To reduce hours when labour win election

[Parttimeplay]

I fall into the “60%” tax bracket. With the upcoming elections and knowing the government always hammer the middle ground….woudlnt it make more sense for me to cut my hours for a more relaxed life, eligibility for childcare, reduced tax?

Reduce your hours.

Reduce your childcare and enjoy looking after your children as much as you can yourself.

Move near excellent state secondary (one with decades of glowing reports, a good local reputation, a stable SLT and other pushy London parents 🫢 who challenge and support the school to stay at the top of its game).
For primary what you want is a good school - doesn’t need to be the very best, it just needs to be safe and happy.

You can then support your children by taking them to extra curricular (amazing how many private schools just use their teachers to run specialist after school clubs…. London is awash with after school/weekend specialist clubs that are far superior) and support them by helping with homework, music practice, teaching life skills (cooking healthy food etc).
Having the time to parent - and not handing over the ‘job’ to a school - is priceless. Try it. If you don’t like it (absolutely no judgement here) then go back to working full-time.
Which government gets in and how much they tax is irrelevant. What do you want?

Although the truth is, labour can come up with as many manifestos as they like and promise the world. At the end of the day, it's what the market allows to happen. If the market don't like it, then it won't happen as the market will find a way to stop it happening. I'm not convinced the 20%vat on school fees is going to happen. It's going to cost a fortune, for very little pay back. There are many politicians who have benefited from the PS system. Regardless of political colour they all seem to have very rich mates whose children likely attend PS.

On what basis? Labour have not said they are increasing taxes. You can read how they are going to increase public spending; remove nom-dom tax avoidance, introduce VAT for private schools and removal of business rates, increase corporation tax specially talking about high-tech and multi national companies who notoriously avoid paying fair tax, raising stamp duty for overseas buyers and windfall tax on energy companies.

What have you read that suggests they’re going to raise tax for the masses?

So push labour to tax the wealthiest? They should put a tax on Russian Oligarchs and on financial service transactions.

Lets use facts accurately though. The IFS has noted that tax for people on average wages have been supported with tax cuts. https://ifs.org.uk/articles/how-tax-burden-high-when-most-us-are-taxed-so-low

A significant share of tax income comes from the top 10% of earners, and they tend to be more likely to live in London and the South East; where there are high housing and childcare costs that have a negative impact on household disposal incomes. The upper limit for childcare support may also act as a disincentive for people; and if people in the top bracket choose to work less; the overall tax take reduces, leaving less money for public services.

Labour face some big challenges coming in to redress some of these large structural problems within the economy; and it will be interesting to see how they do this in a way that brings higher income families with them

IF Labour win, then you'll see taxation go through the roof. It always does under their political regime. It's where they run to, and where they exist.

Hello? Who set these tax rates?

Um, I think you need to check some facts about the current overall taxation situation.

ifs.org.uk/articles/will-be-biggest-tax-raising-parliament-record

This just won't wash any more. 14 years of Tory government and taxes are the highest they have been for 70 years, but it's a Labour issue - no it isn't.
This Tory regime has consistently increased taxes whilst trying to claim to be a low tax party - pull the other one.

None of this is true though.

Although grammar schools themselves are essentially divisive and take the brighter kids out of local schools (both my kids are at grammar school so I am aware that I am somewhat hypocritical, but a fairer system would be if all kids had access to a grammar school level of education), bright local kids will still pass the exam regardless of how many private school kids also sit it. There is a pass mark of 121 in the (very few) counties that still have the grammar school system. The verbal/non-verbal reasoning aspect is something some kids are naturally good at and that's the point of why it's in the exam.

If they start racing inherited wealth at lot more I will be glad of it

Inherited wealth is part of the reason house prices are stupid

Inherited wealth drives inequality

Every one wants stuff like a decent health service, decent education , potholes filled , a dentist but it seems no one wants to pay for it

Sone people would rather pay more than they need to to get a private service that doesn't benefit all

I guess if all the people on the highest rates did reduce their hours it would make more highly paid jobs available - and to my mind 2 jobs each paying 50k for 2.5 days a week is better than one person on 100 and one person on a zero hour contract

So please OP go part time and leave space for another well paid job

@Parttimeplay there’s nothing wrong with reducing your hours for an easier life, no matter which government is in power. Why wouldn’t you? (Yes, I know I’ve missed your point about taxation, but I’d still recommend spending less time at working in a stressful job if you possibly can)

Yes, I agree the IFS make some very reasonable points and I think it's time for a more honest debate in this country about how much taxes need to rise. Taxes will have to rise to pay for restoring the public services that 14 years of the Tories have left in ruins, just to get public services of a basic level that people in other European countries would take for granted. I earn around £40K, so above average, and personally I feel uncomfortable with the recent cuts in National Insurance that I've benefitted from. I think think taxes should be higher than they are now for people like me, let alone for the very rich on £100K+. But such is the fundamental dishonesty of our politics that no mainstream party dare suggest any of this in a general election campaign.

