Page 19 | DH and I going part time to deliberately reduce wages

JT12 · 19/03/2023 17:55

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 16:05

They will need this childcare all through primary at least and perhaps longer. I think I have to accept that even with £100k salary on paper I can't provide adequately for them. I have tried every avenue to get help: SS, DLA, etc. All say "no". I can't do any more because me working more would make them worse off. So the options left are: 1) put them into care (no); or 2) get rid of mummy so you get the payout and can live a decent life.

People like you deserve all the help you can get though. Please don’t think this way. Even the fact this is your train of thoughts suggests that you are a loving, caring mum who would do anything to make sure her children were cared for. That in itself is why they need you. No one will ever love them and protect them like you can - and yes, horrible as it is being homeless is better than not having you. You need to reach out to get care and support no matter how small. Get through day by day and cherish your life and your children. There will be a way out - sending virtual hugs

Silentmama · 19/03/2023 17:58

YukoandHiro · 18/03/2023 14:30

In the short term (2-3 years) you will be better off. In the long term over the next 20-25 years you will be considerably worse off. Please think about your future prospects not just these awful punch years

The OP talks about 'dropping sessions' - I'd assume once the 'perk' is gone - they could just 'up the sessions' again

The whole system is flawed and needs radical reform

LovelyLisa2 · 19/03/2023 18:01

Remember that you will probably end up with a worse job in the long term and in experience things get more expensive not cheaper when they get to school age.

JillinSwindon · 19/03/2023 18:05

Depending on what your jobs are, and leaving aside the "moral' aspect of the situation, it sounds like a wonderful opportunity to enjoy a more relaxed family life while your children are little, and spend time to enjoy each other's company as well. You'd have the opportunity to do things you might otherwise have to do at the weekends, or pay people to do - decorating, gardening, cleaning etc. So that sort of thing could make up for your lower wages.

Penguinsaregreat · 19/03/2023 18:06

I have no idea what the proposed new childcare scene will entail. However, I support your decision op. Why on earth should you work so much harder to gain hardly any reward? It’s crazy. Like others have posted, plenty of people screw the system and they don’t work at all!!
A large % of then through choice.

Penny1979 · 19/03/2023 18:10

If its available I would do it. The government are the worst for the tax payers. All the expenses, second homes etc, the bailing out of the banks for the bankers to get bonuses. Why not. We don't have a moral society and we may as well take advantages of any loop holes in the system if it means better quality of life as let's face it most others are.

CantFindMyMarbles · 19/03/2023 18:12

If you’re both reducing your hours you won’t actually need that much childcare. If you work different days you’d only need 1 or 2 days childcare a week.

MarvellousMonsters · 19/03/2023 18:16

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!

Honestly I think everyone should do this. It means you actually get to parent your children, and this kind of work-life balance is really important. I know a few couples who both work 4 days a week, meaning their children go to nursery 3 days a week and spend the other four days with one or both parents.

Kaiserchief · 19/03/2023 18:21

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.

You only don’t get the free 30hrs when working if you earn over £100k so I imagine the OP & husband are putting a large amount into the tax system already.

Greenshed · 19/03/2023 18:22

Won’t it have an effect on your pensions? Might not seem a problem now, but could do nearer retirement age unless you make up the significant shortfall before then.

restingbitchface30 · 19/03/2023 18:22

If you can do it then why not! I am all for working less and having more family time. Better for you, better for kids. It’s insane we live in a world where we are expected to work until we drop and have limited time with people we love doing what we love.

MaidOfSteel · 19/03/2023 18:28

What a bloody awful thread.

Well off people moaning that they pay for people receiving benefits. Clearly, these posters have no idea why many claimants end up on benefits.

landbeforegrime · 19/03/2023 18:31

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

the fact this needs to be explained is so depressing. it should be obvious common knowledge and the negetive comments on this post suggesting op is grabby and relying on others to pay for her dc is so ignorant it makes me realise that the uk is definitely going even further down the proverbial than i suspected. in a very similar position and not a chance i will be working a penny over £100k. taking my 3 day week, staying a net contributer and absolutely planning on leaving the uk and encouraging dc to do the exact same at the first opportunity available. it's a place of jealousy, anti-ambition and far too many lazy entitled people for me to feel inclined to keep on being the net contributing mug that i have been for the past 20 years. only people left at some point will presumably be those who take more than they give.

mellicauli · 19/03/2023 18:34

Things you should realise about reducing your hours which I learned from 10 years as a part timer:

It will make you more disposable at work: they never give the part timers prime projects or promotions. When it's redundancy time, they tend to be fair game.
If you decide you want to increase your hours and times are tough, your employer may not
Your outgoings will probably increase if you stay at home an extra 2 days a week. It's a lot easier not to spend money when you are at work than . YOu'll have to heat your home. Then there's discretionary spend - a coffee here, a car parking fee here - all adds up.
YOur colleagues may resent your part time status
Usually work isn't cut down to fit into 3 days. You get the same amount of work and less time to do it in.
There are negative effects on state and company pensions.

