To think there is very little benefit in earning more than 50k

[ReallyTired]

Loss of child benefit and now reduction in pension tax relief makes hardly worth bursting a gut to earn over 50k. People who earn just over 50k are generally the work horses in skilled jobs that ecomony needs to grow. Given that such people will be saddled with high student loans in the future, what will senior teachers, doctors gain from all their hard work?

Yes and it was harder 100 years ago than now.

The bottom line is that most of what holds people back is themselves and they aren't prepared to do what those of us who did well did. Some of it costs absolutely zero. I was a teetotal virgin when I graduated. No one forces anyone to have sex and thus have children early. No one forces anyone to drink.

However those who want to choose for themselves that they can never make much of thems3elvse and they are flotsam and jetsum buffeted by a life that happens to them over which they have no control in a sense are brillirant for the few of us women who do make something of our lives - we need all those women and men who are so sure there is no point in going the extra mile as because of the mind set of all those others, those of us with a different mind set can do well so go forth, be a miserable pessimist who is sure they will never do well and that will be great news for those of us with a different mentality.

It certainly comforts people to hear they cannot rise above their place and that they may as well continue doing nothing very much as it would not make any different anyway.

• All things bright and beautiful hymn sums it up well -

The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them high and lowly, And ordered their estate.

Or the Indian caste system or sexism the planet over.

Find your mantra which keeps you down if you choose but you will the loser for it.

The student loan point is an interesting one, and it's not been engaged with yet. It's true that at the moment, there's a split between what people faced with tax bottlenecks do if they have the choice (which I would argue doesn't include eg people in the south east with no family money trying to save up a deposit and pay for childcare at the same time). But since 9k university fees are very new, virtually nobody who incurred them has yet had the opportunity to earn 50k, and even fewer have also had to consider the loss of child benefit as well. That's going to get more common. We haven't seen the impact of it yet.

No one forces anyone to have sex and thus have children early.

You can't possibly think this is true.

piglet my point is that someone making £25k a year is rarely working more than 50 hours a week. They also have help with costs such as housing if they are not in a position to buy. I don't have a problem with benefits paid out. What I disagree with is the assumption that those making £50k+ a year have it easy and the additional costs are a choice. The hours both DH and I work shock most people in Europe. I know in Denmark DH had production department workers make comments about how DH is overpaid. Well DH has worked since leaving school at 17. He completed his MBA while working FT and during those 3 years we have 2 DC while I sat my accounting exams while also working FT. None of them have been willing to put themselves out there to do what we have done. We now run a business on the side to our regular jobs. We rent out half of our home too. It does irk me when people (especially the out laws) make assumptions that we live the life of Riley. We have huge amounts of risk and responsibility that need to be managed. Business wise we have almost 100 people who rely on us paying them their wages.

I get that this is our choice and believe me I know we are extremely lucky. However, the reality is that £50k doesn't get you that far once you have a family and have to pay for your education to get the job in the first place.

"the reality is that £50k doesn't get you that far "

and less gets you even less far.

If you were a care assistant, paid minimum wage, and not paid for your time travelling between clients, do you think you would be better off?

Actually yes I probably would be depending on where in the country I was living. In that role I would be entitled to benefits. At £50k I get no help with overheads.

I've got a third child on the way. I can't afford to return to the UK for a few more years of I want to continue working. It would cost me thousands to do my job. With a low income I would get help with childcare costs.

A care assistant on NMW wage is not going to fly to another country at 6 am on Monday and not return home until 10 pm on Friday night, which is what I was referring to when I said that people working long hours and travelling away from home in high paid jobs often had extra costs of working that were essential. Someone with a job like that is going to have substantial extra costs or need support from partner/family etc.

Travelling between clients in the same town and surrounding areas for 10 hours before returning home does not generate anywhere near the same need for outside support or extra costs.

I find it interesting that there are still many households where one person earns £50k+ and the other earns nothing. The tax system disincetivises this, and yet it seems to remain relatively common.

Therefore I think people will continue to strive to take their earnings through the £50k point and beyond. I don't think the CB/student loan/40% tax factors will change this.

want2b I'm a single parent I live in a perpetual state of "DH being away", I know exactly what is possible to do on a shoestring when you are working if you have to.

Perhaps your example of having to buy coffee because of the difficulty of replacing the broken one when you both work informed me of our slightly different definition of essential.

