Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

DH and I going part time to deliberately reduce wages

890 replies

Bucketheadbucketbum · 18/03/2023 13:35

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!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
MarshaBradyo · 19/03/2023 11:59

I’m not even sure the cc changes are a mistake overall. If more women stay in work because it’s easier to get reduced hours and have better balance then that’s good surely.

AntarcticGiraffe · 19/03/2023 12:05

EmmaDilemma5 · 19/03/2023 07:24

It's unethical and it's paid for by the rest of us.

But yeah, if you're the kind of people who think about yourselves before anyone else, and play systems to get all you can, then, do it.

But don't boast about it on a public forum and don't call yourself the squeezed middle. You're the tight higher earners; you always want more.

What?

It's paid for by the OP! She's paid for it many times over. She's paying for YOU.

Tight? "Always want more"? To want to keep more than 0% of a payrise?! In fact not to LOSE tens of thousands of pounds of net pay by taking a payrise?

Do you realise how absurd your comments are?

🤯🤯🤯

YukoandHiro · 19/03/2023 12:05

"We paid in tax far more than anything we could ever possibly use (over a million easlily in our careers to date) and actually our net income is less more than it would be if we earn a lot less!!!"

A) you have literally no idea what you'll "use". If tomorrow you need emergency brain surgery and associated rehabilitation care then you'll use more then you've ever paid in.

B) This is how tax works. You are highly privileged even if you don't recognise it. You pay this tax in return for living in a state that (just about) functions. If you don't like it, go and live in a low tax state where you will be fine but you'll be surrounded by extreme street homelessness (to take one example)

I understand your frustration but the years you're talking about are very short. Of course you can both choose to go part time. It may be the best decision for you as a family. But make sure your long term lifestyle is planned for (if you're ok with a drop in lifestyle for better balance, go for it)

YukoandHiro · 19/03/2023 12:06

"Surprised at the responses. I wonder if it’s because it’s child care. If someone posted me and my husband are going to go part time so we can claim universal credit id suspect the responses would be different"

@Fragrantandfoolish is absolutely bang on here!

Childcare is a benefit like any other, but people consider it differently.

SleeplessWB · 19/03/2023 12:06

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 19:02

The personal allowance withdrawal and child benefit withdrawal need scrapping entirely. Both cost the state more to administer than they save AND create these disincentives to work more. It is a no brainer. This costs money and reduces tax revenue. There is no point in it.

Early years childcare/ education is a universal good that pays for itself and should be available to everyone just like pensions and healthcare and education for older children (and adults for that matter). The vast majority of higher tax payers are fine with paying this for everyone else, but it must be available to all, including them.

Penalising single adult households charging them double the tax on the same income is not acceptable, and has only been tolerated because over 90% of single parents are women. What is hugely disappointing is that other women do not campaign for this to change and stand side by side with those affected by it. Depressing.

Ultimately if you want well-funded welfare and services you need the people who pay the vast majority of that cost to be incentivised to work. If they face effective tax rates of 65% at £50k (as soon as they become net contributors) and 100% at £100k they won't. So there won't be the money to pay for it all, as we are now seeing.

Anybody who wants a functioning welfare state and services should want this fixed. But as we can see here, they do not. So it won't be.

This is absolutely true. I work 4 days, earning just under £50k. If I worked full time I would lose my child benefit and need to pay an extra day of childcare, therefore basically earning nothing for that extra day.

StatisticallyChallenged · 19/03/2023 12:19

YukoandHiro · 19/03/2023 12:06

"Surprised at the responses. I wonder if it’s because it’s child care. If someone posted me and my husband are going to go part time so we can claim universal credit id suspect the responses would be different"

@Fragrantandfoolish is absolutely bang on here!

Childcare is a benefit like any other, but people consider it differently.

For me it's not about whether it's a benefit. It's the fact that people will be worse off by earning more. Not "only a tiny bit better off and it's not really worth it" but "thousands of pounds less every year"

Lostinalibrary · 19/03/2023 12:34

YukoandHiro · 19/03/2023 12:06

"Surprised at the responses. I wonder if it’s because it’s child care. If someone posted me and my husband are going to go part time so we can claim universal credit id suspect the responses would be different"

@Fragrantandfoolish is absolutely bang on here!