Funding · 19/03/2023 18:43

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.

But if they are just over the threshold they could be about £20k better off. And you pay so much tax at that rate too, you are hit twice.

It's hard to see how it should be such a large penalty and not at all tapered

Since they are in the top 10% of earners they have been carrying people for ages through tax.

Additionally, often people in this income bracket could have had children earlier and then recover earnings later. If you saved to have kids and built up your income then compared to those younger parents on the same earning trajectory, they end up much worse off for having considered their finances and saved

Ilikepinacoladass · 19/03/2023 18:51

bigbabycooker · 18/03/2023 20:18

@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.

That's true. Although think you would be putting yourself in a risky situation to do all those things to facilitate your partner earning money, not having a job yourself and giving up career. Especially if you split up.

mandlerparr · 19/03/2023 18:55

I think it is more of a math problem. If daycare costs more than what you are making during those hours, what is the incentive to work? Most of the time, in these situations, the woman is made to take the hit by leaving the workforce or only working 1-2 days a week. This way, both are still working.

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 19:05

Lostinalibrary · 19/03/2023 16:23

I used to be that person who would scoff at higher earners and say “you deserve to pay more.” Until you actually see the eye watering amounts of tax - especially at 100k you just can’t comprehend how much is deducted at source. It’s much higher than the headline rate. Combine that with all the losses you are indeed worse off for working. It really doesn’t pay to do well in this country. Hence the state of the economy. People cannot even fathom how you don’t have “loadsa money” because they don’t see all the direct/stealth taxes.

All of the heavy lifting in this economy is done by people on about 100k. Professionals who have done well. They are paying for everyone including their richer peers who don’t contribute. All to be left with less disposable income than most. It’s ok though - they are rich and it must be a budgeting issue.

Labour’s plan will collapse the economy and welfare state even more. I actually think it’s what the country needs to be honest. Then people will realise that everyone should be paying their share not just the tiny percentage on PAYE at 6 figures.

If you look at Denmark, Sweden etc the tax rates on higher earners are quite similar to the UK. Actually lower mostly. And not with these perverse bottlenecks, with the tax rate escalating to 89% then dropping down then up to over 100% then down to 47%. But importantly the difference is not that higher earners are taxed more - they can't actually be taxed more than they are in the UK - it's that the tax base is wider: it's accepted that everyone should contribute to public services and there is then enough money for everyone to receive decent services.

In the UK services are failing because an ever smaller group of people are the only ones funding them. And they are then being told that a) they shouldn't also use the services they are funding for themselves and everyone else; and b) that it's selfish to refuse to work more when you'd be taxed over 100% on that income.

Totally mind boggling. And the result of it all is that I can no longer provide for my children because I am paying so much to support other people's children. But if you have the audacity to complain about it you are told it's "disgusting" and just keep giving them the money, how dare you access the public services you pay for, how dare you expect any time with your child, who cares if you cannot afford their home or uniform or food or the people you are funding have way more spare money than you? Just shut up, cash cow, and carry on working more and give money to us, money money money and who gives a shit if you can't heat your house properly for your disabled kids? We'll think of you while we're on holiday this year and raise a glass while you're busy moving your children out of their home because we've bled you so dry you can't afford the mortgage anymore of feed them properly. Because we need your money that you earned MUCH more than you do, so we don't give a fuck if you can't afford to live. Just give us more!!

Buildingthefuture · 19/03/2023 19:06

I can absolutely see why you would do that. The system allows it and it benefits you. But, do it in the full knowledge that other people (I.e me!) are paying for your choices.
I have made different choices..those choices have ended with me being a higher rate tax payer. I have never been gifted anything, I’ve never inherited anything (other than a massively strong work ethic - thank you mother!) and I have never received a penny from the state. Despite what MN says, some of us have worked our way up from the bottom. And yes, we do wonder why we have to pay for you and your choices. But, it is what it is and we keep plugging away. I’ve no choice but to keep paying my taxes, you apparently have an easier choice. More power to your elbow, but me and people like me are paying for it.

saltwater1985 · 19/03/2023 19:08

You do what's best for your family.
The govt fuck ups are not our responsibility.
Take the money and run, it's not a race to the bottom and you don't get a medial for working your arse off if you don't have to.

StatisticallyChallenged · 19/03/2023 19:08

Buildingthefuture · 19/03/2023 19:06

I can absolutely see why you would do that. The system allows it and it benefits you. But, do it in the full knowledge that other people (I.e me!) are paying for your choices.
I have made different choices..those choices have ended with me being a higher rate tax payer. I have never been gifted anything, I’ve never inherited anything (other than a massively strong work ethic - thank you mother!) and I have never received a penny from the state. Despite what MN says, some of us have worked our way up from the bottom. And yes, we do wonder why we have to pay for you and your choices. But, it is what it is and we keep plugging away. I’ve no choice but to keep paying my taxes, you apparently have an easier choice. More power to your elbow, but me and people like me are paying for it.

