Page 11 | DH and I going part time to deliberately reduce wages

Bucketheadbucketbum · 2023-03-18T13:35:09+00:00

Just working out the free childcare hours and actually DH and I will be muxh better off if we both dropped to 3- 4 day week to deliberately reduce our incomes. Would obviously be nice way to live too! Anyone else doing same? Seems mental but we've looked at it 100 times over and it's true!

Original poster

Bucketheadbucketbum · 18/03/2023 19:28

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 17:42

I'm so sorry for single earners, they're taxed really badly and unfairly. Can you put some into your pensions?

Yeah I could work more to put more into my pension.

But my children are young, and are already dealing with their father vanishing from their lives. They only have me.

On £100k salary as I said by the time tax and mortgage and childcare is paid there is less than £1000 per month to pay Council tax, utilities, food, commuting, clothes, clubs etc.

If I work more now or go for promotion we'll get no more net pay. So no reason for me to do it. My priority is to be here to support them emotionally now, because the tax system means I can't do any more for them financially. I don't need a higher pension contribution, I need more net pay so I can cover the mortgage increase and increased childcare and utility and food bill. But no matter what I do I can't achieve that, because the Government will take all the extra money I earn. So we'll just have to manage on even less and I'll cut my hours. And pay less in tax.

Yes this is our situation

Its really a no brainer to reduce hours and associated financial and emotional/ family costs of working all hours.

OP posts:

Original poster

Bucketheadbucketbum · 18/03/2023 19:29

Also deliberately spending less so less going round for other businesses and services etc

OP posts:

Ilikepinacoladass · 18/03/2023 19:29

I think do what you want to do, if you can reduce hours and still get by, and would like to work less / spend more time with the children then go for it!

I doubt in the long run it'll be financially beneficial though. Part time often means you can't go for certain promotions etc, as well as missitout on pension contributions.

bigbabycooker · 18/03/2023 19:31

@Ilikepinacoladass

I assume that the poster meant that basically the childcare cost as a household if she worked made them worse off, which is how lots of people do assess it. I mean, if you are partnered with a high earner and do more than your fair share at home so that they can earn the dough that pays your mortgage, frankly it's hard working for no real financial household benefit. Obviously, you can still accrue pension and for some careers by working it is essential because stepping off really costs you, but that last argument isn't so true of nursing because it is unlikely you won't be able to go back at a good grade (or you can do an occasional shift to keep hand in as OP does). Totally makes sense not to work just to pay your childcare bill with young kids.

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 19:35

Exactly. If you work 25% more ton earn less than 5% more net, why do it? Unless you need the 5% to keep your head above water. Which thankfully we don't. We get 25% more time each with our family and a lot less stress

Yes. A completely rational decision, and obviously the best one.

People in receipt of direct tax transfers of money from higher earners through universal credit make these kinds of decisions all the time. Say how they are "entitled" to the money they didn't even earn, and that most of us happily provide for them. Yet are apparently aghast that you'd decide to work a little less to keep more of the money you DID earn and spend more time with your own children, rather than work even more and see your kids less to give them even more money? Some serious cognitive dissonance from some posters not to be able to grasp why you'd make this entirely rational choice and utilise the public goods that YOU have paid for, for yourselves AND subsidised for everyone else. And even with the cut in hours will continue to be subsidising for them!

It's a no brainer and you're making the right choice, OP. The only rational choice really. It's just bonkers that the system is set up so that this is your only rational choice. That's why the economy is tanking.

For me, I wouldn't even get the 5% net increase for each hour worked. In fact, if I worked just a few more hours I'd receive a 15% DECREASE in net income. So no, until the tax system is fixed, I won't be doing any more work.

mishmased · 18/03/2023 19:36

@ScruffyGiraffes absolutely no to working more hours, no way. Your kids need to see their parent. I'm sorry the system is so bent on penalising regular income earners as opposed to those with wealth.

stinkfaceison · 18/03/2023 19:37

You do whatever it takes for your family and work life balance .?

AngryBirdsNoMore · 18/03/2023 19:37

How much do you both earn OP?

stinkfaceison · 18/03/2023 19:37

You do whatever it takes for your family and work life balance .?