Childcare is a benefit like any other, but people consider it differently.

That higher rate tax payers pay for alongside everything else as net contributors.

Dibblydoodahdah · 19/03/2023 12:36

@YukoandHiro no she isn’t bang on. People who claim universal credit are not net contributors. The OP and her DH are. They will still be putting far more in then they will be taking out.

Dibblydoodahdah · 19/03/2023 12:41

@YukoandHiro presumably you think that NI insurance credits should be banned for stay at home parents too?

BringItOn2023 · 19/03/2023 12:45

If you're earning £100k you can easily put more into your pension for a couple of years. It's hardly rocket science.

Dyslexicwonder · 19/03/2023 12:51

BringItOn2023 · 19/03/2023 12:45

If you're earning £100k you can easily put more into your pension for a couple of years. It's hardly rocket science.

Actually I can't, not without incurring a huge tax penalty there as well.

Original poster
Bucketheadbucketbum · 19/03/2023 13:02

Dyslexicwonder · 19/03/2023 12:51

Actually I can't, not without incurring a huge tax penalty there as well.

Show quote history

Same for us.

OP posts:
ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 13:14

BringItOn2023 · 19/03/2023 12:45

If you're earning £100k you can easily put more into your pension for a couple of years. It's hardly rocket science.

Not exactly helpful if you need more net pay to cover huge mortgage, food, commuting, nursery and utility price increases though, is it? And are literally banned by tax policy from earning ANY increase in net pay until you get a payrise of £50k in one go. Which will just about get you back to the same net pay you had without that 50% pay increase.

One would think designing a more sensible tax system would not be "rocket science" for someone who is meant to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer and has had his job done for him through copious research telling him what needs to be done. All he had to do was announce it and sit back to watch productivity and tax revenues rocket over the next 12 months. But apparently that was too much to ask. 🙄

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 13:19

So, as a result, watch over 200,000 people in this tax bracket who have children make similar choices to the OP. And watch tax revenues decrease further, and don't moan when there are further cuts to services and benefits because there is less money available to fund them.

If you want higher living standards for everyone, campaign to remove these huge disincentives for the people who are paying for the NHS, education, universal credit, the funded childcare, etc. If you would rather they continue to be penalised at over 100% tax just because you - inexpicably - hate them for paying for these things for everyone else, then you only have yourself to blame as these things become increasingly poorly funded.

Unless you plan to work towards one of these high paying careers yourself and continue to increase your earnings when you hit the 100%+ tax rates because you are soooooo altruistic you've happy to pay to work extra hours?

Thought not.

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 13:33

Bearing in mind of course - as I pointed out earlier - that every one of those 200,000 is paying exponentially more tax than someone earning national minimum wage and receiving UC is, given that those people have a negative tax rate, often -50%+. People literally would not have UC or NHS or state education if it wasn't for these people. Likewise there even more numerous counterparts earning these salaries but without children, who with student loans etc are paying over 70% tax and even they are thinking "what is the point?".

If you want state services funded then it needs changing. PPs have posted lots of evidence and research proving this. If you choose to consider penalising these people who provide all of the public goods out of spite, then you'll have to own the consequences of that: these things will be continually downgraded because the money to pay for them will not exist. So make the choice, continue supporting taxing people to death and lose the services and welfare, or support a more sensible system that will actually raise more tax and raise living standards for everyone. It comes down to whether you have sufficient rationality and intelligence to override your jealousy. So I won't hold my breath.

Like I said previously, the UK is a mess largely because it's population is so ignorant and unable to assess facts and data. Seems like they "hate experts", who have done the research on this. People who are, you know, qualified in economics. Went so well last time these people were maligned and ignored. I guess some people never learn...

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 13:48

Bucketheadbucketbum · 19/03/2023 11:43

To be honest it's not so much about the childcare now, although that was the final straw, it's more about the tax cliff edge .

We've reanalysed our situation and just can't get away from the fact we are working harder, for less.