Replacing a coffee machine, a cleaner and someone to help with your laundry are never essentials in my very humble opinion unless you are too disabled to do them yourself.

I would always accept childcare as an extra cost of working long hours and/or travelling barbara I've done it myself and I understand that. I have never met a working couple who both travel with children it's impossible without a live in Nanny.

With a low income I would get help with childcare costs.

Yes but you'd still be better off in the majority of cases earning a shedload and paying your own childcare costs than earning £30,000 and getting 80% of your childcare paid. Depending on what childcare you choose and how many children you choose to have. I don't think you can complain about the costs of childcare when you choose to have 3 children - presumably you factored that in.

A much bigger determinant of disposable income is your cost of housing and rent vs buy. People who own rarely get help towards the cost whereas those who rent do but those who buy may be better off in the long run.

Down to choices again (not that buying in London is a choice for many)

piglet my point is that someone making £25k a year... They also have help with costs such as housing if they are not in a position to buy.

Nah. Not true. Plenty of households on this, not in a position to buy because they don't have the savings or the credit rating or the spare money to put towards it so H2B etc are irrelevant to them. But not getting housing benefit either.

If you can afford a house you like, holidays you desire and you are well fed and clothed anything else is a bonus. Everyone makes the decision to move jobs taking into account lots of reasons, travel, pay, work/life balance and so on, BUT only if they can afford to.

I'm a bit confused as to what this thread is about.

Child benefit for three kids is about £2400 a year and so a £5k pay rise even with tax taken, that takes you over £50k, is worth it.

As someone in the armed forces, you can be expected to work away for days/weeks/months on end often with just a few hours notice. You often do extra duties outwith your normal work and a 'day' job is 8 - 5, not 9, but you never know when you'll be switched to shift work.
You are entitled to very little wrt benefits (you 'earn too much' to get help with childcare or working tax credits).

Saying £50k workers work longer and harder than people on less is too sweeping a generalisation to make.
Not everyone gets wage too-ups, yet the £50k plus-ers seem to think we all do.

A cleaner, a coffee machine and a laundry maid will always be a luxury, regardless of your income level - never an essential.
To assert anything else is a nonsense.

When the kids have left full time childcare, who is better off?

When the kids stop needing any childcare, who is better off?

When the kids are all grown up, who is better off?

The £50k+ folk.
Every time.

I hope someone has said that not all people on £50k have children and therefore there no impact on benefits. Probably the majority. I earn £50k I don't get cb anymore. DH earns rather more. He gives me the equiv with my housekeeping because I used to put it towards the dc's clothes, haircuts, general essentials. Youngest will be 18 soon. We never needed it but it was a universal benefit and should have been withdrawn incrementally for those at the margin.

£50k/£benefit threshold seems unfair but in the ling term benefits re pensions, self esteem, personal development, the margin when children stop being dependent is colossal. Not sure why the hard years are the responsibility of the state. So many lives could be better if less was spent on non essentials like weddings beyond the means of ordinary folk, etc. If I hear one more early 30 something mewling about not being able to have 12 months maternity or return part-time after they have had a champagne wedding on beer money I might say something pointed in rl. I'm surprised their mothers don't but many of them seem to pander to it. Utter madness yet people like us are supposed to subsidise their silly choices.

Yes, plenty of us suffer working at a loss for a bit even on highish incomes (when my first was born and I was back full time 2 weeks later our childcare cost was 100% of one of our net wages - we both worked full time and earned the same then BUT we were ambitious and knew we could earn more as the years went by so bore the loss).

Long term as many of us are saying high earnings (£100k+ etc) are worth it as they give women choices in life. However if top of whatever you might ever earn is £52k there will certainly be cases where earning £50k gets you more money or both parents working part time for £25k gets you more money than one full time etc etc. Now that your single person allowance £11k each from 6 April = £22k per couple plenty of couples will engage in morally pernicious wicked tax avoidance by sharing income between them, the rotters (although remember the tricky national insurance threshold which is more like £7500 before you start paying NI))

kew my income after taxes covers childcare only for 2 DC for the hours I work. If it wasn't for my DH earning what he does I wouldn't be able to afford to work in the job that I do during these early years of high childcare cost. On my income alone we don't qualify for benefits either.

