Page 8 | DH and I going part time to deliberately reduce wages

Bucketheadbucketbum · 2023-03-18T13:35:09+00:00

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!

Lostinalibrary · 18/03/2023 16:41

BungleandGeorge · 18/03/2023 16:33

@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

Many of these people are working in skilled shortage professions. That’s the problem. Engineering, tech, medicine, etc. They are literally hammering educated professionals who we need not only for tax but their skill set.

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 16:42

I actually think people see 100k and think you clear near enough 8.5k a month

🤣🤣🤣

Maybe that's the issue. They have literally no idea.

Lostinalibrary · 18/03/2023 16:45

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 16:38

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.

As a household - turned down a potential 60k (30 base) pay rise because of these issues (older children). By the time you factored in the huge amount going to the treasury, the commute, the extra expenses; it actually wasn’t worth it. Unless you are in these tax anomalies or can read the figures in black and white. People don’t get it.

begoneday · 18/03/2023 16:46

LizzieSiddal · 18/03/2023 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.

Each to their own I suppose.

Tax payers are already paying for thousands of children whose parents don't work at all, so why should OP not get a better work life balance for her and her family ?

Crumpetdisappointment · 18/03/2023 16:52

surely just one of you need to go part time, the other can be full time, pay towards pension etc,

mishmased · 18/03/2023 16:52

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 16:10

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.

This is shocking!

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 16:54

Crumpetdisappointment · 18/03/2023 16:52

surely just one of you need to go part time, the other can be full time, pay towards pension etc,

Nope! Because of the dysfunctional way that - unlike in most comparable countries - these thresholds for tax etc are applied here on an individual and not household basis, it will be better for OP and her husband to both reduce their working hours.

Therefore less tax in the system to help support public services and low earners.

Don't blame them. Blame the chancellor who is in charge of this ridiculous tax code.

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 16:57

As a household - turned down a potential 60k (30 base) pay rise because of these issues (older children). By the time you factored in the huge amount going to the treasury, the commute, the extra expenses; it actually wasn’t worth it. Unless you are in these tax anomalies or can read the figures in black and white. People don’t get it.

I can absolutely believe it.

It now won't be worth me working more unless I get a payrise of at least £40k. And then only a very marginal difference of a couple of hundred pounds in take home pay, for all the extra stress and hours. Why would I bother?

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 16:58

This is shocking!

I know. I just wish more people would realise that and press for change. Because until it the tax code gets changed to make this better it really isn't worth people like me working any more or accepting promotions, that would mean we pay more tax that helps everyone else.

MarshaBradyo · 18/03/2023 17:00

I can understand it wrt childcare.

The work will still be done and taxes paid by someone else but the it just means the op benefits from something many others do already.

There comes a point where taking on more tax burden isn’t that great.

I agree with pp re tax them more mentality doesn’t always work that well.

Lostinalibrary · 18/03/2023 17:02

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 16:57

As a household - turned down a potential 60k (30 base) pay rise because of these issues (older children). By the time you factored in the huge amount going to the treasury, the commute, the extra expenses; it actually wasn’t worth it. Unless you are in these tax anomalies or can read the figures in black and white. People don’t get it.

I can absolutely believe it.

It now won't be worth me working more unless I get a payrise of at least £40k. And then only a very marginal difference of a couple of hundred pounds in take home pay, for all the extra stress and hours. Why would I bother?

We had exactly this. The 60k would have near enough gone all in tax. We then factored in the extra commute, childcare for SEND child, limiting my working for more trips. We would have been pretty much as is. For what? Never seeing each other as a family, losing the support network we provide for our older children. For 60k on paper which would in reality be pretty much breaking even. So yeah, not doing that. It’s criminal but that’s the reality and most professionals are starting to think why bother? So good luck to people wanting a functioning welfare system in 10 years. We are literally stifling people bettering themselves.

Emmamoo89 · 18/03/2023 17:08

Go for it 😊 ignore the judgey aholes x

BashirWithTheGoodBeard · 18/03/2023 17:08

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 wonder if that might be coming, though? Given that the government's plans to entice already retired over 55s back to the workplace aren't likely to plug the labour market holes and the promised childcare provision is hardly guaranteed to appear, parents of older or even adult children who just don't want to work full time might be seen as an untapped reserve who aren't doing their duty.

mishmased · 18/03/2023 17:11

@ScruffyGiraffes I absolutely believe you. I don't earn up to those amounts but my job comes with working shift and that brings up my wages to just under €90k. Just back from mat leave and missing time time with my kids and I've decided to not work shift as contrary to what people think 90k gross does not equate to 7.5k net. I'm lucky to get 4.7k monthly.

Case in point, I recently got a bonus of about 12k, if I was cash it I will end up with €5760 out of 12k! So instead I'll buy shares at work to my limit and put the rest in my pension even though I'd love to have some in cash. Cashing means losing 52-55% so no.

To the op, absolutely do. If it gives you a better work/life balance definitely. Do whatever suits your family, you're still paying a massive amount of taxes.
I'm so sorry for single earners, they're taxed really badly and unfairly. Can you put some into your pensions?

BungleandGeorge · 18/03/2023 17:19

Lostinalibrary · 18/03/2023 16:41

Many of these people are working in skilled shortage professions. That’s the problem. Engineering, tech, medicine, etc. They are literally hammering educated professionals who we need not only for tax but their skill set.