What's the point in life? We could be dead tomorrow and if we are net net net worse off financially working more, why wpuld we choose to spend less time with each other? And to have a more stressful existence? Our lives will be monumentally more enjoyable if we both cut our hours, and we will be better off financially!

We will still be paying tens of thousands in tax so not sure what everyone's problem is- how much tax do you all pay? How many hours do you work a week? How much time do you get with your family? How much stress does your job cause you? How long and how costly is your commute?

Would you really do anything differently? Really. Honestly. No you would not.

OP it's a complete no-brainer. Nobody would do anything differently and work more for less money. Nobody.

People on UC all the time make decisions on working hours because working more would make them only marginally better off. And this is when they are weighing up earning more money themselves versus claiming more money from other taxpayers like you, if they choose to work less. I understand the withdrawal can be up to 67% for them.

People earning £50k are faced with similar choices. Again, almost all (obviously) choose not to work more to earn less. The withdrawal can be up to 80% for them. So obviously also a perfectly rational decision.

People earning £100k are faced with an even more stark choice: work more and lose £27k of net pay for earning £1. The idea that anybody would say it's immoral to choose not to do that is beyond my comprehension. When in fact this decision, unlike the people on UC, involves you still funding everything yourself AND continuing to fund a great deal of the extra support for other families: their rent, living costs, healthcare, their children's education. But you're immoral apparently for not working EVEN MORE, to pay even more to them and make your own family poorer than you are now?!?

Either the respondents saying this are really unintelligent, or have some kind of disability with basic maths, or are completely delusional.

Whichever it is, it matters not. It's not your fault how the system is designed. Obviously you are making the right choice. The only choice really. How would you look your children in the eye and tell them you decided to have a lower income so that you could spend less time with them?

You will still be supporting a very large number of poorer families through the large taxes you'll still be paying, and a little more gratitude for that wouldn't go amiss.

In the meantime, as more and more of our most productive workers who pay for the services and welfare for everyone make the same choices as you, perhaps eventually the message will get through to politicians that they need to fix this, then in the future sometime it may be worth you working more again.

For now, enjoy the increased work/ life balance and time with your children. You've earned it many times over.

Original poster
Bucketheadbucketbum · 19/03/2023 13:57

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 13:48

OP it's a complete no-brainer. Nobody would do anything differently and work more for less money. Nobody.

People on UC all the time make decisions on working hours because working more would make them only marginally better off. And this is when they are weighing up earning more money themselves versus claiming more money from other taxpayers like you, if they choose to work less. I understand the withdrawal can be up to 67% for them.

People earning £50k are faced with similar choices. Again, almost all (obviously) choose not to work more to earn less. The withdrawal can be up to 80% for them. So obviously also a perfectly rational decision.

People earning £100k are faced with an even more stark choice: work more and lose £27k of net pay for earning £1. The idea that anybody would say it's immoral to choose not to do that is beyond my comprehension. When in fact this decision, unlike the people on UC, involves you still funding everything yourself AND continuing to fund a great deal of the extra support for other families: their rent, living costs, healthcare, their children's education. But you're immoral apparently for not working EVEN MORE, to pay even more to them and make your own family poorer than you are now?!?

Either the respondents saying this are really unintelligent, or have some kind of disability with basic maths, or are completely delusional.

Whichever it is, it matters not. It's not your fault how the system is designed. Obviously you are making the right choice. The only choice really. How would you look your children in the eye and tell them you decided to have a lower income so that you could spend less time with them?

You will still be supporting a very large number of poorer families through the large taxes you'll still be paying, and a little more gratitude for that wouldn't go amiss.

In the meantime, as more and more of our most productive workers who pay for the services and welfare for everyone make the same choices as you, perhaps eventually the message will get through to politicians that they need to fix this, then in the future sometime it may be worth you working more again.

For now, enjoy the increased work/ life balance and time with your children. You've earned it many times over.

Show quote history

Thank you!

I just still cannot fathom this is the set up, its bonkers. Not only is there no carrot for working hard and earning more- it turns out the stick is a massive bloody machine gun!!

