now you might think this is a cunning plan to then tax the sale of drugs – just like cigarettes & alcohol. But no, alas it’s only on the theory that the Govt. spends a lot of money trying to control illegal drugs, so lets legalise them and we can stop spending all that money. So scrap the DEA also.
At least we could sell tickets to wrestling matches of Economists vs Teachers.
& legalisation of prostitution
Hmm – taxation here too perhaps?
Nope – apparently it’s all about supply & demand.
Prostitutes cost a lot of money, well apparently the one’s economists visit do anyway, so if you legalise prostitution (removing the barriers to trade!) then more ‘girls’ will enter the industry, there by bringing prices down.
Next.
Change the Federal Reserve, so it only has one thing to look after. Inflation.
No dabbling in Wall St, and all the other stuff they interfere in.
Although really you don’t need the Fed to do anything, just let the free markets run things.
[that'll be the free markets that have screwed the world economy so badly in the last few years then?]
Okay, so what does Milton Freedman’s grandson think?
Well, he is off setting up island nations so that people have a free choice about which nation they want to live in. These nations would be run by business people who would hire economists [really?!], to help them setup societies that are attractive for people to live. Unlike the countries run by our current world Govts.
Hiring economists with big brains and lots of great ideas – is that really a good plan?
Well, the interview continues with this economist who decided to take charge of toilet training their young child. Applying economic theory of effort & reward, every time the child went to the toilet, they got some M&M’s.
It worked. For two days.
This 3 year old child had rapidly figured out how to get the maximum quantity of M&M’s for minimum effort.
hmm – perhaps we need three year olds running the country so they can figure out how to work all the systems we have in place to optimum effect? You sure don’t want a brainy economist in charge who can be outwitted by a three year old.
So what would happen to the world if economists were in charge?
The worlds supply of chocolate would rapidly end up in the hands of children, while the adults sat there befuddled wondering what the heck had happened.
The Economic Impact of Immigration
Some months ago we blogged about news coverage of an academic report on the economic impact of immigration. Well, finally, I got round to reading the report that the news articles were based on;
Economic Impacts of Immigration: Scenarios using a computable general equilibrium model of the New Zealand economy.
<WAKE UP!>
Only that was six weeks ago when I started reading it, and it’s taken me this long to finish reading it. The catchy title may give away some of the reason why. For once I’d recommend sticking with the newspaper articles.
The report is really dull, uninteresting, and full of academic waffle. And lots of assumptions, which is quite fitting really since it’s been documented that the collective noun for a bunch of economists is an assumption.
Reading tables of INZ statistics was more interesting. And more useful. Which is saying something quite sad really.
Anyhow, this report talks about what might happen in 11 years time to the NZ economy based on different levels of immigration. Plus thousands of assumptions, equations and economic theories about how money works. {which as we’ve said before, completely ignores that money doesn’t exist in a vacuum and while money doesn’t have emotions, people do!}
Which is all about as useful and reliable as predicting what the weather will be like at 4pm on the afternoon of April 15th 2011, and what this means for ice cream sales across the country.
Indeed if you look at the ‘general findings’ within the executive summary, they could just as well apply to giving everyone an ice cream on Friday after lunch and the rest of the afternoon off.
So as you may have already deduced, I have a number of concerns about this research;
- Someone somewhere is going to use the information as a solid prediction and make decisions that impact the whole country. That’s a really scary thought.
- The report makes a point in time prediction 11 years ahead, with no information about what happens in the interim. i.e. we can’t at any point in the next 11 years track whether the prediction is on target to happen.
- There’s no evidence to demonstrate that the model they are using, when supplied with historical information from years ago can, within a margin of error, predict where we are now.
About as reliable as reading tea leafs then. 
In the interests of balanced reporting, here are the interesting things I found from reading the report.
- Increased immigration results in a larger economy[Really? I'd never have guessed]
- We actually need a wide variety of emigrants to grow the economy, not just highly skilled Dr’s, Teachers or IT folks [Fair enough, useful insight]
- Irrespective of how many new people come to NZ, the economic impact of immigration only really shows when there’s a productivity increase for everyone. [Ah, so it makes bugger all difference unless we all up our game, which would be a good thing to do in the first place]
- This is only a model, based on economic theory of market performance. If prices go up, demand goes down. [Which is simply supply & demand, but ignores elasticity i.e. if the price of milk & bread goes up demand doesn't change in proportion as they are basic commodities most people buy]
- The model is interlinked, so increases in wages in one sector flow through to increased costs for consumers, less demand from those consumers etc. [So that's all good]
- The model assumes supply=demand, companies maximise profits (i.e. zero inefficiency), and consumers spent their last cent maximising enjoyment from whatever they buy [well, at least the last assumption is mostly sound]
- The capacity to meet housing demand in 2016, even with high immigration, is sufficient – with the following assumptions;
-
- As long as the type of accommodation they build changes from what is built today
- That more people want to rent rather than buy
- That people choose to live in flats/apartments rather than houses
- [in other words, there is enough capacity to build high density housing, which isn't currently in demand and isn't built, thus isn't in high supply, and people will just have to accept they can't buy a house, or an apartment, they should really rent]. So that’s a useful prediction, the residential building market is fine!
