What happens if you say wrong your current salary when joining a new company?

kevincool

Hi,
I am going to move to a new employer soon but in the interview stage I told my current salary higher than it is. Now I have a salary much higher than what I told? My questions are:-

1. Will they be asking last 2 months payslips on joining date?
2. If they find the figures wrong , will they sack me before joining?

Thanks.

L1011

I have never encountered anywhere asking for proof of previous salary. If you deserve the requested amount, what you were on is irrelevant.

TimeToShine

You'll be fine.

kevincool

Thanks for your answers. Even I thought the same since I did not sign or write on any form saying my current salary is this. I just said it orally when asked about my current salary.

jelenka

Maybe if any questions arise at some stage, you could say you misunderstood that question during the interview and thought it was about your salary expectation.

FirstinLastout

If they ask for details, and many companies do, they’ll want to know why you misinformed them as regards your previous salary.

They’ll look at it in two different ways; the first and most likely is that you purposefully misinformed them in order to force them to increase any potential offer.
They asked you a straight forward question which you answered with a lie and they’ll rightly consider this to be a reflection upon yourself and that you are dishonest in your dealings because after all….. you lied!

Alternatively if you claim to have misunderstood the question, they’ll probably consider you to be somewhat less than sharp as it is a very simple question….. “what is your salary?” but they'll just know that you lied to them.

Wither or not they reconsider the offer will probably depend upon other variables but if they ask for recent pay slips or equivalent I’d expect to have to explain yourself over it.
After all, if it came down to just you and another candidate whom you just narrowly pipped then they may look at things again with this in mind as its certainly something which they were not aware of (both salary & your character) during the interview process.

Until your ass in firmly behind the desk, or whatever the position may entail, I’d consider the possibility of been asked for proof of previous salary.
Unfortunately I speak from experience and I no longer exaggerate my salary as a result.

Chattastrophe!

I have never heard of anyone being asked for payslips from previous employment. It's not something I would give, if asked.

It is very unlikely that they'll check your P45, or that they'd care about the difference in salary. If they did ever ask you about the discrepancy, you could just say that you took several weeks unpaid leave earlier in the year. Or that you were paying a large amount into a pension fund (the P45 only shows taxable pay.)

Alternatively, ask Payroll for the employer registration number, and submit your P45 directly to Revenue yourself along with this number. Revenue will then send your new employer a tax credits certificate for you, which will not show your YTD income.

allibastor

FirstinLastout wrote: »

If they ask for details, and many companies do, they’ll want to know why you misinformed them as regards your previous salary.

They’ll look at it in two different ways; the first and most likely is that you purposefully misinformed them in order to force them to increase any potential offer.
They asked you a straight forward question which you answered with a lie and they’ll rightly consider this to be a reflection upon yourself and that you are dishonest in your dealings because after all….. you lied!

Alternatively if you claim to have misunderstood the question, they’ll probably consider you to be somewhat less than sharp as it is a very simple question….. “what is your salary?” but they'll just know that you lied to them.

Wither or not they reconsider the offer will probably depend upon other variables but if they ask for recent pay slips or equivalent I’d expect to have to explain yourself over it.
After all, if it came down to just you and another candidate whom you just narrowly pipped then they may look at things again with this in mind as its certainly something which they were not aware of (both salary & your character) during the interview process.

Until your ass in firmly behind the desk, or whatever the position may entail, I’d consider the possibility of been asked for proof of previous salary.
Unfortunately I speak from experience and I no longer exaggerate my salary as a result.

What a load of bollicks.

Generally you don't have to discuss your previous pay with them, it is a personnel matter and one which they have no real right to know, same as if your gay.
The previous salary questions, in my experience, are only asked as many companies will want to know what they can expect to pay, or not pay you as the case may be. Many companies know the job market is tight now so will obviously want to pay you less.

If you have gotten the job and they were happy to pay you the wage you asked for then fair fcuks to you. They must have seen something they wanted to pay for, end of it.

h2005

They can't ask for your previous payslips.

gerbilgranny

You don't have to hand in your P45 to a new employer. (if you have done so already, well maybe this info will be useful to someone else).

Even if you had previous earnings in the current tax year, you can request that Revenue issue a Week1/Month 1 tax credit certificate. This means you get your normal weekly or monthly tax credits etc, but you're not on a cumulative basis.

Therefore your employer doesn't need to be informed of previous pay or tax.

At the end of the year you can request a PAYE Balancing Statement from Revenue, if being on a week 1/month 1 basis meant that you overpaid tax at any stage.

You should specify to Revenue that you want to be on a week 1/month 1 basis as you don't want your current employer to know your previous income.