The reason we have high house prices is due to easy money lending and huge immigration. 30 years ago people didn’t need an inheritance just to buy a house to live. The inheritance would be spent on upgrades like a car, new kitchen or a holiday, not the basics of putting a roof over your head.

As for splitting a £100k job into two £50k jobs that just means the government gets a tiny amount of income tax from both (20% after the personal allowance) and has to pay two lots of child benefit and possibly other top up benefits. So tax take would be a lot less than taxing at 40% or 60%.

I'm afraid it is all true, you are missing the point, bright local kids who have parents who have coached them may still make the grade, it will be those who have not be coached (who are significantly more likely to be from deprived backgrounds), who will not. That will create a less equal society whether you choose to believe it or not.

Overall the school places will be taken from somewhere and that will see two outcomes: 1) higher competition for grammar school places (most have large catchments), 2) near outstanding and high performing secondary schools will see house prices rise, as those with wealth will buy there way out of the current issue, again locking out poorer parents and therefore the children who are more deserving of those places.

There is no current evidence or research that underpins that academic results would rise with all this at play, there is evidence (and a few case studies too), that say this experiment saw children from wealthy and educated backgrounds being skimmed off at these schools, again removing this opportunity from someone more deserving in the class.

It wasn’t last time.

What has any of this got to do with Labour? There won't be more private school kids taking up grammar school places than there are now. It goes on whether you pass the exam - and the fact that more private school kids may be coached for it doesn't mean fewer local kids will fail - and then on catchment to the school. All those sharp-elbowed private school parents would have to sell their five bedroom country pads and buy houses in the centre of a rather shit town to be guaranteed to be in catchment. Both my kids (went to a state primary, not coached, we live a mile or so from the grammar schools) passed. The majority of kids from their school went to ordinary state primaries and wouldn't have gone to private school either.

Private school fees round here are upwards of £20K a year so not accessible to the vast majority of parents in this particular area.

Just more scaremongering, innit.

I think you are misunderstand the job of a private school. Private schools consult with parents in the 2 year run up to them leaving prep school. Prep schools 'prepare' the children for whatever exams they face, that is their fundamental job. Private school parents will likely keep their kids in prep schools (which are significantly cheaper than secondary privates schools - fees go from 12k pre-prep - 40k secondary), and brief the schools to prepare their kids for the local grammar school papers. Something they are already very accustomed to doing, but will be doing in vastly higher numbers as the vat increase bites. The private school my kid attends get 100% of the grammar school places applied for. It's unfair on other kids in my opinion to add so much competition in one hit. State schools will not likely have the resources to do the same for the most gifted in their classrooms, so it falls to how able the parents are to perform the same role.

Yep @80smonster

I also fall into this bracket and just put all my money over the band in a pension as a salary sacrifice. So I don't pay the marginal rate and my pension is doing very well

Public services are not paid for just by "people at the top" as you call them. Two thirds of the population are working class and they also pay tax.

Income tax was 33 pence in the pound when I started work and has been reduced by successive tory governments to buy votes.
The problem is people expect good quality health and educational provision and low taxation which is entitled nonsense.

Labour have to tax and spend to repair the damage caused by the tory austerity agenda, so they are being set up to fail.

It’s the same party. “Call me Tony” and his “New” Labour policies were just continued by his successor David Cameron, you can see borrowing was already going up once Brown sold all the gold! Candidates from one party never defected to the other as they were historically polar opposites. Not the case now as they are basically the same high tax grabbers who will always defend their donors interests before those of the people they are elected to represent.

Would you rather

Fair and progressive taxes with a well functioning country or low taxes , and a dog eat dog society with only the rich able to educate their child or fix a broken hip ?

100k salary is not the squeezed middle OP, last time I looked average UK salary was around 35k. I believe you can put more into pension to reduce your tax. Or work less if you prefer, you have options.

Income tax was 33 pence in the pound when I started work

Same with 9% NI on top on earnings in excess of £330 a year.