Husband wants to go part time

[WickyStizard]

I am interested to hear your views, because I am really not sure whether I am unjustifiably feeling pressured here, or whether I should be working harder to understand my Husband's perspective.

Tldr: Husband wants me to get a job (full or part time but significant enough to cover his salary decrease) so he can go part time, and work 3.5 days a week.

Context: My Husband is the main breadwinner, earning just north of 100K + Bonus. Before having kids we both earned in the 50K region, but since kids 5 years ago my salary flat-lined whereas his has accelerated. He also works somewhere with generous paternity leave and after the birth of our 2nd child took a large amount of paternity leave and we took the opportunity to go travelling as a family, which was amazing.

Since we have got back and my husband has returned to work full time he has been putting increasing pressure on me to return to work now that the kids are settled back into school and nursery(3 days a week). He wants to drop from full time to 3.5 days, so he can spend more time with the kids and doing pick ups etc.

He wants me to get a full time or part time role so he can do this. A full time role working remotely would bring in slightly more than the loss of his earnings over the 1.5 days a week, but would take me out of action for 5 days (worst case scenario) or 3 days (best case).

At home, as well as doing drop offs, pick ups, and bed times (he is home late 3 nights out of 5) I also do all the shopping, cooking, washing, most of the cleaning etc.

It's clearly not clear cut, hence the question!

@Mswest but both things can be true. I agree loads of men are like that but I also agree that not all are.

My boys see my DH working part time too and picking up half (over half if I'm honest) of the domestic labour. Would it have been better if I had told DH he wasn't allowed to?

UK middle earners still pay less than several other European countries in tax. If skilled workers are finding work doesn't pay they need a wage rise, not a tax cut.

Again, missing the point. The marginal tax rate at this level can be over 100% so a payrise is of no use to people because earning more gross means a negligible increase in net income or - in some cases - has a negative effect on net income.

And you're wrong I'm afraid - the taxes in the specific salary bracket I was discussing are among the highest in any country worldwide.

Your comments about the relativity of wealth, insinuating that people on these wages aren't really wealthy because they have higher costs, is naive at best (insulting and detached at worst). Only around 3% of people in the UK earn over £100k, earning £70k+ more than the average. They are most definitely well off and in a very privileged position in relative terms, regardless of where they live. You sound like you are quite out of touch with the average British person and in a bit of a bubble, sorry.

I didn't say they are not "well off" compared to people earning far less. They are not wealthy however, unless they happen to have large assets from another source. This is the issue: the UK tax system is set up to be favourable to assets and hugely penalising to earned income. I was pointing out that in order to meet basic living costs of housing and childcare a salary of £100k does not go far at all in many areas of the country once the tax is also paid. This is a well documented fact. And that it's meaningless to think how well off someone would feel earning that salary living in a rural and remote area or in social housing when the reality is that people earning such salaries are mostly living in areas where modest accommodation, commuting and childcare for a single child will take up 80-90% of that salary after tax. Whereas a couple earning averages incomes actually have higher net income after tax and childcare compared to a lone parent earning around £100k because they receive 2 x personal allowances instead of none, they can earn twice as much before they pay higher rate tax, they receive child benefit, and are eligible for nursery funding, tax free childcare etc. And would be far less likely to have to live in an expensive area to access their employment if they chose not to. It is meaningless looking at gross income without considering tax and net income, and other expenses associated with earning that income.

Anyway, this is all rather off topic from the OP's thread but I'm happy to discuss it further on a separate thread if you wish to set one up.

I normally love voting on these, but I can't stick a YABU or YANBU on it.

It totally depends on your relationship model and what kind of man he is; and what kind of woman you are.

Will he use this newfound time to lie in bed and play video games whilst you work 5 days a week? Will you come home to a filthy house, with children not fed or bathed and the food shopping not done? If Yes, then ABSOLUTELY do not do it.

However, if he is a great house husband, or you two (hand on heart and I really believe this is rare) pull your weight completely evenly, then sure, he can go part time.

