Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

DH and I going part time to deliberately reduce wages

890 replies

Bucketheadbucketbum · 18/03/2023 13:35

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!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 17:42

I'm so sorry for single earners, they're taxed really badly and unfairly. Can you put some into your pensions?

Yeah I could work more to put more into my pension.

But my children are young, and are already dealing with their father vanishing from their lives. They only have me.

On £100k salary as I said by the time tax and mortgage and childcare is paid there is less than £1000 per month to pay Council tax, utilities, food, commuting, clothes, clubs etc.

If I work more now or go for promotion we'll get no more net pay. So no reason for me to do it. My priority is to be here to support them emotionally now, because the tax system means I can't do any more for them financially. I don't need a higher pension contribution, I need more net pay so I can cover the mortgage increase and increased childcare and utility and food bill. But no matter what I do I can't achieve that, because the Government will take all the extra money I earn. So we'll just have to manage on even less and I'll cut my hours. And pay less in tax.

Lostinalibrary · 18/03/2023 17:45

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 17:42

I'm so sorry for single earners, they're taxed really badly and unfairly. Can you put some into your pensions?

Yeah I could work more to put more into my pension.

But my children are young, and are already dealing with their father vanishing from their lives. They only have me.

On £100k salary as I said by the time tax and mortgage and childcare is paid there is less than £1000 per month to pay Council tax, utilities, food, commuting, clothes, clubs etc.

If I work more now or go for promotion we'll get no more net pay. So no reason for me to do it. My priority is to be here to support them emotionally now, because the tax system means I can't do any more for them financially. I don't need a higher pension contribution, I need more net pay so I can cover the mortgage increase and increased childcare and utility and food bill. But no matter what I do I can't achieve that, because the Government will take all the extra money I earn. So we'll just have to manage on even less and I'll cut my hours. And pay less in tax.

In the situation you’re in - you’d have to earn roughly about 50k to make any extra money. It will literally all be taken at source, loss of childcare, personal allowance, hitting 45%. As you know.

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 17:46

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.

If you think it's "great" that parent who has done exactly what we're all instructed to do: gone to uni, done gruelling professional qualifications and then worked 90-100 hours per week for over a decade (paying a ton of tax to support everyone else) is then left with less disposable income than many people on UC and barely able to cover food and utility bills despite having worked like that to achieve a £100k salary, then there's something seriously wrong with your view of society. And no wonder then that vanishingly few people bother to put in that kind of effort in the first place, when in the end you end up broke AND vilified for having bothered in the first place.

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 17:47

In the situation you’re in - you’d have to earn roughly about 50k to make any extra money. It will literally all be taken at source, loss of childcare, personal allowance, hitting 45%. As you know.

Yes. I'd need a 50% salary increase to make it worth working one extra hour. So much incentive! If it wasn't messing up our lives so much it would be laughable.

Happyvalleyfan · 18/03/2023 17:48

SomePeopleAreJustBloodyStupid · 18/03/2023 13:52

It takes the piss

This is completely peanuts compared to knowing how to use the tax system to legally reduce your tax payments. The rich have financial advisors that enable them to use amazing tax breaks eg to invest in start up companies - but you need a lot of spare cash to utilise.

If you can stomach that down side of reducing hours through nursery years (not sure what impact on pension and promotion), this makes complete sense and is potentially a very wise career life balance move whilst your children are young.

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 17:51

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.

They've stated they won't fixed this either.

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 17:54

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!

The studies show there are around 200,000 people affect by the punitive tax rates at £100k. Bear in mind each of these people is paying 15 times the tax of someone on minimum wage already. When you factor in the tax transfers to calculate the real effective tax rates of people on minimum wage, these higher earners are EACH paying hundreds of times the level of taxes of every minimum wage earner. So yes, this is a huge problem for the "tax man", and every person who wants there to be well funded state services, a state pension and benefits.

DaisyBoop · 18/03/2023 17:56

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.

This 👆 👆

Crumpetdisappointment · 18/03/2023 17:57

i dont know why you woudl broadcast this on here?

BungleandGeorge · 18/03/2023 17:59

Lostinalibrary · 18/03/2023 17:41

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.

