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!

[Blossomtoes]

@Blossomtoes

Yes.

My only caveat is that the money has to be spent on bettering society not making rich people richer.

[MarshaBradyo]

@ScruffyGiraffes

It certainly shows that economics not being part of the national curriculum is a huge problem.

Yes I think this on reading some posts

[ScruffyGiraffes]

@Blossomtoes

This is one of the most basic economic principles: that people will act in their self-interest.

That isn’t always the case. On paper I should be a natural Tory voter - home owner, higher rate tax payer for decades, investment portfolio - and I would never, ever vote for any party that would make me richer at the expense of making other people poorer.

This comment is also ridiculous in itself, although it was unrelated to my comment.

The logical conclusion of what you've just said is that you'd support a party proposing 100% tax on all of your income and assets so that they can be redustributed to everyone else.

Most people are fundamentally decent and what they want is not these extremes, but a fair balance that means the poorest have a decent quality of life while those who work extremely hard to earn more get to keep a sensible amount of it to make that worth their while, while also paying more than others to help those who don't/ can't do this. Policies that actually work, are fair to everyone, and have better overall outcomes for everybody both financially and socially.

As you can see the current setup is not working. Unfortunately Labour don't seem to have the right policies to fix it, either. We don't have any credible politicians in the HOC.

[Happyvalleyfan]

@Blossomtoes

Yes.

Were / are your investment portfolios done in a tax efficient eg ISAs or in a pension?
Did you do this to save tax on your savings?
How is this any different to what OP and @ScruffyGiraffes have done to be tax efficient?

It’s easy to be sanctimonious about other people’s choices.

[Jonei]

@Blossomtoes

My only caveat is that the money has to be spent on bettering society not making rich people richer.

I wouldn't vote for a party that wanted to tax me even more.

[pomegranatejuice]

Personally, I would hang on. There is not enough funding in the sector to provide places or facilities, a lot of places have already closed and more are likely to. It has been designed deliberately to coincide with the election, and if and when Labour get in the Tories will just walk away!. Early years providers are up in arms.

[Blossomtoes]

The logical conclusion of what you've just said is that you'd support a party proposing 100% tax on all of your income and assets so that they can be redustributed to everyone else.

That isn’t the logical conclusion at all. I think you’re allowing your disagreement with me to cloud your judgement. Read what I actually said:

I would never, ever vote for any party that would make me richer at the expense of making other people poorer.

[HandlebarLadyTash]

Pension, pension, pension. Please dont forget you will have less employer contributions getting stockpiled. You might not be making a great saving & your long term contributions make a lot of difference.

[ScruffyGiraffes]

@Blossomtoes

The logical conclusion of what you've just said is that you'd support a party proposing 100% tax on all of your income and assets so that they can be redustributed to everyone else.

That isn’t the logical conclusion at all. I think you’re allowing your disagreement with me to cloud your judgement. Read what I actually said:

I would never, ever vote for any party that would make me richer at the expense of making other people poorer.

You'll be richer without 100% tax on your income and assets. And the others that your income and assets would be given to instead would be poorer without them. So, according to your principle you would support that tax.

[Blossomtoes]

@Happyvalleyfan

Were / are your investment portfolios done in a tax efficient eg ISAs or in a pension?
Did you do this to save tax on your savings?
How is this any different to what OP and @ScruffyGiraffes have done to be tax efficient?

It’s easy to be sanctimonious about other people’s choices.

I wasn’t being sanctimonious. I was simply saying that I would never vote for a party that would make me richer at the expense of making other people poorer. It’s surely not that difficult to get your head round, is it?

[StatisticallyChallenged]

@pomegranatejuice

Personally, I would hang on. There is not enough funding in the sector to provide places or facilities, a lot of places have already closed and more are likely to. It has been designed deliberately to coincide with the election, and if and when Labour get in the Tories will just walk away!. Early years providers are up in arms.

There are massive problems with early years funding and provision, for sure.

[Blossomtoes]

@ScruffyGiraffes

You'll be richer without 100% tax on your income and assets. And the others that your income and assets would be given to instead would be poorer without them. So, according to your principle you would support that tax.

Try reading what you’ve just written and see if it makes sense. Because I’ve read it three times and it makes none to me.

[ScruffyGiraffes]

I wasn’t being sanctimonious

I'm afraid if you really believe this you should reflect a little on how you communicate because unfortunately this is exactly how the vast majority of your posts come across.