It's about ensuring your contribution to the household as partners is equitable. If you believe him going part-time will not be equitable for you, or will lead to you shouldering the majority of the work, then do not do it.

Yes it is off topic but you did start a discussion about how we tax people on a post about whether a husband should go part time. The tax bracket for that very specific income level is about 9th highest from what I can remember compared to comparable countries. As for your second point I'm sorry but you haven't done anything to make yourself sound less detached and privileged - a couple earning a joint average income of £55k are entitled to very little government help, still need to pay for childcare and also in the vast majority of cases still need to live in an expensive area to access their employment?! Those people are statistically the majority and you seem to be totally oblivious of that.

Yes it is off topic but you did start a discussion about how we tax people on a post about whether a husband should go part time.

No. I and others mentioned the tax because it is relevant: many posters (and potentially the OP based on her initial posts about how much she'd need to work to make up the income from her husband reducing his hours) were clearly not factoring in the tax/ childcare funding impact which is likely to mean that there is very little impact on net income at all from him reducing his hours by 20% or 30%, particularly when they still need childcare. This was relevant, useful information for the OP and factual. Others then started to take exception to anybody mentioning these tax impacts with the usual, predictable and bitter personal comments of "priviliege" etc that happens every time anybody discusses tax impacts on higher earners on Mumsnet, so I continued to explain the impacts in more detail with figures to illustrate the point in real terms and why it is relevant to the OP's situation.

There is plenty of information on this in easy to understand articles if you're not minded to look at the underlying economic research papers and how it impacts productivity, for example:

https://www.cityam.com/childcare-rules-why-hitting-six-figures-leaves-high-flyers-in-a-parent-trap/

These charts that don't even include the childcare funding/ student loan impact that can take the marginal tax rate to over 100% per the article above:

https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-data-item/combined-marginal-rates-income-tax-and-national-insurance-contributions

These charts which show how those in employment are taxed far more heavily than the self-employed or those with assets:

https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-data-item/tax-penalty-employment

This analysis showing how the UK tax system is extremely progressive compared to others internationally and what a huge contribution these higher earners make to our tax revenues and why if we want taxes to fund public services it is a bad idea to make it uneconomical for them to work full time:

https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-taxes-explained/income-tax-explained

Even the Guardian has acknowledged the issue following the publication of the economic research showing how much this is damaging productivity:

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/13/full-time-part-time-work-no-longer-pays-uk-economy

This is an economic reality. But if you'd like to discuss it further, as I said, a separate thread might be more appropriate.

The tax bracket for that very specific income level is about 9th highest from what I can remember compared to comparable countries.

It's not, when you do a proper analysis comparing like with like including the withdrawal of tax allowances and nursery funding. That was the point.

For example, this excerpt from the following article may help to explain it further for you:

"Further down the income distribution, among some of those earning close to the £100,000 mark, there is an even more dramatic problem. Entitlement to free childcare, an entitlement which was extended to the under threes last month, is ended once income hits £100,000. Childcare is expensive enough that it is perfectly possible for a parent with a couple of children to be better off earning £99,000 than earning £130,000.

Further down the income scale again, well over half a million parents with incomes between £50,000 and £60,000 face marginal tax rates of 55pc or more because child benefit is now taxed away as income rises between these two points. Someone with two children faces a rate of around 60pc and if you have three children the withdrawal rate rises towards 70pc. Astonishingly, while we consider parents earning just over £50,000 to be rich enough to pay 40pc tax, and to have their child benefit withdrawn, we also consider some 50,000 of them to be poor enough to be entitled to universal credit. They will lose around 80p or more of every extra pound earned."

And this doesn't even include the additional 9% effective tax for student loans which can mean net income is higher earning £99,999 than it is at £150,000.

https://ifs.org.uk/articles/britains-economically-damaging-tax-system-now-indefensible

A competent Government has a rational tax system that is fair and does not discourage work with such anomalies that obviously harm productivity. This is an insane way to structure things in the same way the Universal Credit taper rate is insane. We should be able to discuss such points without it descending into inane "but I hate people who earn more than me!" nonsense.