The OP will be reducing her wage to just under £100k, as will her DH. Don't think you are paying for it in their case.

Lostinalibrary · 19/03/2023 19:12

Buildingthefuture · 19/03/2023 19:06

I can absolutely see why you would do that. The system allows it and it benefits you. But, do it in the full knowledge that other people (I.e me!) are paying for your choices.
I have made different choices..those choices have ended with me being a higher rate tax payer. I have never been gifted anything, I’ve never inherited anything (other than a massively strong work ethic - thank you mother!) and I have never received a penny from the state. Despite what MN says, some of us have worked our way up from the bottom. And yes, we do wonder why we have to pay for you and your choices. But, it is what it is and we keep plugging away. I’ve no choice but to keep paying my taxes, you apparently have an easier choice. More power to your elbow, but me and people like me are paying for it.

No - you’re not.

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 19:13

Buildingthefuture · 19/03/2023 19:06

I can absolutely see why you would do that. The system allows it and it benefits you. But, do it in the full knowledge that other people (I.e me!) are paying for your choices.
I have made different choices..those choices have ended with me being a higher rate tax payer. I have never been gifted anything, I’ve never inherited anything (other than a massively strong work ethic - thank you mother!) and I have never received a penny from the state. Despite what MN says, some of us have worked our way up from the bottom. And yes, we do wonder why we have to pay for you and your choices. But, it is what it is and we keep plugging away. I’ve no choice but to keep paying my taxes, you apparently have an easier choice. More power to your elbow, but me and people like me are paying for it.

You are NOT paying for the OP. She and her HD are paying for the services they are using several times over. Even with the cut in hours, they will still be funding themselves and many other families. If you're a higher rate taxpayer, you are now just about covering your own cost. If you're further into higher rate, you're now covering yourself and contributing a bit to others. OP and DH have been supporting themselves and many other families for many years. Them deciding to cut their hours slightly and still pay in way more than they get out, still covering themselves AND supporting others, but also spend some time with their own kids costs you nothing. Zero. They have never cost taxpayers anything and still won't, they'll still be paying for things for everyone else. So maybe rein in the sanctimonious bullshit and say "thank you OP for helping us all so much".

Ungrateful idiots.

AviMav · 19/03/2023 19:13

Buildingthefuture · 19/03/2023 19:06

I can absolutely see why you would do that. The system allows it and it benefits you. But, do it in the full knowledge that other people (I.e me!) are paying for your choices.
I have made different choices..those choices have ended with me being a higher rate tax payer. I have never been gifted anything, I’ve never inherited anything (other than a massively strong work ethic - thank you mother!) and I have never received a penny from the state. Despite what MN says, some of us have worked our way up from the bottom. And yes, we do wonder why we have to pay for you and your choices. But, it is what it is and we keep plugging away. I’ve no choice but to keep paying my taxes, you apparently have an easier choice. More power to your elbow, but me and people like me are paying for it.

You can't of had it that hard "starting from the bottom" if you have "NEVER claimed a penny from the state"

Sounds like you have come from a pretty privileged place..

Lostinalibrary · 19/03/2023 19:15

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 19:05

If you look at Denmark, Sweden etc the tax rates on higher earners are quite similar to the UK. Actually lower mostly. And not with these perverse bottlenecks, with the tax rate escalating to 89% then dropping down then up to over 100% then down to 47%. But importantly the difference is not that higher earners are taxed more - they can't actually be taxed more than they are in the UK - it's that the tax base is wider: it's accepted that everyone should contribute to public services and there is then enough money for everyone to receive decent services.

In the UK services are failing because an ever smaller group of people are the only ones funding them. And they are then being told that a) they shouldn't also use the services they are funding for themselves and everyone else; and b) that it's selfish to refuse to work more when you'd be taxed over 100% on that income.

Totally mind boggling. And the result of it all is that I can no longer provide for my children because I am paying so much to support other people's children. But if you have the audacity to complain about it you are told it's "disgusting" and just keep giving them the money, how dare you access the public services you pay for, how dare you expect any time with your child, who cares if you cannot afford their home or uniform or food or the people you are funding have way more spare money than you? Just shut up, cash cow, and carry on working more and give money to us, money money money and who gives a shit if you can't heat your house properly for your disabled kids? We'll think of you while we're on holiday this year and raise a glass while you're busy moving your children out of their home because we've bled you so dry you can't afford the mortgage anymore of feed them properly. Because we need your money that you earned MUCH more than you do, so we don't give a fuck if you can't afford to live. Just give us more!!

Show quote history

Good luck to them. They will end up with the country they deserve. Destitute with no public services and no welfare. Only 50% ish adults pay any form of income tax. Out of that a minute amount are net contributors. The will end up with nothing too. Forcing a country into stagnation is not a bright idea for a country which relies on taxes to fund the bloated welfare state.