I don’t quite follow as you haven’t put why your commuting costs would have increased by £50 per day due to a pay rise? And commuting costs have nothing to do with taxation, you got a pay increase of 1k and would need to
go into a bit more detail regarding pay before and after the pay rise to make any sense of this (which obviously isn’t expected on a public forum!). The difference between earning 90k and 120k is about 1.1k per month. It’s hardly a small amount? If it involves working extra hours or increasing your commute by such a large amount it costs £50 extra a day fair enough, you’re free to decide it’s not worth it. However you are earning significantly more despite the extra taxation.

LemonadeSunshine · 18/03/2023 17:59

Reducing the amount you work deliberately to claim benefits?
A hard no from me.

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 17:59

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.

This can't be repeated enough. Independent research was done - at the request of Hunt! - showing this is one of the main reasons why we have the lowest productivity in the G7 and have had for well over a decade.

The only question is why he's so stupid he's done nothing about it. And why the opposition are so stupid that they have no plans to do anything about it, either.

So, the status quo will continue. Look forward to even less tax revenue, more benefit cuts and even less funding for public services. It's simple maths.

Chonk · 18/03/2023 18:00

People choose to live in council housing because it's an ethical way to live, contributing to society and local communities.

@Ovidnaso What a load of shit. People stay in council housing because it's cheaper than private rentals. They don't live in council housing to benefit anyone but themselves.

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 18:01

The evidence is copious. Shame we have a population who are too stupid to understand the economics and push for the policies to fix it, when it would benefit everyone.

DH and I going part time to deliberately reduce wages
DH and I going part time to deliberately reduce wages
DH and I going part time to deliberately reduce wages
HalfWomanHalfChocolate · 18/03/2023 18:02

Interesting perspectives here. Quite a few people seem to confuse the childcare free hours with welfare. It’s not the same thing at all.

The free childcare is not a welfare payment that is aimed at helping the poorest. There are lots of benefits that are (and for the avoidance of doubt, I wholly support the idea of a decent welfare system) but this particular benefit doesn’t exist for that reason. It is an economic incentive to get people to work rather than stay at home with children, for the benefit of the economy. Particularly given that the Uk has some of the highest childcare costs in the world, which impacts on the skilled workforce and then on the wider economy.

Because of this it is meant to incentivise everyone and not just the poorest, because that’s what the economy needs. However, I guess the govt felt it would be indefensible to give it to the very ‘richest’, so they set a £100k individual ceiling for
eligibility. The problem is that is a very blunt tool because, as lots of people have said here, £100k does not correlate to the kind of wealth that makes childcare costs immaterial, it coincides with the loss of the personal tax allowance which makes earning above £100k, with childcare costs, actually loss-making for some people and it also actually coincides with the salary ranges of quite a large skilled workforce (professionals such as hospital consultants etc). Not everyone can offset with pension contributions - the NHS pension scheme, for example, is defined benefit and defined contribution, just in or out. So actually, it will have some undesired effects (to the detriment of the wider economy) unless the cliff edge is softened.

It’s not misdirected welfare, but it is poorly thought out taxation and policy for a section of the population which is a net contributor, and which the economy particularly needs to be incentivised to work.

Soapnutty · 18/03/2023 18:05

The answer everyone has is to put taxes up - on who?

wealth tax on assets of super rich, not income.

BungleandGeorge · 18/03/2023 18:06

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 17:46

If you think it's "great" that parent who has done exactly what we're all instructed to do: gone to uni, done gruelling professional qualifications and then worked 90-100 hours per week for over a decade (paying a ton of tax to support everyone else) is then left with less disposable income than many people on UC and barely able to cover food and utility bills despite having worked like that to achieve a £100k salary, then there's something seriously wrong with your view of society. And no wonder then that vanishingly few people bother to put in that kind of effort in the first place, when in the end you end up broke AND vilified for having bothered in the first place.

😆 I’d suggest they have a word with their employer because working over 14 hours a day 7 days a week is illegal.

www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2020/L-December/Tax-cuts-for-the-rich

Lostinalibrary · 18/03/2023 18:06

BungleandGeorge · 18/03/2023 17:59

I don’t quite follow as you haven’t put why your commuting costs would have increased by £50 per day due to a pay rise? And commuting costs have nothing to do with taxation, you got a pay increase of 1k and would need to
go into a bit more detail regarding pay before and after the pay rise to make any sense of this (which obviously isn’t expected on a public forum!). The difference between earning 90k and 120k is about 1.1k per month. It’s hardly a small amount? If it involves working extra hours or increasing your commute by such a large amount it costs £50 extra a day fair enough, you’re free to decide it’s not worth it. However you are earning significantly more despite the extra taxation.

