[Closed] child benefit..

Rubbish - simply not possible unless you pay ridiculous amounts for housing

how much rent/mortgage do you pay out TJ?

whats the market rate?

[img] [/img]

All this £35-40k pa makes you extremely well off - is that means tested? Working tax credits certainly aren't - they simply look at your salary and say yay or nay, ignoring whether you live in a cheap as chips town up north or the ridiculously expensive South.

Down here we are £2k per month down on rent and childcare before we have even started on heating, fuel, food, clothes, council tax. This is on rent on a very small starter home that we cram 4 people in. We rely on every penny we have coming in, and are about to lose child benefit because someone in Hull earning my salary is "well off" apparently.

And TJ - have you ever been to Romford? Its a war zone. Try looking at somewhere that you might wat to actually bring kids up.

If the house/street/town/region you live in is expensive its because you and your neighbours make it expensive. People generally pay as much as they can to live in the best house they can. Housebuyers, collectively, set the price of the houses they buy, and the they set it at the most they can possibly afford. If you were to provide subsidy through tax and benefits to people buying in Kensington then the result of that would be the cost of buying in Kensington would increase, because people who want to live there would continue to pay as much as they could afford to live there.

I've recently moved to one of the most expensive neighbourhoods in scotland to what is quite possibly the cheapest neighbourhood in scotland. But I'm paying the same rent because I can and I like what I can get for my money.

Its a fallacy to say "after I've paid my rent / mortgage I only have 'x' left to live on" The decision people make is "I can manage to live on "x" so I'll spend the remainder on the nicest house I can find"

TandemJeremy - Member
Well earlier in this I thought I would have a look to see what was so expensive about the south east that you have to earn so much to afford to live there.

I looked in Romford as its where my dad lived for a part of his childhood. a perfectly acceptable 3 bed semi could be rented for £1000 a month - £850 for a cheap one.

So that would seem that reasonable priced accommodation is available in the south east.

Stop trolling. Everyone knows your sample of a website and a few houses in one place in the South East is not representative of the wider region.

Just accept that average individual income is not a very good measure.

Its a fallacy to say "after I've paid my rent / mortgage I only have 'x' left to live on" The decision people make is "I can manage to live on "x" so I'll spend the remainder on the nicest house I can find"

The latter was probably true until the world all went wrong a few years ago ... now, the former is generally a more accurate picture for a lot of people ...

Welcome to Romford.

Don't forget, some people here live in one of those parallel universes. You know the one, where you can live a 5 minute walk from your work, or where public transport exists.

I still don't get this high income equals wealthy thing.

In my opinion "wealth" is accumulated retained net income or inherited assets, e.g. people with 2 or more flats/houses with little in the way of mortgages or other debts.

We'll likely lose it, and with three kids, it'll be a noticeable amount, £200 a month. But we never really needed it, and if it hadn't been around fifteen years ago wouldn't have influenced our decision to have kids. Not qualifying for WTC/CTC either. There used to be an argument that the state gives at least symbolic support for family life, but that seems to have gone too. I remain unconvinced that anyone getting around or above the average wage should be getting any benefits, massive bureaucracy and skewed labour market results. Plus the opportunity for politicians to keep offering rises come election time only to find the country bankrupt by the time the next election comes round.

Don't forget, some people here live in one of those parallel universes. You know the one, where you can live a 5 minute walk from your work, or where public transport exists.

Like tram systems perhaps? 😉

rkk01 - Member
After all, the furore about the £26k (?) benefits cap was quite enlightening. What does 26k after tax equate to as an earned gross salary equivalent? - must be somewhere in the mid 30s????

I can see your point that someone could in theory "earn" £26k tax free in benefits. One person would need to earn just shy of £35k gross to end up in the same ball park.

But when my CTC notice arrived for 2012/13 the upper cap was £26k, gross. As a family we are now £240 a month worse off.

I've had mixed fortunes with jobs / redundancies / jobs over the last few years. I went from circ £30K to £14K and now back up to £30K. Plus The Wife now works part time. I can testify that £30K is bloody comfortable compared to £14K.

I can only dream of the "hardship" that £42K must bring.

very few public servants will ever get into that £40 000+ bracket. So how do you think nurses, teachers, etc manage in the south east?
simple - its cut your cloth according to your means.

Still avoiding the question up in your ivory tower tj...

what jambo? I pay around £300 a month - dead cheap. I do live in a one bed flat in a non posh part of town.

[i]very few public servants will ever get into that £40 000+ bracket[/i]

Well, not until they retire that is 🙂

When they'll then take out a big lump sum and have a final salary pension - which is why the rest of us need to pay higher taxes.