- The more things we build, the lower the price, therefore the higher our exports. Since the production price is lower. [err, since when has a company producing twice as many widgets, halved the price of those widgets? And exchange rates have a much greater influence on export pricing than the actual production cost. But ho hum, I'm not a learned academic economist, what would I know?]
- The supply of people in the market is fully demand driven, and supply=demand at all times [i.e. there's always a cancer specialist available when you need one, you have the minimum time off work as a result of your treatment, and there's always a community nurse & physiotherapist available to get you back to work. At which point your employer gets rid of the temporary person who has been doing your job at exactly the same level of skill and productivity. And as soon as the Cancer specialist gets you better, the next person who needs them with get cancer at just the right time.]
- Zero immigration for the next 11 years drops the NZ population from 4.5million to 4.1 million. While net immigration of 20k a year would instead grow the population to 4.8million.
- Zero immigration results in an economy 11% smaller (national GDP & per person GDP), while 20k a year net immigration gives us an economy 7.6% bigger [i.e. there is a disproportionate negative effect on population levels and the economy as a whole to not having immigration, than a positive benefit]
- There is a correlation between high immigration and high productivity growth, although there is no established causality. [translated as we've spent a lot of time trying to find a direct link, and there isn't one, we just find that as one goes up, so does the other]
- Immigrants from a particular country increase imports from that country by 1.9%, and increase exports by 0.6%.
Then you have thirty pages of appendices and tables, which are actually more interesting than the report itself. So we have;
- 53 different types of businesses
- 8 different spending categories for all household consumption [try budgeting to those!]
- 25 types of exports
- 40 types of occupation
Anyone still with me out there? No? I’m not surprised.
Still it’s good to know that the economic future of the country is in the good hands of a whole load of assumptions.
When are you too old to emigrate?
Filed under: Getting to New Zealand, Hubby's Views, Life in New Zealand
I’ve had a number of conversations with people over the last few months about whether they are too old to emigrate to NZ.
For those after the executive summary;
The answer is never
- What are you waiting for?
- Do you have your passport handy?
- Mines an Earl Gray tea, decaf Americano for Avalon – thank you
- The projected 3rd quarter benefit of taking on this challenge more than outweighs the possible opportunity cost, or indeed the potential to maximise productivity enhancements with your current strategy.
- There are tax advantages
- You can use a cool AirNZ iPhone application
While of course there are age limits if you want to come in on the skilled migrant stream (56 at the moment), you can still apply under the ‘investor’ category if you’ve got enough cash, or an adult child living in NZ.
So how old is too old?
There was quite a bit of coverage the other year when Eric King-Turner (102 at the time), emigrated from the UK to NZ, with his Kiwi wife (87). His rationale is quoted as being;
“What’s important is that, when I’m 105, I don’t want to be thinking `I wish I had moved to the other side of the world when I was 102’”
Of course in this case he had the advantage of a Kiwi wife, and I’ve no doubt the very bad publicity NZ & INZ would have got if they refused him. So on the face of it, you’re only as old as the man (or woman) you feel.
For us, that sentiment of regret was something we had heard from a number of people while we were still in the UK looking at our options. It served as a good motivator. Of course, you can always look back and regret not visiting NZ five years before, or regret not just jacking everything in and taking a risk. Any course of action that you didn’t take when you had the opportunity can be a source of regret. I believe it’s better to look at the time since then as a source of learning.
For some people they may not be at a stage in their own lives to emigrate. At least investigating it and considering the options is taking action and getting yourself on the way to moving. Or not, as the case may be. There are certainly a few people we know of who came to NZ, only to really dislike it, head back to the UK and find that they loved it again.
Moving away to find that you were really at home where you were may seem like an expensive circular journey. Or possibly a triathlon – going round in a very big circle, being exhausted and 20 pounds lighter at the end of it. It’s much better than living with the possible regret if you’d not taken that circular journey though. (For the record those people, sometimes known as ‘ping pong poms’ are in the minority.) Most people we know who have moved out of the UK and then returned for a holiday/business trip have hated the UK to varying degrees, and been really grateful to return to their new home.