Never thought I'd be deliberately turning down work or pay rises but, if this is how the government want things to be time work less and to enjoy life for a change. :-)

OP posts:
ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 14:04

Same here. Always worked what most people considered an insane amount. Never begrudged the taxes to help others. Despite supporting myself since I was a teenager with no help from the state whatsoever! Would never, ever have dreamed of turning doen a promotion until recently, when I realised I had no choice but to do so to not lose our home. There is a limit, and nobody is going to work more to receive a far lower net income. 🤣 It's great that in your situation you can make the only real choice available and spend more time with your children. I wish I could enjoy doing the same and not be worrying about is losing the house or how to pay the utility bill because of the single parent double tax. But you absolutely shouldn't feel guilty, when you're still going to be the ones funding everyone else's services and benefits anyway. I hope you really enjoy the better balance. Another silly thing about the system: after people have got used to being forced to work lower hours and enjoyed it, they're less likely to be keen to go back to full time!

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 14:22

And machine gun in the face is absolutely right. I'm embarrassed that I'm struggling to buy my children new school uniform that fits them. I'm selling the car: it's ancient so won't raise much but will help cover some of the childcare cost in the summer holidays. Not sure how we'll pay the fuel bills next winter. My children have disabilities so can't have the house cold but to heat it to the temperature they need would take 30% of my net pay after tax and mortgage and childcare. That would leave us with only £700 for my commuting, food and Council tax. Commuting even with cutting my hours is another £350. Council tax is £150 with single person discount. So we now have £200 for our food and household stuff each month, and their clothes etc plus birthday presents or activites. They are meant to take a bike or scooter into school for an activity on Monday but I can't afford to buy those for them even second hand. School suggested I get them a private OT and SALT. I can't. They are asking what we can do for their birthday parties and where we're going on holiday because they were all talking about it as a topic at school. They won't have any of those things.

Yet people say we are rich. It makes me want to cry tbh. I have had some really dark thoughts recently about how to die without it being obvious I did it on purpose so they'd still get the life insurance as then they'd be able to have a much better life than I can give to them. I have appointed guardians and they'd be well cared for and have the money from the insurance to live a proper life that I can't give to them.

Lostinalibrary · 19/03/2023 14:35

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 14:22

And machine gun in the face is absolutely right. I'm embarrassed that I'm struggling to buy my children new school uniform that fits them. I'm selling the car: it's ancient so won't raise much but will help cover some of the childcare cost in the summer holidays. Not sure how we'll pay the fuel bills next winter. My children have disabilities so can't have the house cold but to heat it to the temperature they need would take 30% of my net pay after tax and mortgage and childcare. That would leave us with only £700 for my commuting, food and Council tax. Commuting even with cutting my hours is another £350. Council tax is £150 with single person discount. So we now have £200 for our food and household stuff each month, and their clothes etc plus birthday presents or activites. They are meant to take a bike or scooter into school for an activity on Monday but I can't afford to buy those for them even second hand. School suggested I get them a private OT and SALT. I can't. They are asking what we can do for their birthday parties and where we're going on holiday because they were all talking about it as a topic at school. They won't have any of those things.

Yet people say we are rich. It makes me want to cry tbh. I have had some really dark thoughts recently about how to die without it being obvious I did it on purpose so they'd still get the life insurance as then they'd be able to have a much better life than I can give to them. I have appointed guardians and they'd be well cared for and have the money from the insurance to live a proper life that I can't give to them.

I am so sorry to read this. People should be absolutely ashamed of themselves on here. I don’t know if it’s ignorance, jealousy or just lack of education. People see 6 figures and think “rich.” Happy for you to work yourself into a grave to pay for their UC, pension, school places and NHS access.

The actual real rich - the real 1% pay nothing. Many people on six figures don’t have savings. People can’t comprehend that. What they also can’t comprehend is 70% of their income going in deductions. With no top-ups, no support and more tax. It should not be the case that you can get a 50k pay rise and only be a few hundred better off a month if you don’t have children.

Personally, the collapse of the welfare system can’t come fast enough. Only 50% of adults or thereabouts pay any income tax. Of those - most are still net recipients through low tax, UC and state services. It’s not sustainable. It’s people like you who are supporting everyone - not the rich.

It’s absolutely perverse and real that a single parent on 6 figures can be living in hardship.

