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!
MNHQ have commented on this thread
AIBU?
DH and I going part time to deliberately reduce wages
Bucketheadbucketbum · 18/03/2023 13:35
Am I being unreasonable?
1358 votes. Final results.
POLLBlossomtoes · 21/03/2023 16:52
Children do not get an allowance in the UK system though.
They do. Everyone, regardless of age, has a personal allowance. It’s why some wealthy people stash money away in their kids’ named.
ThinkingMeat · 21/03/2023 18:28
Like I said if Hollywood film stars or something yes technically. Not transferrable though to the household so normal child will not be able to use it and household will pay tax based on the parent who earns the money alone ignoring that they have children to support. Meaningless for vast majority of families.
Blossomtoes · 21/03/2023 16:52
Children do not get an allowance in the UK system though.
They do. Everyone, regardless of age, has a personal allowance. It’s why some wealthy people stash money away in their kids’ named.
BashirWithTheGoodBeard · 21/03/2023 17:56
I've posted this before, but it's also relevant to this thread since we're discussing marginal tax rates.
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/childrens-benefits-mess-leaves-families-facing-effective-tax-rates-of-80-to-96-per-cent/
ThinkingMeat · 21/03/2023 15:24
Obviously when saying "universal" for child benefit and childcare funds I don't mean a separated couple could both claim it, only one just as now.
In terms of the tax, yes the two separated parents should get allowances as two separate households, for all of the reasons I explained already. They each have a household to fund so will have higher costs. That is "a feature not a bug". But each household will have only one person's time each day to earn to pay for that house or be with their children. It will be much harder for them to reach the same household income as a couple living together. So you don't compound the fact that their household income will be lower while trying to pay all the costs for the home on their own, by also taking them a higher % on the same household income that they have earned on their own as one person not two (while usually also needing to pay much more childcare as well!).
They will not be getting an advantage on you. They will always be at a disadvantage. As someone said (I think you?) of course it costs more to live separately and always will. Fine. But you don't have to "stamp down" on them too and then tax them more as well on the same income even though they obviously can earn less in half the time available each day. That is just crazy, which is why other countries have provisions in their tax systems to avoid increasing the disadvantage by penalising through tax like this on top of the inevitable inbuilt disadvantage that will always be there just through practical reality.
These people will never be in a better situation that a couple who can both earn, or one earn and one not so have no childcare to pay, or share it all as they see fit. Never. Of course not. Will always be poorer as they have to pay alone. Why would you tax them more on the same earnings and well?
It really is a very peculiar thing to the UK to see this kind of argument where people would be worried that a single parent might be better off than they are and should pay for a house alone but from less net income for the same earnings because otherwise it might be unfair on a family with two adults to earn or be with children, if the couple didn't also get to keep more of the same household income. Effectively you are saying you want single parent households doing the job of two parents to subsidise couples who have the same household income. That can never be ok, if you step back and be rational.
And as I have tried to explain, this "but it's mot fair to meeeeee" attitude makes everyone poorer in the end. You object to what I proposed even though it would not
make you a penny poorer because you feel it might help a household at a disadvantage to you and that would not be "fair" in your opinion. Even though all research shows that in the long term if this happened then it would make your household richer also: it would increase tax revenue and reduce the need for welfare so either mean better pubic services for your family or lower taxes for your family. But you couldn't bear to see some people in a worse situation get what you consider to be "help" (when actually it's just removing existing unfairness) even if it actually benefitted you as well in the long run.
That is what is wrong with the UK.
This whole thread shows the same thing, around the tax thresholds and making it pointless for people to work more, as well as the single parent issue.
People will reap what they sew. Tried to persuade people with facts and research but if UK mentality is that you would rather things don't get better for others and for you in case you feel they might benefit more than you then I can see how you have ended up where you are. And what will happen in the next ten years: it won't be good.
Ilikepinacoladass · 21/03/2023 14:53
Single parents aren't always sole parents though, if the single parent was getting additional tax benefits and then also sharing child costs with the non resident parent / getting decent child support, couples might see that as unfair?
Ilikepinacoladass · 21/03/2023 19:38
What about when separated parents have 50/50 living arrangements, would both the parents get the same tax allowances as a couple, each? How does that make sense? Wouldn't it just be better to increase the UC entitlement or something like that?
Blossomtoes · 21/03/2023 20:16
Ultimately that argument again seems to be driven by this weird fear that someone might get more than someone else
I’m not sure that’s what drives it. The Tory party is very pro marriage and would be reluctant to put any measures in place that could be construed to be encouraging single parenthood. Governments try to shape society and those of the last 13 have made policies to make the traditional family group more appealing.
Blossomtoes · 21/03/2023 16:52
Children do not get an allowance in the UK system though.
They do. Everyone, regardless of age, has a personal allowance. It’s why some wealthy people stash money away in their kids’ named.
Blossomtoes · 21/03/2023 20:16
Ultimately that argument again seems to be driven by this weird fear that someone might get more than someone else
I’m not sure that’s what drives it. The Tory party is very pro marriage and would be reluctant to put any measures in place that could be construed to be encouraging single parenthood. Governments try to shape society and those of the last 13 have made policies to make the traditional family group more appealing.
Ziegfeld · 21/03/2023 20:50
No they don’t. When you hit a certain level of income they take your personal allowance away. And that’s done on an individual basis too, so a couple with the same income as a single person would get two personal allowances while the single person got nothing.
Blossomtoes · 21/03/2023 16:52
Children do not get an allowance in the UK system though.
They do. Everyone, regardless of age, has a personal allowance. It’s why some wealthy people stash money away in their kids’ named.
Ilikepinacoladass · 21/03/2023 20:32
@ThinkingMeat
Thanks for explaining. I guess I just think it makes sense for it to be cheaper to share a house. And couples are still 2 separate people that have their own expenses etc, so not sure if it works fairly to treat them as one person / joining their income together.
As a thought experiment, in the system you suggest, what would happen if in 50 years time say, it became the norm for 3 adults to bring up children, mum, dad and a surrogate for example (doesn't really matter who the people are), would a single parent then get even more benefits/ tax allowances or whatever, to make up for the fact that they were now a third or the 'normal family set up' rather than half?
And does it only apply to single parents what about just single people? Or when children turn 18?
ThinkingMeat · 21/03/2023 18:35
Fundamentally this is the issue - the system should be structured in such a way that there is never a question of whether work pays. Regardless of whether you're talking about someone working an extra hour a week at minimum wage or someone taking a promotion at £100k - increasing your earmings should always leave you better off.
Yes. Surprising that this would be considered controversial.
Like I said: the UK is very strange. Would rather be poorer than be better off if it means someone else might be better off as well.
stickystick · 21/03/2023 20:55
@ThinkingMeat
Why no Govt will change this system:
- two votes are worth more than one
- they can’t afford the instant drop in tax take (it might correct in time if more single parents were able to work but no guarantees)
Don’t want to miss threads like this?
Weekly
Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!
Log in to update your newsletter preferences.
You've subscribed!
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.