Personally I found that was simply perspective. I’m used to less traffic, less people, empty beaches, friendly people and so on. The prospect of spending the day at a 500+ shop indoor shopping mega complex with 50,000 other people just turns my brain to jelly now.
From the backlog of parent applications with INZ, again there’s plenty of people mid-life who are looking to up sticks and move to NZ. It’ll take time with the expected two year wait, again that time can be used productively. So you feel at least two years younger when you then get on the first stage of the Immigration hoop jumping exercise. (Did I say triathlon? it’s more like a decathlon with mandatory gymnastics disciplines too)
So as with Eric, I think it’s better to get organised and take action than worry about what you might have done previously. Or indeed how old you may be today. Emigrating is more about open minds than any perceived ability to do a triathlon.
Tax refund number two
Having been told a few weeks ago of a Redundancy Tax Credit (refund to the rest of us), we’ve been waiting patiently for the final redundancy payment from IBM. So we can submit our paperwork to the IRD.
While we were waiting, we also submitted a form covering the redundancy from Unisys. While the IRD guidelines indicated that it should be perfectly fine, we just weren’t sure. After all; that was three years ago, and the tax man isn’t normally forgiving if you forget to do something at the time.
So it was a pleasant surprise when less than two weeks after posting the form, a few hundred dollars just appeared in the bank account overnight from the IRD. Yippeee!!
The efficiency of this was also pretty stunning. No referral to the company, no additional proof of redundancy, nor any re-statement of earnings for that year required. Just a refund, right into the bank account.
So now, with even more stunning efficiency we’ve had the IBM related refund. Again within two weeks of posting the forms, more money has appeared in the bank account overnight.
One of the impressive parts of this, is that the money appears before the official letter saying that the money is on the way. Normally when you get a refund (ha!, what am I saying, apply for a refund), there’s some letter saying that a cheque is in the post (yeah right) and will be with you in ten days. Then you have to phaff around actually getting to a bank to deposit it. Which isn’t a trivial thing when you live a half hour drive from the nearest branch. Then the bank sit on it for a few days while they wait for it to clear; like the IRD isn’t going to have stacks of cash sitting in a bank account.
So, kudos to the IRD. They’ve made this a very straight forward, simple and efficient process. Entirely stress free, which is a nice bonus when you’ve not got a job.
The Power of Networking; Social & Drinking
It took coming to NZ five years ago before I really started doing the coffee (well, tea – Earl Grey) socialising thing.
Just over 18 months ago I joined Facebook, about a year ago I joined LinkedIn. I’d sort of avoided the whole internet social networking thing up until that point – being paid to think about risks of identity theft meant I’d kept a low profile. But Avalon was on there, and kinda cajoled me into it. You try arguing with her is all I can say!
In the last couple of weeks I’ve come to benefit from all the networking.
- You’re very welcome – Avalon
As soon as I came out of the first ‘your role is possibly redundant’ meeting, having been ambushed with the news that I had 3 days to consider my options – I was not crying in my tea – I was on the phone setting up coffee meetings for the next morning with other people who do similar jobs in different companies. We all know each other, regularly meet up and we all keep an eye on what’s happening with different companies.
So in less than 24 hours, I’m finding out what options are available, and getting new names to contact about possible jobs. (And somehow I still managed to find the time to fix yet another management screw-up and get an important piece of work done to meet a deadline while 5 managers who were not losing their jobs were nowhere to be found. Some things never change.)
The day I had my official ‘your role is definitely redundant’ meeting, there was an article about redundancy rumours in the paper. This meant Avalon could officially blog about it, without revealing anything that wasn’t public knowledge.
So that evening two things happened, Avalon’s blog post was published, it automatically fed through to LinkedIn and Facebook page via a nifty widget, plus lots of other sites like Technorati. I also updated my LinkedIn status with just five words.
Within an hour I’d had contact from someone about contracting work.
Another contact having read the blog put me in touch with their companies recruitment specialist.
By the morning three emails arrived to meet up for coffee. Two more emails followed that afternoon.
I had a call from someone pointing me to three different jobs he knew were going in the field, and checking whether I knew the people who were recruiting. (The next day he rang back about a role at his current organisation too).
That evening a former manager, currently travelling in Europe, had made contact. He’d find something.
The coffee chats resulted in two further options for contracting work.
Emails were asking if I wanted a job in Sydney, or Melbourne.
My as yet not updated CV was heading off to a variety of contacts in Melbourne, Sydney, Perth, Christchurch, Auckland, Singapore and of course Wellington – all of whom know someone who is interested in my skills & experience. This included a couple of people who are moving on to new jobs of their own choice, and are putting me in touch with their soon to be former employers. That’s quite a recommendation, “I’m leaving, but here’s someone good enough to replace me”.