Show quote history

Well most educated professionals don’t earn over 100k, most don’t have young children. So yes I can see for individuals it’s a problem but if there is someone else to do the work it’s really not a problem for the taxman! It does cause problems in a very few cases for shortage professions around the various cut offs, especially if they have issues with large pension contributions.
there is more to consider than a very simple statement that anyone who agrees with this approach to
taxation must be stupid because it’s not as simple as you suggest. Few people hoarding wealth is not overall a good thing, large disparity between low and high wage earners is a problem and perhaps three people working less hours in a senior job is actually overall better than 2 people in terms of money and productivity into the economy overall.

mackthepony · 18/03/2023 17:20

Do it op.

Lostinalibrary · 18/03/2023 17:22

BungleandGeorge · 18/03/2023 17:19

Well most educated professionals don’t earn over 100k, most don’t have young children. So yes I can see for individuals it’s a problem but if there is someone else to do the work it’s really not a problem for the taxman! It does cause problems in a very few cases for shortage professions around the various cut offs, especially if they have issues with large pension contributions.
there is more to consider than a very simple statement that anyone who agrees with this approach to
taxation must be stupid because it’s not as simple as you suggest. Few people hoarding wealth is not overall a good thing, large disparity between low and high wage earners is a problem and perhaps three people working less hours in a senior job is actually overall better than 2 people in terms of money and productivity into the economy overall.

Show quote history

Well it is a problem for the taxman. The chancellor commissioned work on this very issue. To be told it is a significant economical issue.

WeightoftheWorld · 18/03/2023 17:24

Actually laughed out loud as some PPs suggesting people should work longer hours away from their family for free just to pay more taxes when they already are net contributors. As if any of those people suggesting this would ever do this themselves! Farcical.

Some great points on the thread here about the punitive nature of our tax system on senior professionals that a lot of people won't (can't?) engage with. I say that as someone who has no skin in that game as our gross household income is only around £45k hah. However we do both work part-time and that decision was partly related to the cost of childcare which is an issue that does also need addressing. I have absolutely no faith at all in the government's recent announcements on this though. Let's see where we are in September 2025, almost certainly under a Labour government then anyway.

bigbabycooker · 18/03/2023 17:26

Yeah, I haven't worked more than 3 days since kids - not worth it really, as the £100k-£150k bracket taxes you so highly. And I'd rather have the time with my kids. Win win!

LakieLady · 18/03/2023 17:28

My friend dropped from f/t (5 days) to 3 days pw when she returned from mat leave.

Her DH didn't work Mondays, because his job involved Saturday working and he had Mondays in lieu, so it meant that they only needed 2 days childcare. A local childminder had a vacancy for 2 days, and the fees were way lower than nursery, so it saved them shedloads.

The real gain came from her student loan repayments stopping, though. She ended up far better off working 3 days than she would have been working 5 days. Her commute was a 50+ mile round trip, so there was a saving there as well.

As soon as her DC was eligible for free nursery hours, she went back to f/t.

I think it's really sensible in those early years, tbh.

MarshaBradyo · 18/03/2023 17:33

Chatting to someone re this the other day and both work slightly reduced days. The dc are a bit older but where it really helps is all the non school days that keep cropping up.

AL ran out but can swap around days to cover. Will

Let's see where we are in September 2025, almost certainly under a Labour government then anyway.

Not sure Labour will help much, they can say a line on taxation but anyone with a clue can see tax changes behaviour and hammering people has adverse impacts on public funds.

BungleandGeorge · 18/03/2023 17:35

We could all work 7 x 12 hour shifts a week to maximise revenue. Everyone has a point where the negatives outweigh the money. When people say they ‘won’t be any better off’ what they actually generally mean is that they won’t be sufficiently better off that it will cancel out the negatives for them. If 2 people will actually be worse off working full time v 0.6 wte equivalent in this situation I’d be very interested to see the figures. In comparison to many others this country has long working hours so perhaps the government need to consider why there is a shortage of labour. And perhaps admit that they’ve completely messed up with brexit

Onnabugeisha · 18/03/2023 17:37

I think that is brilliant and what the government policy should result in. I don’t think both parents having to work long hours is in the best interest of child development or family life. If you can have that schedule without being worse off financially- go for it. I don’t mind it was impossible for my generation, I am happy to have my taxes pay towards better family/work balance for young parents.

CalpolDependant · 18/03/2023 17:38

Don’t do this. Increase your pension contributions instead. Think long term.

Lostinalibrary · 18/03/2023 17:41

BungleandGeorge · 18/03/2023 17:35

We could all work 7 x 12 hour shifts a week to maximise revenue. Everyone has a point where the negatives outweigh the money. When people say they ‘won’t be any better off’ what they actually generally mean is that they won’t be sufficiently better off that it will cancel out the negatives for them. If 2 people will actually be worse off working full time v 0.6 wte equivalent in this situation I’d be very interested to see the figures. In comparison to many others this country has long working hours so perhaps the government need to consider why there is a shortage of labour. And perhaps admit that they’ve completely messed up with brexit

No genuinely. 60k rise with 30k base and 30k bonus rise. This would’ve have resulted in roughly about 1k a month more. All of which would’ve gone on commuting which luckily doesn’t need to be done right now. All that extra for roughly £250 per week which would’ve gone on commuting. People genuinely have no idea how punitive the tax system is. This thread shows it.