It's no big deal.

kevincool

Thanks for your comments. Everything should be OK then. But to mention a point from an interview I attended last month for a global company, they asked for the last two payslips in the first interview stage itself. They said that their background check is very strict to ensure highest integrity of candidates they select.So I think it depends on the company whether to ask or not to ask.
But as long as you say your salary orally and not sign any form mentioning your previous salary in it, you should be OK. If the company is too serious then they will tell you to sign a form stating your salary.

Gael23

They will know how much tax you paid from your P45 so theres a good chance they will find out that way

Tarzana

ryanf1 wrote: »

They will know how much tax you paid from your P45 so theres a good chance they will find out that way

You don't have to give your employer your P45. You can send it yourself and they can then send your tax cert to your new workplace.

NinjaTruncs

If it comes to it say you misheard and thought they asked your salary expectations. May not work based on the circumstances that they asked you. I.e. whats your current salary anx whats your expectations.

The_Conductor

It all depends- I've sought s P45 for one candidate (at interview stage) because his salary was way out of kilter with that being quoted by other candidates. As it turns out- he was being entirely truthful. He got the job.

Chattastrophe!

The_Conductor wrote: »

It all depends- I've sought s P45 for one candidate (at interview stage) because his salary was way out of kilter with that being quoted by other candidates. As it turns out- he was being entirely truthful. He got the job.

But even if it had been significantly lower as per the P45, how would you know that he wasn't just paying a lot into an untaxed pension scheme, as very many high-salaried employees do?

The_Conductor

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

But even if it had been significantly lower as per the P45, how would you know that he wasn't just paying a lot into an untaxed pension scheme, as very many high-salaried employees do?

I wouldn't have asked.
His salary was out of kilter with that indicated by other candidates.
I would have simply moved him out of the consideration pile.
People don't have time to track down these things- if something doesn't add up- and after cursory questioning it still doesn't- more often than not its nuked.
My time is limited- I'm not going to invest time in investigating these things- when I have other candidates.

The case in particular that I'm thinking of- had an outstanding candidate- and I did go the extra mile, as I thought him worth it. Thankfully it paid off. Normally- I don't go to this trouble though- I simply nuke the candidate.

Chattastrophe!

The_Conductor wrote: »

I wouldn't have asked.
His salary was out of kilter with that indicated by other candidates.
I would have simply moved him out of the consideration pile.
People don't have time to track down these things- if something doesn't add up- and after cursory questioning it still doesn't- more often than not its nuked.
My time is limited- I'm not going to invest time in investigating these things- when I have other candidates.

The case in particular that I'm thinking of- had an outstanding candidate- and I did go the extra mile, as I thought him worth it. Thankfully it paid off. Normally- I don't go to this trouble though- I simply nuke the candidate.

But that's a bit crappy and shortsighted, isn't it?

In my experience, 99% of high-earners choose to put a really significant proportion of their earnings into pensions rather than having it taxed at 41%. Why wouldn't they? And I mean, a really significant proportion. So, based on their P45s, they're earning f*** all. Because their pay is going to pension instead.

You'd really "nuke" candidates based on their P45s and assume they were lying about their gross pay?

I'd be more surprised if I received a P45 from a high-earner who was choosing to pay tax on his full pay, rather than being sensible and paying it into a pension fund.

The_Conductor

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

But that's a bit crappy and shortsighted, isn't it?

In my experience, 99% of high-earners choose to put a really significant proportion of their earnings into pensions rather than having it taxed at 41%. Why wouldn't they? And I mean, a really significant proportion. So, based on their P45s, they're earning f*** all. Because their pay is going to pension instead.

You'd really "nuke" candidates based on their P45s and assume they were lying about their gross pay?

I'd be more surprised if I received a P45 from a high-earner who was choosing to pay tax on his full pay, rather than being sensible and paying it into a pension fund.

When you have 40 or 50 candidates in front of you- and there isn't a whole lot to differentiate between them- and one or two candidates are suggesting their salary is significantly higher than that being claimed by other candidates- which by extension means they expect something in a comparable region from you- it is not crappy or short-sighted- it is simply a manner of culling the list of possible candidates.

Its not unusual to have 40 or 50 highly qualified candidates go for 2-3 posts. Even after elemental short listing- and interviewing- you will still have a difficult choice to make. If, at this stage- you have made an effort (by requesting a P45) to determine the veracity of some of their claims- and it doesn't appear to stack up- thats it, you're out.

If there were a shortage of candidates- it might be different- but as it stands- for every post- there could well be 20 qualified and competent candidates (or even more). Unless there is a damn good reason- there is no way a personnel officer is going to justify an abnormally high salary for someone coming in- especially when they have so many other good candidates they can choose from.

If there were a shortage of candidates- perhaps more investigating might be done- but in the current labour market- this is not the case.