As for your second point I'm sorry but you haven't done anything to make yourself sound less detached and privileged - a couple earning a joint average income of £55k are entitled to very little government help, still need to pay for childcare and also in the vast majority of cases still need to live in an expensive area to access their employment?! Those people are statistically the majority and you seem to be totally oblivious of that.

I have been discussing the structure of the tax system not my personal circumstances.

A couple with children who both earn the national average salary (which is £38k btw so £76k for a couple: www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/business/average-uk-salary-by-age/#:~:text=The%20latest%20government%20data%2C%20published,of%206.2%25%20compared%20to%202022) have a far higher net income than a single earner/ lone parent earning say £110k, after childcare is factored in, plus child benefit, personal allowance withdrawal, nursery funding, tax free childcare etc is withdrawn.

These are just facts, mathematical calculations. It's disappointing that certain people want to to deny reality for political reasons of whatever and lower themselves to making personal comments.

As for your personal comments to me about being "detached and privileged" - not that it is remotely relevant - but I grew up in poverty and abuse, and am now a lone parent, chrinically ill and have two children with disabilities, hardly my definition of "privilege". Perhaps you should refrain from making personal comments about posters whom you know nothing about whatsoever.

If you do wish to discuss this further, as I said, I do not think this OP's post is the appropriate thread upon which to do so.

The more men that go part time /take shared leave etc the quicker true equality will come

That might be part of the solution but it's by no means all of it. We need more female representation in positions of power and influence - parliament and other institutions.
Also, the uptake of men taking shared parental leave and requesting part-time has been low - we need to examine and address the causes.
My guess is that they're mainly economic (men often being the main earners) but also due to social conditioning.

You seem to be confused - it's not a lack of knowledge of the tax system that is behind my comments (although thanks for your extensive explanation - links and everything!) but basic principle - I don't support tax cuts for the highest 2% of earners at the expense of everyone else. And you do. 🤷

You seem to be confused - it's not a lack of knowledge of the tax system that is behind my comments (although thanks for your extensive explanation - links and everything!) but basic principle - I don't support tax cuts for the highest 2% of earners at the expense of everyone else. And you do. 🤷

I'm not remotely confused.

The people being discussed are not in the highest 2% of earners and regardless, the issues in the tax system are about rationalising taxes so that working is worthwhile and counterproductive cliff-edges are removed that discourage productivity at every level, with penal Universal Credit taper rates, the withdrawal of child benefit, and this most extreme example where the tax rate is well over 100% for many if they earn over £100k, in that they'd need a payrise of 50% in one go to get the same net earnings after tax and childcare that they receive at £99,999 earnings.

It's quite obvious why all of these cliff edges damage productivity and people cut hours because it's simply not worth working more, and in many cases will actually make them worse off to go full time, take a promotion with more stress, etc. This is bad for the UK economy and lowers overall tax revenues, obviously. The independent economic research on why UK productivity has flatlined has shown that this is one of the main contributory factors, repeatedly. And the only way to sustainably raise living standards is through productivity growth. This attitude that we shouldn't do anything that helps people who you hate becaude they earn more than you even though it would benefit everyone because tax revenues would go UP if the Universal Credit taper rate was halved, the child benefit withdrawal was scrapped, and the withdrawal of the personal allowance was scrapped, seems beyond your comprehension to grasp for the simple reason that you hate that some people earn more than others so think taxing them at pver 100% marginal rate is a good idea... even though that obviously means people won't sacrifice time with their kids to work more so that they can have less net income!

So then there is less tax revenue overall to fund services for everyone because instead of people working more and earning more and paying a high but sensible rate of tax on that extra income, they simply stop and cut their hours. But you carry on with your class war, that ironically is making things the worst for the poorest people who most need the services that higher productivity and more tax revenue is needed to fund. 🤷🏻‍♀️

OR they pay lots of money into pensions. So then it isn’t taxable. But at least they won’t cost the government lots when they are retired.