I am just saying. We turned down a potential increase as a household because 60k converted to about 12k per year after deductions. So we decided as a family not to bother. Especially as that extra would’ve gone on commuting costs. DH is a high earner anyway. Which means a 60k payrise would’ve been about 12k. You’d have to be nuts to take that extra responsibility to have the tax man take most of it.

StatisticallyChallenged · 18/03/2023 18:06

As others have said there are some really nasty bottlenecks in the tax system which inevitably result in people taking them in to consideration when they plan their family life. I'm in Scotland, so we don't have the 100k childcare threshold but we have different tax bands which create similar disincentives.

For example, here higher rate tax is going up to 42% starting at just £43,663. In rUK, that threshold is at £50271, which aligns with the point where NI drops from 12% to 2%. In Scotland they don't align, so income between £43663 and £50271 is effectively being taxed at 54%, whereas income between £50271 and £99.9k is only taked at 44% altogether. Plus factor in student loans which many people earning those salaries will have...

Then you hit 100k. Now you're losing the personal allowance at £1 for every £2 over it. So between £100k and £125k you have an effective tax rate of 65% including NI. But then once you go above that, you go to 47%... and at 100k you also lose tax free childcare (which effectively saves 2k net per child per year, so if you have 2 children that's 4k after tax.)

So let's say you're earning 99.9k and have 2 kids using childcare in Scotland. You're offered a 20k pay rise. I'll assume a not extravagent 6% pension contribution.

Of that 20k:

  • £12,600 goes in tax (42% plus loss of personal allowance)
  • £400 in NI
  • £1200 in pension contributions
  • Potentially still student loans at 9% = £1800
  • extra childcare due to loss of TFC = £4000
So you get precisely zero extra in your pocket, or £1800 if you have paid off student loans.

Or you could work say 4 days in the new role (if possible) and have a virtually identical income, use less paid childcare and end up better off financially as a result.

Bahhhhhumbug · 18/03/2023 18:08

The 100k threshold should be pro rata which would stop people working the system and deliberately cutting their hours to claim the childcare.

BashirWithTheGoodBeard · 18/03/2023 18:12

Bahhhhhumbug · 18/03/2023 18:08

The 100k threshold should be pro rata which would stop people working the system and deliberately cutting their hours to claim the childcare.

It is weird that it's not. Even with pro rata you can still have bottlenecks, like the 50-60k threshold for those with DC, so I'm not saying it's a panacea or anything. But cliff edge is just asking for people not to bother.

Very interesting to hear about the Scottish examples @StatisticallyChallenged

BungleandGeorge · 18/03/2023 18:14

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 18:01

The evidence is copious. Shame we have a population who are too stupid to understand the economics and push for the policies to fix it, when it would benefit everyone.

None of those graphs relate to people specifically earning over 100k. Perhaps put some actual evidence from a variety of sources rataher than name calling?

StatisticallyChallenged · 18/03/2023 18:14

Pro rata would be problematic as many people on higher salaries don't have straightforward working hours. Someone working 4 days a week in a high earning role may well still be working 40 hours a week.

And that high earner working 40 hours over 4 days will be contributing a lot more than someone working 35 hours a week in a minimum wage 9-5 role.

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 18:15

Few people hoarding wealth is not overall a good thing

The people earning the types of salaries we're talking about are not "hoarding wealth". 🤣 They have no wealth!! It is ALL taken up by tax and rent/ mortgage plus childcare. We have no savings AT ALL. No safety net. I can barely afford food and heat and light after commuting costs.

I think this is part of the problem. People having no clue about the amount the is taken in tax and the living costs in different parts of the country. Yes salaries are higher, for a reason! Because it costs so much to live here! There is nothing left, we're already bled dry. We have a lot less money to live on than families on lower wages, many of whom are going on holidays etc. All of those years working 100 hour weeks for this, it is a kick in the teeth if epic proportions. An no, I will mot be working more hours and leaving my children for even more hours to pay over 100% tax to "be kind" to everyone else. 🤣 While we are left struggling for money for food.

ScruffyGiraffes · 18/03/2023 18:16

None of those graphs relate to people specifically earning over 100k. Perhaps put some actual evidence from a variety of sources rataher than name calling?

I posted the graph showing that tax effect earlier in the thread. Here it is again.

DH and I going part time to deliberately reduce wages
Swipe left for the next trending thread