# NI Calculation

A little advice if possible as the HMRC and IR websites are a tad confusing.
The situation is as follows -
A job is soon to be started with a salary of 26K pa. The term worked will
only be a period of 7 weeks. I am exempt from tax, being a student and not
having earned anything this tax year or likely to exceed 4895 this tax
year, and a P38(S) has been filed. The only deduction therefore will be NI.
How much ? Could you please show me the calculations as I would like to
understand for future reference.
Many thanks.
"Joe Hunt" wrote...
reference.
26K pa is 498.29 pw. For 2005-06, Employee's NI is 11% on weekly earning above 94 up to 630, dropping to 1% on earnings above that limit.
So your weekly NI will be 11% of (498.29 - 94.00), or 44.47.
Matti
"Matti Lamprhey" wrote
There aren't 365.25 days this year! [It's only 365.00 days long.]
26K / 365.00 x 7 = 498.63.
Also: 26K /
52.00 = 500.00, if there are exactly 52 tax weeks in the year.
"Tim" wrote...
I think you deserve a gold star.
Matti
In message of Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Tim writes
But there never are - least I've never come across a year that is 52 x 7 = 364 days
DF
You miss the point! :-
There are either 52 or 53 "tax weeks" in a (tax) year - that is what the "week 53 indicator" is for!
It's irrelavent how many "tax weeks" there are in the year. The only relevant issue is how the employer's payroll system converts an annual salary to a weekly/monthly amount. This is unlikely to have anything to do with the number of tax weeks in the year.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Possibly.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Exactly! Matti assumed that they'd divide by 52.18 - - but that's not necessarily the case.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
... which is why my first comment used the *actual* number of days this year instead (365.00, not 365.25).
The figure of 26K is being quoted in respect of a small portion of *this* year (only). [OP: "The term worked will only be a period of 7 weeks."]
If the weekly rate was only 498.29, as Matti suggested, then the annual rate this year would only be 25,982 -- less than the 26K quoted by the OP.
It's unlikely any payroll system would always use the actual number of days in the year - as the weekly pay would then be lower in leap years. When I was on weekly pay they simply divided the annual salary by 52. Overtime was based on salary divided by 52 divided by weekly contractual hours multiplied by the premium.
They then switched to monthly pay - and we all demanded a pay rise since they were now paying us the same salary over 365/366 days as they were previously over 364! Surprisingly, they gave us one FWIWW.
Now they pay annual salary divided by 12 each month - but for (eg) pay rises in the middle of the month/joiners/leavers they use annual salary divided by 261 as a "salary per working day". But they still use the previous formula for overtime, for some reason.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
So your "working week" is usually around 5.16 days? If it were usually a 5-day working week, then there'd only be around 253 "working days" per year...
"Andy Pandy" wrote
That's what I'd usually expect - not 52.18, as Matti used.
365.25*5/7 = 260.89
Is it not the case that any job described as having a certain annual salary would tend to involve monthly rather than weekly pay?
If the employment then happens to last 7 weeks, this means there would be two or three pay periods (salary months, at most one of which would be a full month) and NI would be calculated on a monthly basis. No?
"Andy Pandy" wrote
No need - it's still as impeccable (I'm sure) as it was when I graduated from Cambridge Uni...!
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Which country are you in? In most of the UK, there are 8 bank holidays per year - which generally are *not* "working days"!!
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
It's interesting, isn't it?
Yeh, perhaps most employments with salaries quoted "pa" would generally be paid monthly. But then the term of employment would then usually be specified in months as well, wouldn't it?
The OP specifies an annual salary, and a term in weeks. I wonder if they'd like to clarify whether the job will be paid monthly or weekly?
The total NI paid, of course, could be affected by this... [Monthly-paid effectively gets a full two months' worth of thresholds, whereas weekly-paid may only get just over 80% of that much thresholds.]
OK, it's not your maths that is faulty but your understanding of how payroll/employment contracts generally work.
Bank holidays, like annual leave, are almost invariably counted as "paid days off" for employees. Weekends (or perhaps two other days per week for those who work weekends) are counted as "unpaid days off".
Therefore when working out overtime rates, payment for part months etc, salary is divided by "working days/hours" where the days/hours *include* bank holidays and annual leave but *exclude* weekends.
Where I work, if I work a bank holiday I can't claim double time (which is the bank holiday/weekend premium), I can only claim single time, because I am already being paid for that bank holiday. I also get a day off in lieu, so it works out to much the same thing. If I were to work overtime on a weekend, I'd get paid double time.
Using this method of "paid days off" rather than dividing the salary by days actually worked, of course, reduces the hourly/daily rate quite significantly.
Usually but not always.
Not necessarily. The employer's payroll mechanism need not bear any relationship to the term of employment.
Or even 3 thresholds - if he starts a week before the end of the employer's payroll month. Could save him 62 in NI.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
I don't think so. I understand hopw they work OK -- I was just trying to point-out that your use of "working days" was invalid - altho' you've now changed this to "days worked plus paid days off".
It's all just a clever way of making you *think* that you're getting paid at twice the rate for overtime, when in fact you're only getting about one-and-three-quarters of your usual rate...
If you have 8 bank holidays plus (let's say) 23 other days "annual leave" per year, then you are only working around 229.9 days (on average) each year. This means that **for the actual work that you do**, for your standard hours you're getting "annual salary divided by 229.9" per day of work.
Then your (savvy!) employer comes along & works out your overtime rate as twice "annual salary divided by 261". That's only 176% of your usual rate!!
So, the employer manages to make you *think* you're getting 200% of your usual rate for overtime, but only pays you 176% instead. He's a sly one!
[Pity the poor people thinking that they're getting paid "single-time" for 'overtime'. Really, they are working overtime for less than 90% of their usual rate of pay, per hour.]
"Andy Pandy" wrote
I didn't say it was necessary! ;-)
"Andy Pandy" wrote
But then it would need to be specified exactly how the conversion between weeks & years was to be made....
So was yours - as you knocked off bank holidays but not annual leave. Employers are required to give 20 days annual leave.
Yup.
And of course you should include the average person's sick leave!
It works the other way as well - for instance if you take unpaid leave.
True - but that's why most companies pay a premium for overtime, even if the overtime is in "social" hours. My employer pays 1.33 time in social hours (0800-1800 weekdays), more for unsocial hours.

• Once April is here and SIPPS comes into effect whereby property can be part of...
• next in

## UK Finance Discussions

• An interesting play on commodities/precious metals may be available next year:...
• previous in

## UK Finance Discussions

• Hi all If you were going to hand over £50k as an inheritance payout to an...
• last updated in

## UK Finance Discussions

• Hi all If you were going to hand over £50k as an inheritance payout to an...
• last posted in

## UK Finance Discussions

• My 90 yr old client gifted 4 rental properties and her personal residence to her...
• site's last updated in

## Taxes General

• 1. Does a business (small LLC bus) have to be profitable to be able to have a...