OR they pay lots of money into pensions. So then it isn’t taxable. But at least they won’t cost the government lots when they are retired

True. But there is a limit to how much people are prepared to sacrifice family time/ longer working hours/ more responsibility and stressful lives for more pension saving they won't access for decades, hence the undeniable effect of these tax anomalies per the productivity data showing that what actually happens in the majority of cases is that people at these levels of earnings around the tax cliff edges at £50k and £100k and those on universal credit and looking at jobs with more hours and earnings cut their working hours/ don't go for promotions etc because the net change in income/ standard of living is not worth the sacrifice. This is a huge problem for the UK economy, workforce shortages in skilled areas, lower productivity, and lower tax revenues that are desperately needed right now to fund services, which people saving into pensions doesn't help with! And unlike most problems with our economy - which will take decades to fix - this is something that could be addressed instantly by the Chancellor, or the (likely) new incoming Chancellor next year, as it is entirely within Parliament's control. Yet di we have anybody competent enough that they intend to do so in either the current Government or opposition? Nope. 🤦🏻‍♀️ Another own goal for everyone, especially with services on their knees and more tax revenue desperately needed.

Many people in these brackets also could really do with more income now because of the ramping up of living costs and, were such cliff edges to be removed, I predict you'd see a fairly dramatic change in behaviour and tax revenues in months with tax revenues rising significantly as a result. I really cannot get my head around the fact that we have such incompetent people in charge that even whem there are obvious things they can do to improve the situation - and have even commissioned independent economic research to tell them what they need to do to improve it! - they still ignore that advice and don't do it. And the opposition score an own goal by not taking advantage of that and don't propose to fix it either! We really are led by donkeys.

Wanting you to get a part time job is fair enough. Telling you that that part time job has to pay the same amount as his salary decrease is completely unreasonable, and expecting you to continue to do all the jobs a SAHM would do is also completely unreasonable.

He'd need to understand that, and chore sharing would need to be agreed upon before I'd start looking for work.

Not sure why you're being so snippy @Nepmarthiturn or singling my posts out. But u had read the thread and the little one is in nursery - forgive my error - but point still stands - he wouldn't be actually looking after the little one on his days off would he?

I laughed at your first post because it bore no resemblance whatsoever to the situation the OP described.

You then claimed you had read the whole thread even though your comments directly contradicted what the OP had said about her own situation so had nothing to do with it.

I'm not being "snippy with you". I've also pointed out when others have made factually wrong comments on the thread.

Why do you assume the OP's husband won't spend any time with his children when he's specifically said he wants to reduce his work hours to spend more time with his children? And has taken as much time off in paternity leave as the OP did in maternity leave specifically to spend time with them, already?

Mumsnet seems to have gone bonkers today, is it a full moon?!

You can start drawing down pension savings at 57. That isn’t ’decades away’ for me. Maybe you’re much younger though 🤣.

I think the government need to learn about the Laffer curve. It’s sad none of them have a grasp of economics even to A level. I completely agree with you by the way, it’s completely nuts.

I think you need a clear plan of whom is responsible for certain house chores. Other than that, I think it is entirely reasonable to want you both to work part time, instead of one person not working and one full time working.

By the same logic there’s no need for the OP
to be work either so it’s totally irrelevant.

Why wouldn't he be looking after the little one on his day off?

The younger one is only in nursery part time so I would have assumed he would be

Is there not limits on what can be paid into pensions too? Is that not partly what the Doctors industrial action was about?

But ultimately it shouldn't come down to tax efficient savings. Their will be people in the top brackets who will opt to go part-time like the posters DH or like many Doctors go overseas.

Its not really unreasonable. 1 maybe 2 days of her 50k salary would cover 1.5 days of his £100k salary due to the differences in Income Tax.

I calculated it at 2.5 days, but someone else pointed out the loss of personal allowance at £100k Crazy but true.

Well yes but it’s 60k a year.

Great last post OP!

Do you actually need to make up hubbys short fall in salary. Could you not live off less for the time being. That would take the pressure off you to have to find something big at first. You could then work less days till you’re sure that it is going to balance out equally and that you don’t end up working full time and doing all the house jobs too.

I do think your husband is being unreasonable to expect you to work full time when he doesn’t want too.