Work doesn't pay

[Bucketheadbucketbum]

Just that really

Got a promotion . Started new role in april. This promotion was one that I secured after a hard fought year, means taking on extra hours and much more stress . Big impact on work life balance, kids etc. Worth it I thought ....

NO IT ISN'T!!!

Seems since this I've entered a near 100% tax on my payrise, so thanks to current tax setup in uk, my take home pay is static!!!!!! yet responsibility and hours gone up

Planning to resign the promotion from my job

Ridiculous situation!

YABU to say "work doesn't pay." It definitely does, it's just that it doesn't pay for the person actually doing the work - it goes to people higher up the chain.

What were you on? what was take home?

What are you on now? and what is take home?

Does sound shit.
maybe some of the posters can help you if you post the before and after. It is anonymous so that’s ok if feeling it’s not the done thing

Another option, if it's something that's based on annual income rather than month to month, is to take a chunk of unpaid parental leave. But this would only work if it's eg child benefit or student loan repayments, not for UC I don't think.

I'm not sure that feeling hard done to because you're no longer eligible to be subsidised by benefits is reasonable

I get it

could you negotiate for more?

i've been in MN too long, but a wise person once said the pay rise is rarely worth extra hours and stress so I would always calculate first, I thank that poster.

Happened to me too.

Jumped Into the next band for the NHS pension so pay was static.

You should be happy you don't need the benefits anymore! Surely if you resign you wouldn't be elidgable for benefits again? As PP said benefits are designed for those who need them and you obviously don't anymore! Check your tax code though.

Depends on the benefit, as well as the age of the DC. If OP has eg lost child benefit, she simply becomes re-eligible as her income drops.

It's also not true that benefits are only for those who need them. Child benefit was designed to be a universal benefit and even now with the income thresholds, the system isn't anything remotely resembling needs based.

I understand where you are coming from. I'm a lower rate tax payer at present but as I edge towards the higher, it needs to be a significant payrise to make it worth it as I will lose child benefit + pay more into pension.

@Sugargliderwombat it depends whether OP is talking about child benefit because as soon as you go under £50K you are eligible for the full amount again. I kept under the £50K for years by working 4 days a week plus putting extra in my pension.

Tat's not how it works. pay more into your pension if that;s the case

Nailed it.

There are some awful fall off a cliff amounts if you earn you lose so much - child benefit or when you lose the sintle person allowance or help with child care or at the bottom end lose benefits. If we could just have much much lower taxes all round and a simpler system this would not happen

This is why benifits (in work) should be cut and wages increase.
It should always pay to work, the worst paid job should make you noticeably better off than not working.

I agree with you OP that often there is little financial advantage in working more hours or working in a more challenging role, because you won't see a big enough difference in your pocket. It's the fault of a system which props up low wages and people who game the system by keeping their hours low.

BUT for you own benefit, try to think longer term. By staying in a lower paid position (and this applies equally to those who work the minimum hours to receive top ups) you're putting yourself in a worse position financially in the long term. The more you pay into a workplace or private pension, the more you will glad of it later. I'm in my late 50s and I see so many women my age who never returned to full time work after children, or never went for promotions because they didn't feel it was worth it. They're now screwed financially. Particularly in the case of divorce or if their husband pre deceases them.

So while I agree that the system doesn't do enough to incentivise people to work harder/more/in more challenging roles, I think we'll see the fall out from this massively in years to come, when people who looked just at the short term realise they haven't invested in their longer term security

I’m assuming it’s because you are now earning over £100k, where there is a bracket where every additional £ is taxed at almost £? I think once you earn over £120k you will have cleared that bracket…

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fbusiness%2F2023%2F05%2F02%2Fmiddle-earners-100pc-plus-tax-jeremy-hunt-tax-raid%2F

Getting a pay rise when you have children and your pay is in the £50-60,000 bracket means you see almost zero increase in your take home pay.

The UK tax system is complicated and completely unfair as it has several "cliff edges" where you pay huge marginal tax rates.

YANBU OP. I came to the end of a great 3 day contract and they would only accommodate me if I agree to do 4 days and not 3. I don’t even understand how but now I’m worse off, after childcare and tax etc for my extra day I pay for that 4th day and come out with less in my hand than I did for 3. So annoying.

i thought it would be £1000 / 3 x 4 and I’d be paid £1250 (using made up figures here) but for my extra day I come out with about 1 third of what I came out with for my other three days. So £70 not the £250. Then I have an extra day nursery x 2 and I’m worse off!

Welcome to socialism! Net receivers will enjoy your increased contribution.

Not really. However persuasive some of you might find your arguments, people not being any better off for their extra work are not, in the real world, going to be impressed by someone else's moral code. OP hasn't said whether this is about top up benefits, going over the personal allowance, child benefit, reduction of free hours at 100k or one of numerous permutations, and hasn't been very clear about it either. But the principle is always the same

What this really comes down to is the extent to which the downsides can be mitigated, eg with pension payments, and whether OP feels the longer term positives mean it's worthwhile playing the longer game. That's all.

This. Don’t resign.

Still won’t leave you with no pay rise. Only the bit that crosses the threshold will attract the higher tax. The upshot will be more in the pay packet. Maybe not as much as you expected if you calculated wrong, but still more.

Correct! 😆