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
Dibblydoodahdah · 19/03/2023 19:16

@Ejkmama are you a net contributor? The OP is so no one is picking up her bill even if she works a bit less. Why are you economically illiterate?

ScruffyGiraffe · 19/03/2023 19:17

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..

What utter crap. I've supported myself since I was a teenager and never, ever had any benefits etc. Many peoole do not. It's not "priviledge" to work full time through A levels and a degree to support yourself. It's not "priviledge" to work crazy hours all through your 20s and early 30s the build a career. This assumption that people owe you something or must have had it easier than you because they've achieved more is not just distasteful but in many cases completely false.

Noname77 · 19/03/2023 19:27

HospitalitySux · 18/03/2023 14:42

Exactly.

It's ok to do what you need to do to have a decent life if you consider yourself the 'Squeezed middle' - not so much if you're lower down the scale and struggle to survive instead. Then you're a lazy scrounger who doesn't have aspirations.

Show quote history

Agree

bigbabycooker · 19/03/2023 19:34

@Ilikepinacoladass

I agree, definitely that dropping out of the workforce and not earning entirely is very risky ( I think pp was a nurse and did occasional bank shifts, so at least in theory she might be able to scale up in the event if a split) because not everyone can rely on their partner which is why government policy is madness - good quality childcare should be available to all.

ThreeFeetTall · 19/03/2023 19:35

Haven't read the whole thread but did working part time not occur to you before? Kind of odd you are doing this purely because you will be better off and not because you want to spend more time with your kids or have better work life balance (when you were clearly rich enough to have these choices before)

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 19:38

not so much if you're lower down the scale and struggle to survive instead. Then you're a lazy scrounger who doesn't have aspirations.

Explain to me why I should work my arse off and have hardly any time with my children to pay for those people "lower down the income scale" to have far more disposable income than I do because so much of what I earn is taken from me and given to them? So mucj that I can't feed my children properly or pay to heat their home properly despite earning £100k per year, and apparently should pay even more of the money that I earn to people who did not earn it, so that their children can have a better standard of living than mine? Would love to hear how you think this is "fair".

AngryBirdsNoMore · 19/03/2023 19:39

Ok this has made me look up salaries around the £50k-£70k mark as people have mentioned this a few times.

£50k = take home pay of £3168
£60k = take home pay of £3654 and no child benefit

that’s a bit mad.

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 19:40

Even after this thread, with links and facts and graphs and research and then also personal stories spelling out the very real and effects of all of this, still all of these stupid and facile comments talking about "privilege". Just what the actual fuck is wrong with people?!

Mycatsgoldtooth · 19/03/2023 19:41

Do it op. So many people on this thread that have no idea how the tax system effects higher earners. Why should op work extra hours just for that money to go to the government and not her family. Why should she pay for someone on 30k to have a child care for free, child benefit that she’s not entitled to and then be told she’s an awful person. If she’s earning over 100k and so is her husband they will be paying massive amounts of tax. But on mumsnet those paying high taxes are evil, those claiming benefits are saints.

bigbabycooker · 19/03/2023 19:42

@MaidOfSteel

No, not moaning about people on benefits at all. Moaning about the fact that government policy on taxation means that you basically don't keep any of your money if you earn between £100k and £150k, which disincentivises working hard to pay for others who may not be so fortunate. Most people do work for money, after all

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 19:44

AngryBirdsNoMore · 19/03/2023 19:39

Ok this has made me look up salaries around the £50k-£70k mark as people have mentioned this a few times.

£50k = take home pay of £3168
£60k = take home pay of £3654 and no child benefit

that’s a bit mad.

Have a look at net take home pay that is less at £135k than at £99k. If people can't accept that is absurd and will mean the very people we need to earn more to pay for everyone else will stop doing so, then UK welfare/ services are doomed to collapse entirely before much longer. Why would anybody bother?

Mandyjack · 19/03/2023 19:45

A lot of companies will let you reduce your hours if you ask. I dropped from 37 to 30 a few years back so do 4.5 days

Clymene · 19/03/2023 19:47

Gosh what a lot of very unpleasant people this thread has spawned. Many of whom can't spell despite their high paying jobs.

Absolute mystery

StatisticallyChallenged · 19/03/2023 19:49

AngryBirdsNoMore · 19/03/2023 19:39

Ok this has made me look up salaries around the £50k-£70k mark as people have mentioned this a few times.

£50k = take home pay of £3168
£60k = take home pay of £3654 and no child benefit

that’s a bit mad.

(Not checked the salary numbers) - but this means that with two kids the first number is effectively £3325 - so for an extra 10k you actually walk away with a benefit of £3948 per year

Ignoring the childcare issue, £100k is £5370 and £110k is £5661, so you walk away with an extra £3492 per year (Scottish numbers).

Jonei · 19/03/2023 19:49

Crikey. I am very tempted to drop my work hours and spend more time with my kids. I actually think I will be significantly better off.

Mandyjack · 19/03/2023 19:50

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 19:38

not so much if you're lower down the scale and struggle to survive instead. Then you're a lazy scrounger who doesn't have aspirations.

