DH and I going part time to deliberately reduce wages

[Bucketheadbucketbum]

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!

Exactly. We pay a tonne of tax. We've now got to the point where earning what we do is taxed so much and we miss out on other items eg tax free childcare that we are financially worse off than if we earnt less. To come out the other side of this conundrum we'd both need to ean 50% more again than we do, which is not practical or possible in the forseeable

So, we have made the conscious decision to work less in order to earn less and be at home more. And net net net will will actually be miles better off!!!! Bananas

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

It is. And there's no other option because even if I work more, we'll have less take home pay!

But with 10% inflation and rising mortgage rates and childcare costs and food costs etc, it means that we are struggling more and more to even cover the basic living costs despite me on paper earning what most people consider a high salary. I am now having to get rid of the ancient car. We can't afford to have one anymore. On £100k salary. That is how punitive it is on single parents.

Exactly

This. 100%

Yes childcare is expensive
So are mortgages
So are utilities, food, fuel etc etc.

If you CAN afford it, just be bloody thankful.

People (women) have fought TIRELESSLY for what the government have announced, so they can go to work and contribute to society and support their families.

Not so people who have never been in the position where they don't need help, shirk off work to claim what is essentially, a benefit.

@Ilikepinacoladass

I'm not in this situation (I work 3 days, to earn £100k, rather than £150k, which would barely pay be any more at all net of childcare, so I am basically the OP and have chosen more leisure with my kids), so I can't speak for that poster, but...

I think you are being extremely disingenuous to claim that all the things that a SAHM might do if her partner just goes to work and doesn't have much capacity to help out in the week are replaced by a cleaner. If you have to do all the drop offs, all the picks ups, make and attend all the appointments, book all clubs, buy all shopping and clothes (or else give up your weekend family time so that you can both share it) and you are still basically paying to work net of childcare, I can totally see how you might feel that you have a much higher quality of life with your kids than working, whether or not you like your job. In this country, nursing shifts are also very family unfriendly - in France, you can do an 8 hour shift, allowing you to not work nights and see your kids at one or both ends of the day, whereas in the U.K., most NHS shifts are 12 hours, so you can't. It's a very rational decision to decide that this is a bit crappy and one that you can't really get too sniffy about (which is what your post sounded like) if you can leave at 5pm in an office job.

It is true. It’s the same for UC you can max out pension contributions and get UC which seems crazy. It costs the government a fortune to keep the elderly on low incomes though. So perhaps it’d better if people have some help now and can provide for themselves in old days age.

I pay £34k per year in tax! Yet struggle to feed the kids properly, can't afford a camping holiday or heat the house enough, people have no idea. They think we're rich? I'd laugh if it wasn't so ridiculous. We've been bled dry and have nothing left to give, we can barley cover our own essential living costs.

Have you got a huge mortgage though? This is said often on here but it's usually thr more you earn the more you are spending.

Because ultimately people manage on a lot less. How do you think they manage?

If they increase the tax rates on us any further, like Labour's plan to start higher rate tax at £80k, my children will lose their home. At that point they'll be better off with me dead and the life insurance payout to support them for the rest of their childhood, because I literally won't be able to provide for them anymore.

I missed this, is it their plan?

I’m sorry you must feel very stressed. I know no one can reassure you but just support

Have you got a huge mortgage though? This is said often on here but it's usually thr more you earn the more you are spending.

Because ultimately people manage on a lot less. How do you think they manage?

People manage on far less because they live in far less expensive places. This is what so many people on this thread do not seem to be able to comprehend: to earn high salaries most people have to live in expensive parts of the country. Particularly if your commute can't be too long because you have to get back for childcare pickups. So then, from net pay (assuming you make zero pension contribution) of £5.5k from £100k salary, you can easily have to pay £2.5k as rent/ mortgage. Then £2k for childcare. That leaves £1000 per month for Council tax, utilities, food, clothes, activites, birthdays, Christmas, etc. Not exactly living the high life, is it?

Yes I could move to a cheaper area. And then I wouldn't earn this salary. So the point is moot. Especially given my job doesn't exist elsewhere in the UK, anyway. If I am paying £34k tax per year why shouldn't my children also have a decent standard of living? And why should I have to turn down promotions because they would make us WORSE off? How does this benefit anybody, when me taking the promotion and payrise would mean more tax revenue to help everyone else, even if they let me keep at least some of it?

I missed this, is it their plan?

Last year they were talking about imposing even higher taxes at £80k. That will be the end for us, I just won't be able to do it anymore. It will be impossible.

@ScruffyGiraffes I'm not sure you can assume and speak for everyone on MN. The rents in the North have crept up massively. £1000 per month and that's for a shitty area.

It will bankrupt the country. As a couple we laughed a 60k increase in salary out the door as it all goes to Hunt. What is the point? As a single parent I don’t know how you cope. People are so blinded by “six figure salary” they have no comprehension how much you are paying in tax to fund them. Literally. Taxed at 100% oh no that’s not enough; taxed at +100% pay more. As you said, this country will be the country it deserves.

I'm not speaking for everyone on Mumsnet.

