Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To reduce hours when labour win election

877 replies

Parttimeplay · 24/05/2024 01:40

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
24
PlanetJanette · 24/05/2024 17:25

80smonster · 24/05/2024 16:44

No. Quite the opposite in fact. I’m saying voting Labour, because you think their VAT policy will address the inequalities in education - is entirely unsubstantiated. Your assumption that private school parents are all Tory voters (me neither) is bizarre. This is a very complicated socioeconomic issue and yourself and others are struggling to fully see the full picture. How dire this will be entirely depends on how robust your local state and grammar schools are and if they have space to expand, to keep pace with new applicants.

It's not at all that complex.

The IFS estimates that 20,000 to 40,000 private school pupils might be displaced into the state sector by the VAT proposal. That means somewhere between 0.8 and 1.6 pupils on average in each school.

But here's the other thing - those students will probably cost those schools less than they will earn in per pupil funding. The profile of students joining the state sector from the private sector will tend to be higher performing in academic terms (due to selection criteria) and have parents who are heavily invested in their education, translating to either time spent supporting out of school learning or money spent on additional tuition.

So on average, if a school has to take two formerly private students, they will received about £15k in additional state funding. But the costs associated with having those students will almost certainly be lower than average. That is a net benefit for the school.

And that is before you consider the benefits to state schools from having additional students with either high performance or high parental investment in those schools.

wombat15 · 24/05/2024 17:28

GasPanic · 24/05/2024 17:21

I would have thought evaluating whether work is worthwhile is something you do all the time. Not just because "Labour might get in".

I mean if they do get it and it becomes not worthwhile then you pack it in.

But until they actually get in and start implementing policy how does anyone know what is going to happen and how that might affect their willingness to work ?

I mean even at the manifesto stage the policies are often spoken about only in general terms, so until they actually get in and until they actually do something that makes your job less worthwhile then probably best to carry on as is.

I think that we are supposed to worry about all these brilliant people working less hours and paying less tax because of it or that their brilliant children are going to take the grammar school places as they will be so much more clever than the plebs at state schools or worrying that everyone who lives near a good state school is going to be forced out of their house to make way for those clever children who are currently at private schools. The other threat of course is that all the brilliant rich will leave the country and then we will have no one to pay for the NHS because only the rich pay taxes.

WithACatLikeTread · 24/05/2024 17:34

sulkingsock · 24/05/2024 15:14

This is completely true. I earn 3 x that - took a 6 year break had one year earning slightly less than before and now earn more than ever. This idea that women have to stay at work for their career is ridiculous and misogynistic.

Op i completely understand. If i could just earn my salary at a standard 40% tax rate i could pay the private school fees easily. Instead they want to make it 20% more expensive.

I worked 100 hours last week. That's why i have a higher salary.

Yeah but when did you see your kids?

BIossomtoes · 24/05/2024 18:08

WithACatLikeTread · 24/05/2024 17:34

Yeah but when did you see your kids?

They’re probably at boarding school.

Sausagedogs123 · 24/05/2024 18:22

frankentall · 24/05/2024 16:24

Ridiculous over-simplification. If everyone on £25 could make 62.5k by working 100 hours, lots would do it.
There are so many variables.

They do do it! My cleaner earns £20 an hour direct basic and £35 for deep cleans. She works every hour going as it’s her business and she get to keep the ££. She has very few overheads and all her clients are in the same catchment area so travel time is 5mins. She probably earns more than me!

Charlie2121 · 24/05/2024 19:01

Brooks11 · 24/05/2024 09:25

I honestly don't understand the idea that labour is the issue here - I am in a very high tax bracket and it's been the tories that have set my tax for most of my professional life. Why haven't they raised all the thresholds in line with inflation, why have they introduced this ridiculous 100 - 125k place where you are worse off? How is this Labour's fault?!

Labour introduced the 60% marginal rate of income tax for 100-125k.

RacketsAndRounders · 24/05/2024 19:07

You'll just need to make the best of any situation.

By all means, reduce your hours.

Higher taxpayers threatening to reduce hours and reduce their contribution to the tax pot doesn't bother me.

I choose not to work full time and therefore pay less tax than I would on full time hours because I don't need to and like time off.

Hopefully we will see proper wealth tax.

wombat15 · 24/05/2024 19:18

Charlie2121 · 24/05/2024 19:01

Labour introduced the 60% marginal rate of income tax for 100-125k.

100k was a relatively much higher salary when they introduced it. The Tories have chosen not to increase the threshold.

LiquoriceAllsorts2 · 24/05/2024 19:30

GreenTeaLikesMe · 24/05/2024 02:49

Not to sound rude, but you don’t remotely sound like someone who is in the position to pay for private school in the UK (fair enough, I wouldn’t be able to afford UK private school either), so saying “Labour is taking away my future private school options!!”sounds a bit weird.

24k of saved nursery fees will likely cover a private school place, especially with a few payrises along the way

wombat15 · 24/05/2024 19:32

LiquoriceAllsorts2 · 24/05/2024 19:30

24k of saved nursery fees will likely cover a private school place, especially with a few payrises along the way

It will also cover vat.

LiquoriceAllsorts2 · 24/05/2024 19:33

Barleypilaf · 24/05/2024 07:39

Why was the OP posting between 2 and 3am? The same thing happened on Mumsnet during the Brexit referendum, with posters who suddenly disappeared the minute Leave won, and the country’s economy was screwed.

Awake due to a small child waking/needing feeding in the night maybe?

kirbykirby · 24/05/2024 19:35

I'm surprised anyone can afford to work nowadays!

wombat15 · 24/05/2024 19:41

LiquoriceAllsorts2 · 24/05/2024 19:33

Awake due to a small child waking/needing feeding in the night maybe?