Sorry about the ? Typo

Ilikepinacoladass · 18/03/2023 19:39

bigbabycooker · 18/03/2023 19:31

@Ilikepinacoladass

I assume that the poster meant that basically the childcare cost as a household if she worked made them worse off, which is how lots of people do assess it. I mean, if you are partnered with a high earner and do more than your fair share at home so that they can earn the dough that pays your mortgage, frankly it's hard working for no real financial household benefit. Obviously, you can still accrue pension and for some careers by working it is essential because stepping off really costs you, but that last argument isn't so true of nursing because it is unlikely you won't be able to go back at a good grade (or you can do an occasional shift to keep hand in as OP does). Totally makes sense not to work just to pay your childcare bill with young kids.

I think that's true if you actually don't want to work. If you enjoy your job / wouldn't like being a SAHP then it's not really a valid reason, if you have a high earning partner. Again you're choice if you do more than fair share at home, could the Mr High Earner not hire a cleaner?

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 19:39

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 19:35

Exactly. If you work 25% more ton earn less than 5% more net, why do it? Unless you need the 5% to keep your head above water. Which thankfully we don't. We get 25% more time each with our family and a lot less stress

Yes. A completely rational decision, and obviously the best one.

People in receipt of direct tax transfers of money from higher earners through universal credit make these kinds of decisions all the time. Say how they are "entitled" to the money they didn't even earn, and that most of us happily provide for them. Yet are apparently aghast that you'd decide to work a little less to keep more of the money you DID earn and spend more time with your own children, rather than work even more and see your kids less to give them even more money? Some serious cognitive dissonance from some posters not to be able to grasp why you'd make this entirely rational choice and utilise the public goods that YOU have paid for, for yourselves AND subsidised for everyone else. And even with the cut in hours will continue to be subsidising for them!

It's a no brainer and you're making the right choice, OP. The only rational choice really. It's just bonkers that the system is set up so that this is your only rational choice. That's why the economy is tanking.

For me, I wouldn't even get the 5% net increase for each hour worked. In fact, if I worked just a few more hours I'd receive a 15% DECREASE in net income. So no, until the tax system is fixed, I won't be doing any more work.

Sorry, typo. 35% decrease in net income! I can't imagine why anybody thinks I'd spend less time with my children to do that.

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 19:45

Yes this is our situation

Its really a no brainer to reduce hours and associated financial and emotional/ family costs of working all hours.

Complete no brainer. And until the tax code is fixed there will be hundreds of thousands of people in the same situation - the very people we really need to be working more if we want productivity and tax revenues to rise - will continue doing the same.

It's just harder for me because there's only one of me, so by the time I've paid living expenses and childcare there is barely enough left for us to survive. And no way for us to improve it either, because the state would take more than 100%, much more. We'd be way worse off.

In your situation with two of you, I'd absolutely cut down the hours, enjoy your children and not bother at all about it all.

Chonk · 18/03/2023 19:47

@mishmased No, just deluded 😂

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 19:48

mishmased · 18/03/2023 19:36

@ScruffyGiraffes absolutely no to working more hours, no way. Your kids need to see their parent. I'm sorry the system is so bent on penalising regular income earners as opposed to those with wealth.

Thank you. The screwing of single parents trying to do two jobs - providing financially and childcare - in 24 hours not 48 by hammering them with half the tax free allowance, imposing higher rate tax at half the household income, withdrawing nursery funding and child benefit and personal allowance at half the household income, is why households like mine with a high salary on paper are living on the poverty line. Not even joking. Worrying about how to pay food and electricity with £100k salary! Because we are penalised and taxed twice as much. But nobody seems to care or want to change it.

aroomwithaperfectview · 18/03/2023 19:51

LizzieSiddal · 18/03/2023 13:41

Sounds like you don’t care that other tax payers will be working to pay for your child when you could actually afford to pay for it yourself.

Each to their own I suppose.

As a single mum for 10 years and working full time with quite a long commute too, this would have never crossed my mind.