[i]what jambo? I pay around £300 a month - dead cheap. I do live in a one bed flat in a non posh part of town. [/i]

As said TJ, you've no idea of the costs involved for the majority of us.

Ah but I do BR and the point remains no matter what your costs are earning in the top 10% of earners makes you well off which is the basic point

My heart bleeds for all these people on the breadline on £42 000 pa who cannot possibly live in a cheap house.

90% of the population don't get these choices including the vast majority of public servants. you know -the folk who empty your bins, the ones who teach your kids, the ones who look after your granny when she is ill, the ones run all the services you take for granted. they have to live in the south east as well and they do not earn £42 000+ PA

Reality check required please

TJ is absolutely right of course.

it's just a shame that his point is lost in the pious way he posts it...

(100!)

And TJ - have you ever been to Romford? Its a war zone.

LOL. Plenty of places you could live in Essex within commuting distance to London where you could rent a family home for less than 50% of your take home on a 42k income. It's a simple measure to implement I guess. I know that simplicity means there will be some losers in this scenario but most people with at least £40k coming into the household should be able to adjust with only a reasonable amount of pain IMO. Have a look at the changes to WTC if you want to find some people who are about to really suffer 🙁

Agree with ho hum, takehome is an indication of wealth, but it should not be taken in isolation. Those who have managed to scrape themselves onto the housing ladder for the first time in the last few years are saddled with pretty big outgoings. Those with more modest incomes but cashed in on the equity boom are in much much better positions. The majority of my colleagues in their late 30s early 40 s are in nice family homes and pretty close to paying mortgages off.....things are very different for those in their early 30 s. My poor sisters in their early 20s are resigned to living at home until their thirties! Salary is a bollox way of determining if someone is wealthy.

Back in the days when child benefit was introduced there was a real need for it, but many decades of rising living standards later, can it still be justified? I think not. In the depths of my old shed I have a slowly rusting tin dating from the early sixties that once contained state-issued milk powder for infants, I may well have drunk some of it. AFAIK the state doesn't issue tins of milk powder anymore so shouldn't the child benefit be reduced over the next decade, then be abolished?

The state [i]does[/i] still pay for baby milk for those on the lowest income.
You recieve a 'healthy start' voucher and use it to pay for the milk at a shop ,rather than having to collect it from the health centre, thats the only difference.

TJ - the point remains no matter what your costs are earning in the top 10% of earners makes you well off which is the basic point

However, generally speaking I don't think most people have an absolute objection to getting rid of the benefit for high earners (although tell anyone that they will loose say 5% of their net income and they will understandably be concerned) - inevitably anyone just the wrongside of the threshold wishes they weren't. What I do hear people objecting to is that HOUSEHOLDS with earnings just over the limit from a single earner will loose the income but households with joint incomes will not, and perhaps most concerning households with joint incomes at the top 3% will still qualify...

HMRC stats for income.

Amusing graph on page 10.

Basically, if you're in the bottom 90% of earners, your salary has been slowly increasing over the last decade.

If you're in the top 1% of earners, though, your salary has gone up around 60% in the last decade.

I guess because you're worth it.

And that was under a Labour(champagne socialist swigging)government!

Where did this top 10% figure come from by the way? I noticed [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17256946 ]Nick Robinson said " only [u]15%[/u] of people earn enough to be higher rate taxpayers."[/url]

Other google sources say there are currently 3.74 million higher rate tax payers. And the IFS says 1-in-4 will be higher rate taxpayers by 2015. As I said, this isn't some wealthy elite in gold plated hot tubs we're talking about.

poly has it right - the issue is fairness.

Suggesting that higher earners may not need the Child Benefit is fair. It's rather against the idea of a universal benefit, but fair.

However removing the benefit based on one salary, while allowing households with far higher incomes to keep it is unfair.
Likewise expecting households with children to suffer much greater benefit cuts than those without is unfair, especially at a time when funding cuts means they already suffering due to various child facilities and support services being withdrawn.

Graham S, the only caveat I'd have against your point above is that a dual income family might well have a healthy childcare bill.

Where did this top 10% figure come from by the way?

HMRC. But it turns out that the "top 10%=£40k" statistic is from 2008. Google is your friend.

How about flipping the argument on it's head. How much money will be saved in removing child benefit from the top 10% compared to the cost of administering it?
Miss CD is from Denmark, a country often put forward as having one of the best standards of living and social care in the World. Their child benefits (and may other) are universal and most women are only out of work for a year when they have a child where as in the UK women often have to take a career break for 5 years as childcare costs are so high. Consequently they have far more women in you positions that we do. It could be argued that in the UK by achieving 'fairness' based on salary we could help create (continue) gender inequality.

