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!

Do you say this to any couple who don't both work full-time with young children?

I'm honestly baffled at why OP is getting a hard time over this - if you went onto a thread with a SAHM and said she should be working so that she paid tax you'd be absolutely crucified.

Are you sure your sums include the fact that it's 30 hours over term time only and that all nurseries I know of still charge you for food and activities? For example my nursery charge £20 a day once you get 'free' funding. I expect all nurseries will be doing this if they don't already when this comes in to make up their figures and it may even increase.

Lol at all of the people saying they would happily work for free so their 35k pay rise went to the state and they’d be financially worse off because of effective tax. It’s absolute bare faced lies and posturing. No-one would do this.

It’s what’s happening and it’s partly why the economy is tanking. This has been proven. Even harder lol at people calling the op grabby when it’s their house hold taxes funding everyone else.

If I relied on UC, NHS, state schools etc. I’d be very worried about the people who contribute the most tax and hold the economy up - are having to restrict work as the “hidden” taxes make them worse off. In turn, it will make everyone worse off as they will not contribute as much tax as they could.

Don't blame you at all, it's ridiculous you should be worse off for working more hours.

They pay at least 60k in tax together, it's not really allowing others to foot the bill when they are likely overcontributors

They’re not worse off though are they? They’re exactly the same as they would have been two weeks ago. They’re static.

As others have said you can put 60k now into pension, so both do that to get childcare below 100k.

And this, which nobody bothered to respond to, cannot be repeated enough. The judgement from people based on a headline salary figure who clearly have not the faintest comprehension of housing or childcare costs in other parts of the country, or that a family with two low earners and claiming UC will get a similar amount of take home pay in total to a lone parent earning £100k once support for housing costs and childcare etc for the low earner is factored in, and that they are not taxed on their UC, and that the lone parent is taxed more than them on their actual earnings even though they are doing everything! It's an unsustainable system, hence why it is falling apart. We've been bled dry already, my household has nothing left to give and I certainly won't be spending even less time with my children to pay 100% of my additional earnings to the state to give to others who - in many cases - have a lot more disposable income than I do.

And what of the single parents earning £100k, with small children in childcare? Taxed as much as a couple who can have one parent at home! Half the tax free allowance, higher rate tax imposed at half the household income, child benefit withdrawn at half the income, as are funded nursery hours and "tax free childcare" and the personal allowance.

Usually to earn that much as a lone parent to try to provide for their children with no state help they will have to be living in the SE so at least half of that net pay taken up with mortgage/ rent, and another £2k on childcare at least. End up even earning £100k having only £1000 or so left to pay council tax, food, commuting, utilities, and no help with nursery funding although they obviously need more childcare than a couple who have 47 hours per day to split earning and time with children between them. Yeah, living it up, big time. Rich. 🤣🤣🤣 And faced with over 100% tax rate if you try to work more or seek a promotion to get more net pay to cover the inflation. You have NO CLUE.

👏👏👏

Anyone working part time when they could work full time is paying less tax than they are capable of. Same for anyone who has taken a school hours job as a ta / admin assistant etc when they previously had a higher paying career. Loads of people in mumsnet are in this category and I’ve never seen it suggested that there’s a moral imperative for them to maximise their earnings.

I would make c. 95k full time but there is very little financial benefit to working five days rather than four after childcare costs and a horrendous impact on quality of life to doing so bearing in mind that full time is easily 60 hours per week. Am I doing something wrong by choosing to work 4 days? In my case there’s very little affect on career progression in working 4 days and if I want to work 5 days in future I can.

I wouldn’t make my life more stressful and lose out on seeing my children by working an extra day in order to be financially worse off. I don’t actually believe anyone would do this just for the good of society.

@ScruffyGiraffes
I’m in this position as a single parent. I make a reasonable salary on paper but after childcare and mortgage have about £1k left. Luckily have small savings to last me until childcare expenses go down but would be really struggling if I didn’t.

LizzieSiddal · Today 13:41
Sounds like you don’t care that other tax payers will be working to pay for your child when you could actually afford to pay for it yourself.

You are just jealous 😂
Why should they care? They have to look after their own family rather than anyone else’s. You have to look after your own

I agree 100%

Go for it if you want, just be mindful of the future with things like pension. I work full time but thankfully no longer have to deal with childcare costs!

Absolutely do it OP. A parent staying at home to look after their child gets NI credits until the child is 12. You are paying for their credits. Absolutely fair that you get to spend more time with your children by working less. You will still be paying huge amounts of tax to cover what other people are taking out.

Because people can’t think in this country - that’s why. Yeah tax the rich 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 higher taxes for the rich. The rich with millions and billions - yeah them the top 1%. What they don’t realise is - they very rich don’t pay tax. The people who did well and persevered as a profession? Yeah them too - tax the rich 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

It’s like clapping seals who cannot think logically. I do believe it is what will cause the ultimate downfall of the welfare state/NHS/education as we know it. It’s already started. People who have done well in their field are in the perverse position that a 35K pay rise can be 100% wiped out and they will be worse off. Therefore, people cut their hours.

Instead of thinking- “oh, hang on, let’s encourage these massive tax payers and net contributors to pay more. We will make the tax system so punitive they stop working.” I actually think people see 100k and think you clear near enough 8.5k a month. Reality is, with childcare, loss of allowance, no top ups (obviously), full loss of everything. You’ll often have a similar disposable to those who are working and are “topped up.” Difference is, the higher earner is paying for it. Stop them from working things will be cut as tax take falls.