And this is before I actually update my CV and proactively send it out to recruitment agencies, or respond to job adverts that I actually see on TradeMe or Seek.
All within two days of formally being told my services are no longer required by my current employer.
Who funnily enough, is competing in the market place for exactly the same custom from the same clients that most of the opportunities I’ve been told about are also looking to win.
Then one of Avalon’s contacts also wants to hear from me – he can put me in contact with a lot of his fellow business owners.
It’s now taken me two weeks to get my CV updated properly. I firmly believe it’s worth getting feedback from others on your CV, and taking the time to look at it with a fresh mind and different perspective. It may seem a little superfluous, since I’ve already had all these meetings and I’m likely to find out from people I know that roles are available.
You never know though, a friend of a friend who has just been passed your CV could be that fantastic new opportunity you didn’t realise you were looking for.
Redundancy Tax Credit – make sure you know about it.
This is particularly for those people at IBM NZ who have not been told by the company that they are entitled to it.
Way back in 2007, seems like another century sometimes, the IRD came out with a little sweetener if you lost your job. A redundancy tax credit. This was because many people who were being made redundant were being pushed up into a higher tax bracket, because for reasons that confound me personally, redundancy pay is not tax free. It just adds insult to injury in my opinion.
Official information can be found at IRD website.
So what are the basics?
- Everyone gets it, not just those pushed into a high tax bracket because of a redundancy lump sum.
- It’s worth 6% of the redundancy payment. (So, no round the world cruise to get over the loss of your job is on the cards)
And the 6% only applies to the ‘redundancy’ portion of your final pay – not to any holiday pay owed, pay in lieu of notice etc. (weekend away at a bach then?)
And then it’s capped at a maximum of $3,600 i.e. $60k redundancy payment. (bottle of coke & two straws please)
3. Claim it now, because it gets paid straight away.
No waiting around for your end of year tax return or anything. The IRD pays direct to your bank account. Although keep in mind that your employer will have taxed the payment at source, so at the end of the tax year, you may still qualify for a tax refund if you’ve not got another job, or have not earnt as much as you did last year.
4. Payments deferred or split across tax years don’t matter that much.
If your company, out of the goodness of their hearts keenness of their own interests, pays you the redundancy in the next tax year, or splits it across tax years – it doesn’t really matter that much. You get the 6% credit on the full amount of the redundancy portion, irrespective of taxable income earned in either year.
So if a full redundancy payment made this year tips you into a higher tax bracket, it may be worth asking if you can defer some of the payment to next year. Otherwise your 6% credit is used bringing your current year tax payment back down to it’s normal level, instead of giving you a straight 6% reduction.
If you already earn more than $70k a year, then it doesn’t matter, since you are already paying the highest rate of tax on your income. Or if in leaving the company you get the juicy pay rise your old employer just wasn’t going to fork out for. In which case you may want all the money now.
Splitting the redundancy payment across tax years would only be a factor if you don’t intend to work for the next six months. You may not have the emergency fund to be able to do that, or your beloved spouse may be tearing their (or your) hair out well before that with having you under their feet all day!
Here’s a quick example;
Say you earn 60k a year, and your redundancy only portion is 20k. This means that where you would normally be paying 33%, as you will go above $70k, you will pay 38% tax on $10k of the redundancy payment. Lets assume you’ve used all your holiday and have to work out your notice, so you get no extra cash.
If you take the payment in the Current Tax Year
Salary = 60k @ 33%
Redundancy = 20k;
10k @ 33% = 3300
10k @ 38% = 3800
-20k @ 6% = 1200
Total tax paid on redundancy = $5,900
Total redundancy in your pocket = $14,100
If you split your redundancy, so the 2nd lot of 10k is paid next year, and lets assume you pick up a job earning the same amount of money.
Current Tax Year
Salary = 60k @ 33%
Redundancy = 10k @ 33% = 3300
-10k @ 6% = 600
Next Tax Year
Salary = 60k @ 33%
Redundancy =10k @ 33% = 3300
-10k @ 6% = 600
Total tax paid on redundancy = $5,400
Total redundancy in your pocket = $14,600
So, splitting redundancy payments means you don’t pay $500 in tax that you don’t have to. Which at 60k salary, is over half a weeks take home pay.
Of course since this is your money, any amount however small, you legally get back from the tax man is worth getting. However, the inconvenience of waiting for some of your redundancy pay may be out weighed by the potential benefit of having all that money sooner.
In any event, make sure you pay the right amount of tax and get every cent of redundancy pay you are supposed to get.
And make sure that company making you redundant doesn’t screw you out of funds you are entitled to because they don’t even have the decency to tell you your rights.
Buy Avalon’s Guide
-