NorthernDrizzle · 19/03/2023 15:14

BashirWithTheGoodBeard · 18/03/2023 18:59

Well the free hours are removed at 100k now so even a non-gradual tapering would offer more incentive than now, but broadly I agree. It's like with the 50-60k in England being both the 40% tax rate and CB withdrawal territory. They do it that way for administrative reasons afaik, but the flipside is the creation of more and steeper bottlenecks. To which people respond.

Show quote history

No they are not
Everyone gets 15 hours over 38 weeks so 570 hours a year
The additional 15 are removed, worth less than £6k a year - even at the new higher rate proposed.

Happyvalleyfan · 19/03/2023 15:21

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 14:22

And machine gun in the face is absolutely right. I'm embarrassed that I'm struggling to buy my children new school uniform that fits them. I'm selling the car: it's ancient so won't raise much but will help cover some of the childcare cost in the summer holidays. Not sure how we'll pay the fuel bills next winter. My children have disabilities so can't have the house cold but to heat it to the temperature they need would take 30% of my net pay after tax and mortgage and childcare. That would leave us with only £700 for my commuting, food and Council tax. Commuting even with cutting my hours is another £350. Council tax is £150 with single person discount. So we now have £200 for our food and household stuff each month, and their clothes etc plus birthday presents or activites. They are meant to take a bike or scooter into school for an activity on Monday but I can't afford to buy those for them even second hand. School suggested I get them a private OT and SALT. I can't. They are asking what we can do for their birthday parties and where we're going on holiday because they were all talking about it as a topic at school. They won't have any of those things.

Yet people say we are rich. It makes me want to cry tbh. I have had some really dark thoughts recently about how to die without it being obvious I did it on purpose so they'd still get the life insurance as then they'd be able to have a much better life than I can give to them. I have appointed guardians and they'd be well cared for and have the money from the insurance to live a proper life that I can't give to them.

This sounds really tough-
With a special needs child- can you get PIPs?
Hope it will get easier once you don’t have to pay wrap around care.

Happyvalleyfan · 19/03/2023 15:27

www.gov.uk/disability-living-allowance-children/eligibility

sorry if you already know about this

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 15:34

Again, for those confused, please read the evidence posted on the thread: many graphs and articles with the research demonstrating the issue.

https://www.taxpolicy.org.uk/2022/10/04/marginal/

^^ This is a good visual representation, although obviously the latest budget makes it even worse. Per the other articles also available in the thread.

If you cannot be bothered to understand the basic maths or read the evidence, then please refrain from commenting, because it's just pointless to voice opinions when they have no relationship to reality.

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 15:50

This sounds really tough-
With a special needs child- can you get PIPs?
Hope it will get easier once you don’t have to pay wrap around care.

I applied for DLA for them. The answer was no. Even though both have diagnosed conditions, had reports sent from psychologists, paediatricians, OTs, nannies, them really struggling with school etc. They can't be unsupervised for a minute, they can't sleep. They are in immense emotional distress. But apparently do not meet the criteria for support. I have challenged this. Still no.

It's not just wrap around care. They need 1:1 care so can't do clubs before school/ after school or in holidays. I have 5 weeks per year of AL so 7 weeks to cover, plus inset days, illness, strikes. That is with me getting zero time on my own, ever, that is not at work or caring for them. I also have to go away for business trips. In bad months with school holidays and work commitments the childcare cost (even with "tax free" childcare that isn't tax free, just 20% discount which will also vanish if I earn £1 more per year) the childcare cost can be over £3.5k per month. Apparently I shouldn't be using this discount though anyway and should pay it myself according to many posters on this thread! My children are not eligible for SS support etc apparently because of my income. The irony, when we have £200 per month left for food and any other things like clothes, birthdays, etc.

There is no help for us. We are just a cash cow to fund everyone else's help even if it leaves my children in poverty. And hardly seeing their mother, so that they have a roof over their heads. As I said upthread, I have seen the calculations and if I'd never worked, never got a degree or professional qualifications or worked all those hours or bought a house we'd have everything funded by people like the OP (and me!) and twice the disposable income that we do now, with me not working at all and here to support them 24/7.

It makes no sense to me.