If you believe you are worth a lot more to a prospective employer than the other candidates are- you sure as hell better sell yourself. Don't make the personnel officer play detective. Depending on the size of the organisation- he/she may be very busy recruiting for different roles. They are not going to invest time chasing paperwork- if things don't stack up- for an exceptional candidate- maybe- and there are exceptional people out there- but very very often, there may be little to distinguish the top couple of people from one another- and if one of them mysteriously wants significantly more pay than the others, its a good way of them shooting themselves in the foot.

Catmologen

I've always gotten around it by saying any difference was an annual bonus. When stating previous salary, it should be inclusive of every bonus, BIK or perk associated with the job.

Chattastrophe!

The_Conductor wrote: »

When you have 40 or 50 candidates in front of you- and there isn't a whole lot to differentiate between them- and one or two candidates are suggesting their salary is significantly higher than that being claimed by other candidates- which by extension means they expect something in a comparable region from you- it is not crappy or short-sighted- it is simply a manner of culling the list of possible candidates.

Its not unusual to have 40 or 50 highly qualified candidates go for 2-3 posts. Even after elemental short listing- and interviewing- you will still have a difficult choice to make. If, at this stage- you have made an effort (by requesting a P45) to determine the veracity of some of their claims- and it doesn't appear to stack up- thats it, you're out.

If there were a shortage of candidates- it might be different- but as it stands- for every post- there could well be 20 qualified and competent candidates (or even more). Unless there is a damn good reason- there is no way a personnel officer is going to justify an abnormally high salary for someone coming in- especially when they have so many other good candidates they can choose from.

If there were a shortage of candidates- perhaps more investigating might be done- but in the current labour market- this is not the case.

If you believe you are worth a lot more to a prospective employer than the other candidates are- you sure as hell better sell yourself. Don't make the personnel officer play detective. Depending on the size of the organisation- he/she may be very busy recruiting for different roles. They are not going to invest time chasing paperwork- if things don't stack up- for an exceptional candidate- maybe- and there are exceptional people out there- but very very often, there may be little to distinguish the top couple of people from one another- and if one of them mysteriously wants significantly more pay than the others, its a good way of them shooting themselves in the foot.

I'd almost always agree with you usually, but I find it a bit crap that - if I'm interpreting it right - you'd say no to potential employees on the basis that their P45 doesn't match their stated gross pay.

In my experience (working in payroll) there are several reasons why this would occur.

The most common being that the employee is (sensibly) paying a lot of his salary into pension rather than having it taxed.

Why would anyone not do this, if they can afford it?

Honestly I find it crazy that people might lose out on jobs because of what's stated on the P45 - you cannot determine gross income from the P45!

The_Conductor

I'd only request a P45 if I genuinely felt the candidate brought something to the job that the other candidates did not have. Normally- the salary expectations alone- might rule them out- before it ever got to the stage of asking them if they'd be willing to furnish a P45........

It is not a jobseekers market- of course its sectoral- but in many industries there are a deluge of applicants for any potential posts- and some manner of trying to cull the list of prospective candidates, after testing and interviews- has to be applied.

Carriexx

I would not worry about this, this is the way most people do things. When you give your P45 they will not even glance at that aspect, also you could have have unpaid leave or anything for personal reasons during the year. Enjoy your new role.

Chattastrophe!

The_Conductor wrote: »

I'd only request a P45 if I genuinely felt the candidate brought something to the job that the other candidates did not have. Normally- the salary expectations alone- might rule them out- before it ever got to the stage of asking them if they'd be willing to furnish a P45........

It is not a jobseekers market- of course its sectoral- but in many industries there are a deluge of applicants for any potential posts- and some manner of trying to cull the list of prospective candidates, after testing and interviews- has to be applied.

But what would you expect them to do? Cut their pension to zero from January in the year that they *might* be jobseeking, just in case the employer specifically requests a P45?

Honestly I think that - as an employer - you're misinterpreting what a P45 actually states. I think it's crazy that a job opportunity might be denied just because a sensible person decided a few years ago, that a pension mightnt be a bad idea.

professore

You must be all talking about multinationals here, right? Because there is no way in hell an SME would bother with this kind of triviality. Candidate is good for the job and you're happy to pay him what he asks for? Happy days. If he's bad, out on his ear ASAP.

Ice Storm

I don't have my P45 in front of me but I'm pretty sure that since the USC was introduced there are two 'total pay' figures on it - one for PAYE purposes and one for USC purposes.

The USC figure would include pension contributions (and AVCs) made in the year.

The_Conductor

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

But what would you expect them to do? Cut their pension to zero from January in the year that they *might* be jobseeking, just in case the employer specifically requests a P45?

Honestly I think that - as an employer - you're misinterpreting what a P45 actually states. I think it's crazy that a job opportunity might be denied just because a sensible person decided a few years ago, that a pension mightnt be a bad idea.

It depends on the industry- but if its common practice- presumably many of the candidates would be in the same position- and it wouldn't be exceptional for a particular candidate to have salary expectations significantly at odds with those of the other candidates.........