Oh and I guess you could say I am somewhat disabled. I'm 36 weeks pregnant on my own with 2 DC, the younger one has just been diagnosed with autism. We all have crap we have to deal with but when you work 100 hours a week while on your own with 2DC it's close to impossible to do it without having help. I have no family close to me (unless you count 500 miles away as close!) which DH and I see as a cost of the higher income we have. So while you see it as a luxury to have someone come in and clean for 4 hours while everyone is out and have the kids laundry outsourced I see it as an essential expense. Please go ahead and work 100 hours in a week and come back and tell me you can do housework plus perform in your job.

My point is that I don't wholly disagree with the OP. The overheads of working a job making a higher salary are nearly always much higher, especially once you have DC. I do think the threshold for higher taxes is too low.

My heart is bleeding for you want2b.

Firstly, you chose to have the 3rd child.
Back when I had mine you got 12 weeks paid maternity leave - I worked up to the week I gave birth with SPD with both of mine, my husband was away for a large part of my pregnancies and the childcare for 2 wiped out my entire wage.
I was hundreds of miles away from all family.
There was no such thing as tax credits then either and the only state help we got was the CB.

I carried on (as most do), because I knew the long term benefit would far outweigh the short term pain.

And I still had to do the cleaning, cooking, washing etc because we couldn't afford for me not to.

Is it 100 hours per week, every single week btw?
20 hrs a day, 5 days a week?
16.5 hrs a day, 6 days a week?
14 hrs a day, 7 days a week?

I'm a bit confused as to what this thread is about.

This thread has two purposes:

1. to whine in a bizarre Through-the-Looking-Glass way that as you earn more not only does life become harder because of tax or something but also you become a better order of being; and

2. to boggle at those coming out with such bollocks.

I think it's a thread where those who don't earn much can say how they resent those earning more and not believe those who earn more might have a difficult life or have to spend so much on childcare that they are not that well off in the shorter term.

We all have difficult times in our lives. One of my teenagers rightly said a few minutes ago I had no right to moan as I have a very easy now which is certainly true although it was not the kind of comment to gladden the cockles of my heart at the point when he said it.

There is no doubt that the tax system though it's complexity and the benefits system has peverse incentives at times though and that's true - it starts with is it worth moving from part time to full time hours if in return you lose some housing benefit or tax credits; moves to is it worth earning over X because tax takes 70% of what you earn etc etc. All I can see is once women earn an awful lot it tends to be worth working even though the wicked Big State steals half of what you earn so it can utterly waste it most of the time. Nasty state. Big State instead should be keeping very very happy those few of us who keep it afloat with the massive amounts of tax we pay. Instead it chooses to bite the hands that feed it and big state will ultimately be the loser for that if it does not mend its ways.

I think the objection was as to whether certain things were luxuries or necessities, and whether it was possible to work very long and unsocial/unpredictable hours and still earn very little money.

Deo - to a previous point you made, I don't think anyone has ever said that hard work is not neccesary, but that advantages have to be taken into consideration. For example a hard working and able child from a council estate in Newcastle has significantly lower chance of becoming Prime Minister than say the privately educated son of a millionaire who is a decendant of royalty. Purely because the level of oppotunity, safety nets fr failure etc are far different. Hard work is a factor, but it is not the only factor nor the defining one.

Want2b? I think you're on another planet, plenty of families exist on £25k and get little help from the state, plenty of people work 50 + hour weeks for salaries less than £25k. Plenty of people work difficult shifts for less and have to fork out for expensive childcare.

Also to claims of 100 hour weeks, well, I have my doubts.

I think this thread is a lot about an almost inverse politics of envy thing, some one else gets a bit of help, wow, curb that green eyed monster, you are still better off!

This has made me think. I went back to work part -time in 2003. Full time on a slightly higher grade in 2005. Once I had paid thecau-pair and slightly higher tax I was worse off for three years. Working full-time cost me but in 2006 I started a professional qual, part-time on top of a full time job for two years. Six hours of contact time, 2pm-9m. Four hours to make up on the other working days. About six hours per week of additional study to fit in - Had to do the minimum (but still got a high pass). It paid off by about 2009. Well worth it. I have staff now complaining about said course and I only ask them to make up half the time and give them study leave. They live with their mums who cook dinner and do their laundry. I had two orjmary aged dc at different schools in opposite directions

Had anyone mentioned pensions? Your employer will typically be making pension contributions at a fixed percentage of your salary. So even if you lose CB in the short term, the long term pension benefits may well balance this out.