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!

I worked for 46 years. How long have you worked @Lostinalibrary?

My contributions are capped at an amount I reach under 100k, so actually they will be the same phew

Good for you and for anyone in the same situation.

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.

Oh ok, I didn't realise. I just want it to stop, I can't really take any more. I think I'll just hide the thread now. Thank you.

Yes, I would as it will be relentless. You take care!

ScruffyGiraffes💐

Take it easy from me too

🌸from me too!

Definition of sanctimonious:
“making a show of being morally superior to other people”

“I would never vote for a party that would make me richer at the expense of making other people poorer”

On a thread about the impact of taxation on childcare

Well, I've followed the thread and I work, full time for the last 25 years, and am a single parent (are you still a single parent when they're adults? I mean I'm still single and still her parent...🤷🏼‍♀️ Anyway) only I don't get paid £100k - so it seems that whatever I think or say, or others like me is dismissed because - well I don't really know why other than it would seem I'm not 'worth' as much as someone on £100k, not as important?

I come to that conclusion after this, and many threads about stuff like this, and that the only indicator of worth to society is the amount of tax you pay, I was a care assistant for decades - financially I have taken more than I've put in because I needed that 'wage' topped up to achieve a basic standard of living - that meant I could do my job, but my benefit to society practically has been a lot more than that. In fact I think society has gotten a pretty good deal out of me in that regard.

I also come to that conclusion because people like me have spoken about the issues with 'the system' for a long time and in general are told it's all about personal responsibility and choices and that it's a person problem, not a system problem. Now these problems are affecting those who are considered more worthy, there's suddenly a system problem and it's no longer about choices and personal responsibility.

If it's wrong to 'work the system' when you earn £20k pa then it's wrong to 'work the system' when you earn £100k pa. And if it's ok on £100k then it's ok at £20k.

What some of you pay in tax in a month, I earn and live on. I'd like to be able to pay more tax, not least because I would be earning more and making my life easier! But I can't, because other people want profit from the work that I do, and they want more and more while 'the tax payer' picks up the bill, and so my wages stay low.

I think OP and others like her should do what works for them, in fact I think anyone should - but that it should apply to everyone - not just those considered more worthy because they contribute more tax.

I also come to that conclusion because people like me have spoken about the issues with 'the system' for a long time and in general are told it's all about personal responsibility and choices and that it's a person problem, not a system problem. Now these problems are affecting those who are considered more worthy, there's suddenly a system problem and it's no longer about choices and personal responsibility.

In fairness, the word 'suddenly' in no way applies here. People trying to retain eligibility for child benefit at 50k or free nursery hours at 100k have been happening as long as those policies have existed. Same for other bottlenecks lower down like the personal allowance and student loan repayment thresholds, which this thread has focused less on but are also a thing. The only difference is that because of inflation and fiscal drag, the numbers of people in this situation will increase, and they'll do so at the same time as us having fewer workers than we used to.

I agree with a lot of the other points you make, but people identifying systemic problems with UK work and taxation policy is nowhere near new. What has changed is that it'll be more widespread and people will become more aware of it.

If it's wrong to 'work the system' when you earn £20k pa then it's wrong to 'work the system' when you earn £100k pa. And if it's ok on £100k then it's ok at £20k.

That’s irrefutable. So is the point about the effect of bottlenecks. The one that makes zero sense to me is child benefit, it should have continued to be a universal benefit. The utter insanity of removing it from a single parent on £50k and allowing a couple on £98k to keep it is beyond belief.

It didn't make sense at all - and the arguments that they couldn't consider it at a household level yet they could manage to chase one parent for money that another parent had claimed, potentially without their knowledge...

Did they actually say that? I was probably too busy shouting at the radio to pick that up.

@HospitalitySux I agree with the majority of what you are saying. One huge difference is though that when you earn less or let's be Frank £900 per month or even £800 you are literally UNABLE to live on that amount of money. It's literally impossible not even with 1 child.

You absolutely NEED that top up!

@HospitalitySux

I think that you are quite right.

I do think that the OP pays a lot of tax and that the system is messed up that it doesn't incentivise net contributors, but that doesn't mean I think what she is doing is more worthwhile than your work.

I think that the common thread here for you and OP is that we should have a system where everyone is better rewarded for working more (so far as they are able). If you don't work and can afford not to, no one should demonise you for it, but work should pay. The tax cliffs eat into that at the top and middle, as does the tax credit system for lower earners (frank field opposed it in new Labour days for that reason as he felt it would destabilise the system and devalue the work of the lowest paid and was sacked for it and he was right - there should instead have been better minimum wages for lower earners, with better support for those who could not work or who needed to retrain to use their skills).

Better to pay excess tax free into your pension and keep the jobs.

It was more in response to @stickystick who said

"They never tire of telling me that it is “only fair” their income is taxed individually and not as a household, despite sharing all their bills and expenses…"

It makes sense that sharing a house will work out cheaper, that's why most students do it.. those people are also having the share the space, and live with someone else. It's not the governments fault that some people live on their own.

As for getting taxed individually or as a couple.. I'm not sure, but think individually makes more sense. What about if a woman earns a lot less than her partner, she'll end up getting taxed a shed load, under the assumption they are pooling their earnings together.. which often isn't true! I may be misunderstanding it.

Which is exactly the same stupidity and unfairness as removing funded nursery hours, tax free childcare or the personal allowance from a single parent earning £100k when a couple earning £199k still get all of these.

Or applying 20% tax to a single parent from £12.5k when a couple can earn £25k before they pay it.

Single parents earning higher salaries are often in a similar situation and are unable to live after the childcare costs and rent/ mortgage that has to be paid for them to live in the areas which enable them to have the job that earns the higher salary. If they move somewhere cheaper then they don't have the job.

@ThinkingMeat that's what they have left though after they have paid bills. £800 is someone's wage to pay rent, council tax, food and other utilities. From a low earners POV its not doable at all.

It’s not the same. Child benefit was a universal benefit and worked perfectly well as such. There was absolutely no point in making it means tested and particularly in such a hamfisted and illogical way.

Isn't this assuming that all couple pool their income together though, which is often not the case? At the end of the day they are still 2 separate people, which happen to share a house / car etc. Life is always going to be a bit harder if you have a child with someone who then decides to take no financial responsibility?

Couples may not pool all their income together but if you are living together. THE BILLS are pooled together because you surely are going 50/50 or you should be. Which is a save all round. Being a single parent you don't have that option... the rest of your point is completely irrelevant

It’s not the same. Child benefit was a universal benefit and worked perfectly well as such. There was absolutely no point in making it means tested and particularly in such a hamfisted and illogical way.

No point means testing childcare either. Exactly the same principle. Costs more to administer than it saves, much better for the money to benefit children than go on admin staff, hugely unfair to do on an individual income anyway in exactly the same way as child benefit.