They were posting for several hours in the night.

ThisOldThang · 24/05/2024 19:53

Parttimeplay · 24/05/2024 03:08

@BananaLambo no not saying it’s shit now. My life has changed over past 13 years. Just saying it’s a sad state of affairs when I feel there’s little motivation as little to be gained past earning 100k

Why don't you use salary sacrifice pension contributions to reduce your pay to £99,999 and avoid the loss of childcare?

80smonster · 24/05/2024 20:42

PlanetJanette · 24/05/2024 17:25

It's not at all that complex.

The IFS estimates that 20,000 to 40,000 private school pupils might be displaced into the state sector by the VAT proposal. That means somewhere between 0.8 and 1.6 pupils on average in each school.

But here's the other thing - those students will probably cost those schools less than they will earn in per pupil funding. The profile of students joining the state sector from the private sector will tend to be higher performing in academic terms (due to selection criteria) and have parents who are heavily invested in their education, translating to either time spent supporting out of school learning or money spent on additional tuition.

So on average, if a school has to take two formerly private students, they will received about £15k in additional state funding. But the costs associated with having those students will almost certainly be lower than average. That is a net benefit for the school.

And that is before you consider the benefits to state schools from having additional students with either high performance or high parental investment in those schools.

Is that you Bridget Phillipson?

The IFS estimate is incorrect. There will have been under-reporting in these numbers, since they fall on the Independent Schools Council Survey (circulated via private schools). Parents surveyed may have very likely not wanted to say they would be likely leave, or else decided not to contribute to the survey. This quote is taken from The Guardian, this week: ‘There are differing opinions as to how much the tax rise is likely to affect demand for private school places. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), which implausibly argues VAT receipts will remain unchanged as impacted families spend elsewhere, expects a 3-7% enrolment decline. I have heard that a leading industry consultant advises schools to budget for a near 25% decline by 2030. Notably, at a 25% decline, the net impact becomes negative as the cost of educating private school leavers in the state system would exceed all VAT gains.’
A 25% increase would be absolutely catastrophic for the already creaking state system, that’s before you address the competition that will ensue at grammar school level. The numbers that Labour has outlined look appealing to parents with kids in failing state schools. There is no research that underpins that this will improve social mobility, there is research that says it will disadvantage children who are from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds, whilst children from wealthier backgrounds are likely to be skimmed off for talented & gifted programmes, which will benefit the schools via the uptick in academic achievements. Anyways, Bridget, give this podcast a listen: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.html and best of luck with the election.

https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-07/IFS-Report-R263-Tax-private-school-fees-and-state-school-spending.pdf

80smonster · 24/05/2024 20:43

LiquoriceAllsorts2 · 24/05/2024 19:33

Awake due to a small child waking/needing feeding in the night maybe?

More likely Labour party interns.

BIossomtoes · 24/05/2024 21:12

Charlie2121 · 24/05/2024 19:01

Labour introduced the 60% marginal rate of income tax for 100-125k.

And the Tories kept it for 14 years.

HappiestSleeping · 24/05/2024 21:21

BIossomtoes · 24/05/2024 21:12

And the Tories kept it for 14 years.

One party taketh, and the other not giveth it back.

'Twas ever thus.

Lottelenya · 24/05/2024 21:52

Fecking hell. Is mumsnet going to be like this for the next 6 weeks. Tories did this, no but Labour did that. Yeah but Labour will do that. Oh but but but…
No one gives a shiny shit who votes for who and no randomer will change my or anyone else’s mind because of an ultimate put down or gotcha.

Toenailz · 24/05/2024 21:52

Parttimeplay · 24/05/2024 02:18

I’m not saying the tories haven’t made a mess. I’m just saying in my situation, when labour get it, it’s just going to become pointless for me. Increased taxes, vat on schooling etc etc

So, you'll have to cope with the consequences of a government that doesn't work best for you, exactly as the working class have had to deal with for the past 14 years.

Difference is, for the past 14 years, the impact on some of the working class has been access to food, heating, housing. You know, the basics for your body to actually be alive. Not to mention the exponential increase of need and use of food banks. Yours will just be private education. Woe is me.

HappiestSleeping · 24/05/2024 22:15

Lottelenya · 24/05/2024 21:52

Fecking hell. Is mumsnet going to be like this for the next 6 weeks. Tories did this, no but Labour did that. Yeah but Labour will do that. Oh but but but…
No one gives a shiny shit who votes for who and no randomer will change my or anyone else’s mind because of an ultimate put down or gotcha.

On the basis that there have been many many threads, I think it will indeed be like this for the next 6 weeks.

On the other hand, mumsnet is a discussion board. So we are discussing. And maybe some learning.

Let's face it, it will give us a break from "I found out my boyfriend is cheating, should I leave him?" (Spolier alert - yes, you should.)

At risk of poking the bear, we don't seem to have done with Brexshit yet either, even though the referendum was nearly a decade ago. 😉

JLou08 · 24/05/2024 22:30

It seems like this was a post to influence people to vote Tory. Massive failure though. Your not happy with your life because of Tory policies.

Parttimeplay · 24/05/2024 22:37

@JLou08 no I don’t believe it would influence anything….but is a discussion board not for discussion and learning?

OP posts:
UPALLNIGHTMNETTING · 24/05/2024 23:14

BotDranning · 24/05/2024 10:54

Me too. I'm already talking to my employer about reducing my hours. I don't really want to I absolutely love my job. But I'm not going to carry on working long hours and given a huge part of it away.

You can't love it that much then?

You have a job you love, where you can continue to work full time.

Or, you can afford to work less and have more time to yourself (but still work the job you love).

I can't see your gripe?

UPALLNIGHTMNETTING · 24/05/2024 23:15

This thread is fully bonkers 😂