People will only have themselves to blame. Like clapping seals with no critical thinking.

I have no savings. As the higher earner I had to use them to pay the divorce costs and pay ex-H off so I could still provide a good home for my children. We are totally screwed by this system, penalised at every level of the tax system and left with far less money than people who never bothered to do the extreme working hours I did to get to this salary level. For years I paid happily to fund everyone else and now we are totally stitched up and have to listen to people bleating that I should work more for free to pay for more for them and have even less time with my children? Delusional.

I am sorry you are in this situation, too. Tax should be levied on a household basis as it is in most comparable economies. It is absolutely designed to disadvantage women and children to set it up this way. But nobody cares, because single parents not only deserve no respect but should be milked to fund everyone else!

This is what I'm also amazed about in this thread - I agree that I never see this being applied elsewhere. We earn much less than OP and her partner but we also would earn more if we worked full-time. Since we both work 0.8 we still work more hours combined that most families I know with children as small as ours. I know loads of women with preschool children who don't work at all and no one seems to care about their tax dodging...

DH used to be a management consultant but is now a secondary school teacher - are people saying that's an actively immoral choice because he now pays so much less tax?!

Not exactly the same but due to the tax threshold freeze by 2028 I will be into the higher rate so will be dropping my hours to stay under.

If I relied on UC, NHS, state schools etc. I’d be very worried about the people who contribute the most tax and hold the economy up - are having to restrict work as the “hidden” taxes make them worse off. In turn, it will make everyone worse off as they will not contribute as much tax as they could.

Well put.

A lot of people have done incorrect maths on this - eg if they currently pay for 40 hours for their DCs, assumed it will reduce by 3/4.

The reality isn't going to be like that, just like it isn't for most providers with 15 or 30 hours at 3. The govt will pay less than full cost and probably not school holidays, so people will have to make up the shortfall in govt payments by mandating longer days, charging extra for food etc

Because people can’t think in this country - that’s why. Yeah tax the rich 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 higher taxes for the rich. The rich with millions and billions - yeah them the top 1%. What they don’t realise is - they very rich don’t pay tax. The people who did well and persevered as a profession? Yeah them too - tax the rich 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Absolutely. No grasp of economics. Who do they think has been paying for the NHS, education, everything? It's not the wealthy, of whom there are a very small number and who pay a much smaller percentage of tax anyway. It is the professionals on these salaries: engineers, headteachers, accountants, solicitors, builders, small business owners, etc. They have been hammered keeping everyone else afloat for over a decade. There is a limit on what they can, or will, pay.

It’s like clapping seals who cannot think logically. I do believe it is what will cause the ultimate downfall of the welfare state/NHS/education as we know it. It’s already started. People who have done well in their field are in the perverse position that a 35K pay rise can be 100% wiped out and they will be worse off. Therefore, people cut their hours.

It's so depressing how few people can engage with basic maths or economics. Even when explained like in this thread that this is one of the main reasons WHY there is no tax revenue to fund these things properly now, they still don't support fixing the problem. So it will continue not being worthwhile for those paying for it all to work more/ seek promotions, so there will be even less tax revenue. And then they'll all complain and say "why is there no funding?" 🙄🙄

Instead of thinking- “oh, hang on, let’s encourage these massive tax payers and net contributors to pay more. We will make the tax system so punitive they stop working.” I actually think people see 100k and think you clear near enough 8.5k a month. Reality is, with childcare, loss of allowance, no top ups (obviously), full loss of everything. You’ll often have a similar disposable to those who are working and are “topped up.” Difference is, the higher earner is paying for it. Stop them from working things will be cut as tax take falls.

Exactly. I guess because most of the lower earners pay pretty much no tax they have no idea how much of higher earners' salaries go on tax. And then as my example set out, how little is left once essential living costs are paid. We literally have no more money to give to them. None. And I'd be happy to up my work hours and go for promotion to better my children's future. Not going to sacrifice yet more time with them though, to give 100% of my earnings to the Government. Why would I? Nobody would!!

People will only have themselves to blame. Like clapping seals with no critical thinking.

Yep. No wonder the country is such a mess. It won't get better until these issues are addressed because the people we most need to work more to pay for everything have no incentive at all to do so.

I guess people do really get the country they deserve.

@Lostinalibrary Unless you’re working in a profession with significant job shortages someone else will pick up your hours and pay tax on the salary? Childcare payments are for a pretty short period of someone’s working life. And perhaps it’s better for health, equality, money into the economy to have more people earning a senior salary working less hours each

Exactly.

Would love to hear the plans from politicians to change it.

Otherwise no, I won't be working more. I'll be continually cutting my hours (and living standards) as fiscal drag reduces our real earnings before the state confiscates it all.

Give me the same tax allowances etc as a household with two adults, get rid of the withdrawal of the personal allowance, and I'll take a promotion at work that I could easily get and work more hours and pay more tax than I do now.

Chancellor's choice, not mine.

Childcare payments are for a pretty short period of someone’s working life.

Ummm, no. What am I meant to do after school/ before school/ when I need to go on business trips/ how am I meant to cover 13 weeks of school holidays with 5 weeks of annual leave?

Childcare costs will persist in a large way throughout primary school, particularly for lone parents.

Even more so if you have children with SEN who can't cope in shared settings so have to have 1:1 care.