[Lostinalibrary]

These threads always attract the same posters - who don’t work. Telling you what you should do; don’t get drawn into it.

[Blossomtoes]

@ScruffyGiraffes

I wasn’t being sanctimonious

I'm afraid if you really believe this you should reflect a little on how you communicate because unfortunately this is exactly how the vast majority of your posts come across.

How sanctimonious.

[ScruffyGiraffes]

Try reading what you’ve just written and see if it makes sense. Because I’ve read it three times and it makes none to me.

Sorry to hear that. 🤷‍♀️ It was perfectly clear.

I'm finding discussion with you tiresome and unproductive. Particularly given I'd explained my situation earlier in the thread, so the idea that I should be lectured by you about how I must be immoral if I don't vote for people to make me even poorer so that my children lose their home, and give even more of the money I earn to others who have more disposable income than we do is also pretty offensive. As it happens, there's nobody I could vote for because they are all idiots. But I'm really not interested in getting dragged into politics. My posts were about economics.

I shalln't respond to you further so you can stop tagging me now please.

[DesertPenguin]

How sanctimonious.

Do you know what this word means? 🤣

[Jonei]

@Lostinalibrary

These threads always attract the same posters - who don’t work. Telling you what you should do; don’t get drawn into it.

Yep.

[Blossomtoes]

the idea that I should be lectured by you about how I must be immoral if I don't vote for people to make me even poorer so that my children lose their home, and give even more of the money I earn to others who have more disposable income than we do is also pretty offensive.

I didn’t say that. I was talking about me, not you. I never mentioned morality. And somebody with more disposable income isn’t poorer than you, are they?

Top tip - read what people actually say and stop inferring things that aren’t even implied, let alone stated.

[Bucketheadbucketbum]

@Blossomtoes

This is one of the most basic economic principles: that people will act in their self-interest.

That isn’t always the case. On paper I should be a natural Tory voter - home owner, higher rate tax payer for decades, investment portfolio - and I would never, ever vote for any party that would make me richer at the expense of making other people poorer.

Lol.

Classic luvvie chat. Easy to say all that when you own your own home, have a high income and also an investment portfolio. Joker!

[Mateyduck]

You will be paying less into pension…just something else to think about

[ScruffyGiraffes]

I didn’t say that. I was talking about me, not you. I never mentioned morality. And somebody with more disposable income isn’t poorer than you, are they?

You seem to have missed the point that many of them believe they are. They believe we must be rich because of my headline salary, not understanding the tax and housing and childcare costs as a lone parent and that therefore I am far poorer in terms of disposable income and living standards than many of the people who are given large amounts of money every month through UC that I am being taxed huge amounts to pay for. They are better off than me and I'm taxed so much I cannot support my children properly, yet many refer to us as "rich" and want us to be taxed even more.

As I said, please stop tagging me now, I don't wish to talk to you anymore. I find your way of communicating confrontational and unpleasant and I don't think this conversation is adding anything useful to the thread.

[Blossomtoes]

@Bucketheadbucketbum

Lol.

Classic luvvie chat. Easy to say all that when you own your own home, have a high income and also an investment portfolio. Joker!

Absolutely. The term champagne socialist was invented for people like me. 😉 It was also true when I was a single parent in a rented flat, my political views have remained unchanged for decades.

[MarshaBradyo]

@Lostinalibrary

These threads always attract the same posters - who don’t work. Telling you what you should do; don’t get drawn into it.

Yep

[Lostinalibrary]

@ScruffyGiraffes

I didn’t say that. I was talking about me, not you. I never mentioned morality. And somebody with more disposable income isn’t poorer than you, are they?

You seem to have missed the point that many of them believe they are. They believe we must be rich because of my headline salary, not understanding the tax and housing and childcare costs as a lone parent and that therefore I am far poorer in terms of disposable income and living standards than many of the people who are given large amounts of money every month through UC that I am being taxed huge amounts to pay for. They are better off than me and I'm taxed so much I cannot support my children properly, yet many refer to us as "rich" and want us to be taxed even more.

As I said, please stop tagging me now, I don't wish to talk to you anymore. I find your way of communicating confrontational and unpleasant and I don't think this conversation is adding anything useful to the thread.

They will keep going and tagging you to have the last say - look at the posting history. You’re in a fragile state and it takes a special kind of person to want to antagonise someone in that position. Just ignore.