Explain to me why I should work my arse off and have hardly any time with my children to pay for those people "lower down the income scale" to have far more disposable income than I do because so much of what I earn is taken from me and given to them? So mucj that I can't feed my children properly or pay to heat their home properly despite earning £100k per year, and apparently should pay even more of the money that I earn to people who did not earn it, so that their children can have a better standard of living than mine? Would love to hear how you think this is "fair".

I'm one of this people lower down the scale but you're not giving anything to me? I pay tax, NI, pension, full council tax etc. I don't claim any benefits so I earn all my money.

Mandyjack · 19/03/2023 19:51

Jonei · 19/03/2023 19:49

Crikey. I am very tempted to drop my work hours and spend more time with my kids. I actually think I will be significantly better off.

You absolutely should, you can always increase them later on. The years go so quick.

Jonei · 19/03/2023 19:53

Mandyjack · 19/03/2023 19:51

You absolutely should, you can always increase them later on. The years go so quick.

Show quote history

Definitely.

Janus · 19/03/2023 19:53

This won’t actually come into full effect until 2025, so you are assuming the tories will actually win the election? I don’t think I’d reduce my hours assuming the tories will win?

AngryBirdsNoMore · 19/03/2023 19:54

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 19:44

Have a look at net take home pay that is less at £135k than at £99k. If people can't accept that is absurd and will mean the very people we need to earn more to pay for everyone else will stop doing so, then UK welfare/ services are doomed to collapse entirely before much longer. Why would anybody bother?

Show quote history

Hang on, looked up those figures and 135000 is still much more per month after tax than 99000?

Mandyjack · 19/03/2023 19:55

DannyZukosSmile · 18/03/2023 13:58

You won't be the first to do this. I know someone who purposely does a smaller amount of hours every March or April, to drop her normal monthly wage of £1150-ish to £800-850, so she can fill in an HC1 and get full help with health costs all year. Free prescriptions, free dental, £60 voucher towards glasses, free eye tests, help with travel costs to hospital or specialists etc....

£350-ish wage loss to potentially save multiple 100s over a year. (£750 to £900 typically.) She doesn't have to worry about a filling dropping out or a tooth chipping or needing multiple prescriptions etc, as it's all covered.

That's how ridiculous things are in this country. You are only OK if you're a very high earner/rich, OR if you are financially poor, coz you get lots of help from the Government.

I know a few people who are/were on less than £20K a year joint income whose young adult children got 1000s thrown at them in grants and bursaries, and they had more money at uni than many students who had parents on £45-55K a year joint income. The ones whose parents were proper loaded were OK, but the students of the middle earners were fucked, because they got NOTHING, but their parents were not well off enough to give them anything.

@Bucketheadbucketbum Ignore the naysayers and the haters calling you grabby and lazy etc... they're just jealous and bitter. Most people would give their left arm to work only 3 days a week and have more time with their children. And as I say, it's the SYSTEM making you do this. If most jobs paid a lot better and gave people good money/plenty of surplus income, people would not be inclined to do this.

Are you quoting her gross or net pay? I've never been entitled to anything and earn around that figure

AntarcticGiraffe · 19/03/2023 19:56

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 17:26

Thanks @PipMumsnet I appreciate it. But as I've explained, the only thing that will help us is if this penalisation through the tax system of single parents - almost all women - is removed. Then I'd have plenty of money to provide my children with a decent life, as other households with the same income but two parents do, because they are not penalised like this through tax. The best thing you could do for me and the many other single mothers in my situation is to campaign for change to these tax rules so that they are levied on a household basis. Then we could be on a level playing field at least financially - even though we are still trying to do in 24 hours what other people do in 48 - and provide decent lives for our children. Not be pushed to such extreme choices where there is no other way out.

Will you read the thread and the evidence posted? Will Mumsnet do something about it and campaign to get the same thresholds for tax, childcare etc applied to single parent households that are applied to other households? Instead of us doing two jobs in 24 hours not 48 and then being taxed MORE on what we earn, as well?

If not, your apparent concern for me is of no value. If you cared whatsoever about women or children or me or my children you'd be launching a campaign to get this fixed.

Tumbleweed @PipMumsnet

Snippit · 19/03/2023 19:58

I had one child as it’s very expensive for childcare. So let me get this right, I pay my tax for everyone’s childcare, yeah, great 👍

AngryBirdsNoMore · 19/03/2023 19:58

People on £150k aren’t your enemy.

People on benefits aren’t your enemy.

Neither is actually detracting from your life (most likely).

The billionaires and multi multi millionaires who are paying disproportionately little tax or none at all…there’s the issue with our tax system and our society.

ScruffyGiraffes · 19/03/2023 20:00

Hang on, looked up those figures and 135000 is still much more per month after tax than 99000?

No. Read the thread. If you have children, by earning £1 over £100k you are instantly tens of thousands of pounds worse off in net pay. You then need to earn tens of thousands of pounds more to get back to the same net pay you had at £99k. The thread is full of graphs and posts and links etc, if somehow you've managed to miss the many press reports on this by OBR, IFS, FT, Times, Guardian, various professional economists, etc.