I've explained the factual distortions in the tax system that are disincentivising work for the people who pay most of the UK's tax (not the super rich!) resulting in low UK productivity and tax revenues and therefore no money to improve public services etc for everyone. This is fact. Hunt's own research stated this. The IFS have said it's a "dog's breakfast". The Times and FT and Guardian and others have written articles about it. So yes of course higher earning people cut down their hours because it's not worth them working more. This is factual and is happening across the economy, research shows it clearly and indisputably. This is bad for everyone.

I have also explained how single parents (almost all women) are doubly impacted by this, giving the example of my own situation, because these tax thresholds are doubly punitive for us. Others in the same situation have also said so, on this thread and in the research. We pay huge amounts of tax and can barely afford to live because the UK tax system applies all of these thresholds on an individual not household basis, impoverishing us and our children. So for us, even less incentive to work more and actually, unsurprisingly, many do not bother or give up entirely.

I've seen the calculations. If I'd never bothered at all, with degree and professional qualifications and all the hard work to build a career and buy a house and instead claimed benefits we would have TWICE the disposable income per month that we do now. That is disgusting.

I want to work. I want to contribute. I always have done so. I should however be left with enough to provide my children with a decent life, when I'm paying £34k per year into the pot to help other people. And to be able to take a promotion without us then having LESS money per month than we do now and being unable to pay my mortgage.

If you want a country where there's money to pay for services and benefits then making it impossible for higher earners to better their circumstances by working more - while bettering everyone else's at the same time by paying even more in - then penalising them to the extent that it's not worthwhile for them to work is not a good idea.

Are you referring to the 15 or 30 hrs free childcare?

This is wrong, I'm beyond shocked.

@ScruffyGiraffes

I'm really sorry and I can totally understand how this has happened to you. The system is shit. I hope that your employer can reward you in a few years' time, when the childcare hurdle is not so massive.

@AviMav people manage on a lot less because they pay a lot less tax. Someone on 35k will not lose almost 40% of their income. They will not lose cb, depending on how many kids they have they might get childcare support. These are supports that people like @ScruffyGiraffes are losing coupled with being a single parent.
I don't think someone on 35k will pay a third of their gross income on taxes. @ScruffyGiraffes taxes literally is someone's full time wage. She is struggling due to lack of support that low income families get and in some cases some people get the equivalent.
Why is the point in training for years, not seeing your kids, paying for childcare and giving most of your wages to the taxman?
These are the same people that shouldn't have kids 'if they're going to have them in childcare all day' according to some.

It’s like clapping seals who cannot think logically. I do believe it is what will cause the ultimate downfall of the welfare state/NHS/education as we know it. It’s already started. People who have done well in their field are in the perverse position that a 35K pay rise can be 100% wiped out and they will be worse off. Therefore, people cut their hours.

Instead of thinking- “oh, hang on, let’s encourage these massive tax payers and net contributors to pay more. We will make the tax system so punitive they stop working.” I actually think people see 100k and think you clear near enough 8.5k a month. Reality is, with childcare, loss of allowance, no top ups (obviously), full loss of everything. You’ll often have a similar disposable to those who are working and are “topped up.” Difference is, the higher earner is paying for it. Stop them from working things will be cut as tax take falls.

People will only have themselves to blame. Like clapping seals with no critical thinking.

^^ This needed posting again because @Lostinalibrary articulted the problem so clearly.

Both of my children have SEN and cannot do holiday clubs etc, need 1:1 nannies. No support with that either because guess what? SS not interested and say "you have a job, just fund it yourself". So I'll have a £2k+ per month childcare bill for the next 6 years, at least.

So no, sadly, if the penalisation of single parents in the tax code isn't removed, or these punitive tax rates at my earning level, I can accept no promotions and there is literally nothing I can do to improve our living standard. And if any Government decides to increase taxes on us even more because according to them we are rich, we will lose our home and despite all of this work to provide for them I will have completely failed. That is the brink we are being pushed towards by these policies, when people take over a third of my income as tax to give to other people who get to spend way more time with their children than I do with mine, and then tell us we are "rich" when we can't afford food anymore unless I sell our car.

Thank you. I'm glad some people do understand it at least. I really don't know what to do anymore. Always worked hard, have paid so much tax to support others and not begrudged it, but when we are being taxed so much we can barely afford to live surely that is too much?

And yes @ScruffyGiraffes, the other thing that people are missing is that your people on £100k, even working part time, are likely doing long days and taking on responsibilities beyond a simple 9-5. I'm not saying, before people jump down my throat, that people on lower salaries don't have important jobs - they do. What I am, however, saying is that it is absolutely ludicrous, as some have done, to suggest that someone who decides not to work more at £100k because it will actually cost them money (and who is paying for someone else's benefits) is in any way comparable to someone not working much and cheating the system out of benefits.

I understand OP, I went to 4 days a week after having DC1 because I didn't want him in full time.

What astounded me was although my salary went from £60k to £50k, my take home pay only dropped from £3,200 a month to £3,000 a month. The extra day at nursery would have been £80 a week.

So I'd have lost a day a week with my kid and it would have cost me money!

I am wondering the same as we won’t be eligible for any childcare support with the new system, we both do contract work and could take a few extra weeks off in between contacts to take us to below the threshold (with the bonus of getting some extra time with our DS too!)

I can see why it seems unfair to some as we can afford the childcare but the cliff edge all or nothing threshold feels a bit unfair and puts us in a position where we would be better off earning £20k or so less.