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!

Unless you are a higher rate tax payer you do not cover your own costs.

The same issues exist. No one is captive least of all the very top. Other countries would be very happy to attract that wealth.

There’s not much point in demonising them either.

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.

If you've ever used the NHS, state education, or plan on claiming a state pension, then yes you are being funded by others, unless you've been considerably into the higher rate tax band for most of your working life.

Our first baby is due in June. I earn £95k but bonus is usually £5k or just over and potentially any future 'inflationary' pay rise also pushes me over. My partner earns less but is also changing careers at the end of the year so he could be earning a lot less from 2024, depending on where he lands (military service ending). My salary will just about cover all bills and food, but very little left over due to mortgage and energy bills, which were all much cheaper when we moved here.

Our mortgage is massive (we live in South East) and childcare is pricey, but we luckily have secured some. Our plan was for me to do compressed hours but now we're not sure what to do for the best. Not even sure where to get the best advice from. It's annoying to miss out on the childcare, but more annoying is the 60% tax, more so cos people earning more pay less effective tax under the new tax rules, which is unfair. The double whammy is why we're considering options. They've really planned that bit of the tax changes out in a very unfair way. This is Money Podcasts said I'd have to earn £133k to be back up to the same take home pay. Why have they deliberately structured things that way? guess options are:

Drop to 4 days. Can probably do this and shouldn't impact career as am already senior. Can then over time look to secure full time job that gets us back up to what we had.

Look at this pension contribution thing. Not sure how that works or if it will help us.

Ask work not to pay me a bonus or give me any future payrises, which is galling as I work hard and would be bad longer term.

Not expecting sympathy. I grew up very poor so am more than aware how privileged we are, but I also think every family does what they can to maximise income. £100k is a lot, but it's not wealthy these days. We're comfortable (and want to stay that way), we're not living the high life and if they've structured the system so I take home less for doing the same job, miss out on help with childcare whilst someone earning a few pounds less than me gets to keep more of their money and get that help, I am going to look into how to keep our take-home where it is.

@Buildingthefuture

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 ANYTHING that lower earners are getting. Educate yourself. Your post is unbelievably sanctimonious and arrogant..... 'WORK HARDER AND YOU WILL BE AS SUCCESSFUL AS MEEEEEEEEEEE...' and 'Why should I have to bankroll all the poor people who didn't work as hard as meeeeee?' URGH! What a vile post !

Funny though, isn't it, how people on much higher salaries, seem to loathe lower earners a lot more than lower earners seem to loathe the higher earners.

There's so much vitriol and disdain from the higher earners for people who earn less. Like they don't deserve it because they 'obviously haven't worked as hard' and 'didn't work as hard at school, blah blah blah.' Don't even pretend that the lower earners vitriol towards the higher earners, is as bad as the higher earners vitriol towards the lower earners.

@Mandyjack a lot of the discussion on this thread revolves around whether someone is a net contributor or a net beneficiary. The OP is a net contributor even if she works slightly less. There are many people who are net beneficiaries even when working full time, paying council tax etc. because they “take” more from the system than they pay in; e.g a state school place is about £7k per child per year so if you’ve got two children you’re “taking out” £14k per year. Now I have no problem with that but what I do have a problem with is people criticising the morals of the OP because she is considering working slightly less and spending more time with her children which will be facilitated by the availability of state subsidised childcare. The OP will still be paying far more than she is taking it.

I‘m not disagreeing with you, Scruffy, I’m just trying to understand. It’s not an area I’ve thought much about before - I’m not a high earner and I’ll never earn that amount of money. If it’s the case as you say, then I’m agreeing with you that it’s a mad mad system.

How about you shove your biscuit up your xxxx, @DannyZukosSmile

Or read the thread.

If you’ve got kids in state education who use the NHS you’re probably not covering your own costs even if you’re a higher rate taxpayer. It’s entirely possible that a childless, healthy basic rate tax payer covers their costs.

@DannyZukosSmile read through the thread again. No one has criticised the morals of lower earners but plenty have criticised the morals of the OP even though she is paying far more than she is taking out.

so by reducing your hours , you not only get more free childcare but you will also get more benefits to top up your reduced salary. Wow! who pays for this, would that be the fools working full time?

Absof*inglutely, and you are welcome to my taxes to do this if that's people's worries 🙄 Don't listen to their nonsense - they're jealous. The government has made it so impossible to work, raise a family and stay sane that I say do what you have to. The 1% always will. Plus you'd be better parents too no doubt with the extra time off. Sounds lovely and good luck to you both ❤️

Funny though, isn't it, how people on much higher salaries, seem to loathe lower earners a lot more than lower earners seem to loathe the higher earners.

There's so much vitriol and disdain from the higher earners for people who earn less. Like they don't deserve it because they 'obviously haven't worked as hard' and 'didn't work as hard at school, blah blah blah.' Don't even pretend that the lower earners vitriol towards the higher earners, is as bad as the higher earners vitriol towards the lower earners.

Errr, no. The vitriol has been almost entirely the other way around. And from people who haven't bothered to read the thread (what a surprise...) or lack the ability to understand the issue being discussed.

Why should someone earning more have LESS left to live on after tax, housing and childcare than the people that they are funding?

@ScruffyGiraffe you're not going to get an answer to this, as they are motivated by spite rather then logic. Hope you’re ok, things sound tough for you.

They're reducing their hours to reduce income to under £99k I doubt they will be getting any salary top up.

Your earning an extra £486 per month.
Child benefit is only £80 a month.

Talk about self righteous.

Depends how many children. In my job you would also pay another £100 or so for your pension.

What benefits?! Two earners each just under £100k are not going to be getting benefits

I haven't read the whole thread but there's more to work than just income. Reducing hours to part time means you'll be overlooked for promotion opportunities and miss out on networking. While in theory, changes for career progression shouldn't just be limited to FTEs, the reality is different. If it weren't, women's careers wouldn't take the 'mummy track'. But the truth is that they do.

On another note, I can't believe the first reaction of so many MNers on hearing the plans to make childcare more affordable for 98% of the population is to whine 'but what about meeeeeeeee' rather than seeing it as a good thing for the economy and women in general.

I got my 15 hours a week and that was it. It never occurred to me to be resentful of women who came after me who got 30 hours. Or that I got fewer benefits as a HR taxpayer. Must have missed out on the seething with resentment gene somewhere along the line. Maybe you need to be a lot younger to be so angry about poorer people getting things from the government

@AviMav not if you have two children. It’s £130. Plus for many people (like myself when my kids were younger) earning £60k would have meant an extra days childcare. So I would have been out of the house another day per week and spending less time with my children for £200 extra per month - and that was with only one child in childcare. With two I was actually worse off earning £60k than when earning £50k.

@Dibblydoodahdah yes your right. No disrespect I agree about the childcare costs if you work more but this is the case for nearly everyone is it not?

So Clymene tell me how long did it take you to climb out of the 65% tax bracket (eg. go from taxable earnings of £100-125k) ? It took me 4 years, thank goodness I didn't have increased childcare costs at the same time.