StatisticallyChallenged · 18/03/2023 19:53

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 19:45

Yes this is our situation

Its really a no brainer to reduce hours and associated financial and emotional/ family costs of working all hours.

Complete no brainer. And until the tax code is fixed there will be hundreds of thousands of people in the same situation - the very people we really need to be working more if we want productivity and tax revenues to rise - will continue doing the same.

It's just harder for me because there's only one of me, so by the time I've paid living expenses and childcare there is barely enough left for us to survive. And no way for us to improve it either, because the state would take more than 100%, much more. We'd be way worse off.

In your situation with two of you, I'd absolutely cut down the hours, enjoy your children and not bother at all about it all.

And it disadvantages you career wise in the long term compared to your child free (probably mostly male, being realistic) peers. They won't have the childcare cost impact so for them even though the tax is brutal it's worth pushing for that next promotion because they will still be better off. If the have a wife/partner who is a SAHM (as many do at that level IME) then they won't be bothered about childcare costs even if they do have kids.

And they wonder why we have a gender sex pay gap...

Happyvalleyfan · 18/03/2023 19:56

The only other thing to consider OP- does your job really have the flexibility of decreasing and increasing sessions as quickly as required?
It would take some planning for me to reduce my sessions to LFTE and then increase it again. I may not be able to increase within same role as funding may go to someone else.
Also- my child was a young 4 yo starting school. After this - she could not use any free hours at nursery and you cannot use mainly to cover holiday clubs.

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 19:59

And it disadvantages you career wise in the long term compared to your child free (probably mostly male, being realistic) peers. They won't have the childcare cost impact so for them even though the tax is brutal it's worth pushing for that next promotion because they will still be better off. If the have a wife/partner who is a SAHM (as many do at that level IME) then they won't be bothered about childcare costs even if they do have kids.

And they wonder why we have a gender sex pay gap...

Yep. Been treading water for a few years now since husband left when they were babies. But now ready to focus on work more, work want to promote me. I have had to say no, because the increase in salary would leave us with so much LESS money per month that I'd no longer be able to pay the mortgage.

aroomwithaperfectview · 18/03/2023 20:02

Haraebo · 18/03/2023 14:56

If someone from the lower class plays the system to get extra benefits, they get called the scum of the earth. They get called scroungers and are spat on. But let's face it, THEY are the people that need help.

When it comes to people that CAN afford nice things and CAN afford to pay for childcare but then play the system in order to get something for nothing, that's ok?

That's why this country is fucking shit.

Exactly !

Dibblydoodahdah · 18/03/2023 20:04

@aroomwithaperfectview it’s not exactly the same is it. These are people who are actually paying tax!

Chonk · 18/03/2023 20:04

Ovidnaso · 18/03/2023 19:03

Not among all the people I know who stayed renting their council homes rather than buy them because they wanted other people to benefit from them after their deaths.

Stop invalidating people's motives and morals. Perhaps you wouldn't behave morally, but others do.

And council housing is meant to be for everyone. People who start earning more over the course of a lifetime aren't to blame if greedy landlords charge too much for private housing.

Show quote history

@Ovidnaso Yes that's great, a good decision on their behalf. But your original comment said 'people choose to live in council housing because it's an ethical way to live, contributing to society and local communities'. Please clarify how someone continuing to live in council housing when they can easily afford a private rental benefits society, because I really can't see it.

VestaTilley · 18/03/2023 20:05

YABU.

AcornGreen · 18/03/2023 20:06

Original poster

Bucketheadbucketbum · 18/03/2023 20:07

mishmased · 18/03/2023 19:14

This is so unfair.

Show quote history

100% this. And the answer is simple- to work less. Thebonly surprising thing is that the government don't seem to care that this is the outcome

OP posts:

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 20:09

Dibblydoodahdah · 18/03/2023 20:04

@aroomwithaperfectview it’s not exactly the same is it. These are people who are actually paying tax!

There's seems to be some inexplicable "inability" to understand the difference between choosing not to work more only to have most of the money that you have earned confiscated (or even being charged to work more in cases like mine!) and people receiving money as welfare from other people who have earned it and paid it for them.