Graham S, the only caveat I'd have against your point above is that a dual income family might well have a healthy childcare bill.

As someone in that exact position, I'd definitely agree 😀
Childcare costs can be crippling and there is a definite consideration of [i]"is it worth both of us working when the childcare costs are practically one salary?"[/i]

Someone will be along to tell you you shouldn't have had kids 🙄

Indeed. I've got money on who it'll be too 😀

Before tax people in the 90th percentile get £46,600 (09/10).

After tax people in the 90th percentile get £39,200 (09/10)

Here is an informative table:

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal_incomes/statistics-release-note.pdf ](source)[/url]

I may just need a coffee, but I have no idea how to read that table or what it shows. Can you explain it and where you get your £39,200 figure from?

The table refers to the cumulative amount of tax (in millions) per salary group and numbers of people per group are in thousands. Hence those earning over £30k pa, 5.4million people pay the largest amount of tax (cumulatively) but are the biggest group.

You shouldn't have kids.

tonyg2003, ta! I'm being a bit slow today.

So... the 30k is lower limit. So the range means 30-50k, yes?

Looks like that is the second biggest group with 5,490,000 people, with the biggest being 20-30k with 6,800,000?

Why the odd distribution of the ranges?

And how does this relate to the £46,600 pre-tax, £39,200 after tax figures that CaptJohn mentioned?

TandemJeremy - Member
very few public servants will ever get into that £40 000+ bracket. So how do you think nurses, teachers, etc manage in the south east?
simple - its cut your cloth according to your means.

Erm, they get things like London waiting, first dibs on shared accomodation etc.

Things that we are unable to get because we both work and are just above the cut off line. The fact that we both work and pay a fortune in childcare is not taken into account - apart from by the mortgage lenders who say that we earn too little disposable income to warrant lending money to.

very few public servants will ever get into that £40 000+ bracket. So how do you think nurses, teachers, etc manage in the south east?

This is disingenuous anyway

GrahamS - Member
I may just need a coffee, but I have no idea how to read that table or what it shows. Can you explain it and where you get your £39,200 figure from?

Sorry different table: [url= http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal_incomes/statistics-release-note.pdf ]table 3.1 page 33[/url]

rkk01 - Member

"very few public servants will ever get into that £40 000+ bracket. So how do you think nurses, teachers, etc manage in the south east?"

This is disingenuous anyway

Why? Its perfectly valid. It just shows how out of touch with reality you are when you perceive a salary level available to very few in the public sector to be not enough to live on

Ah gotcha thanks.

So you're saying that to have been in the Pre-tax Top 10% (for 2009-10) you had to earning £46,600 or more before tax.

And to be in the Post Tax Top 10% you had to be left with £39,200 after tax.

Hmm... doesn't that mean you can be top 10% pre-tax but not post?
[url= http://www.incometaxcalculator.org.uk/index.php ]According to Stanley[/url] a salary of £46,600pa in 2009-10 should leave you with £33,805 after paying £8,570 income tax and £4,224 NI.

Why? Its perfectly valid.

Apart from the points about scott_mcavennie2 raised about things like London weighting and access to hospital-provided or subsidised accommodation. Plus other benefits outside the salary/tax scheme that are not available to non-public sector workers.

It just shows how out of touch with reality you are when you perceive a salary level available to very few in the public sector to be not enough to live on

No, it shows how crappy some public sector salaries are (Which is why they got those good pensions in the first place).

And I never said it wasn't enough to live on, I said that outgoings can be such that even a top 10% salary [i]can[/i] still leave people with very little disposable income. Having £50 spare in a month (as per rkk01's example) is not my idea of "well off".

Why? Its perfectly valid.

No, I don't believe that it is.
To quote:

very few public servants will [b]ever[/b] get into that £40 000+ bracket

I am sure that there are very similar proportions of workers in both public and private sectors who aspire to, and proceed to, positions of higher responsibility and are therefore paid within those salary levels.

Teachers pay scales extend into mid to high 30s, even without additional allowances. Those that progress to management positions can expect to get paid well into the 40-50+ brackets.

It just shows how out of touch with reality you are when you perceive a salary level available [s]to very few in the public sector[/s]* to be not enough to live on

I've not said that it is not enough to live on. A salary of 40+ should provide a very comfortable lifestyle.

The point that I am arguing is that it does not equate to being "wealthy". To pitch the 40% threshold as a definition of being welathy is rather blinkered

* already demonstrated to be falacious

You really are so far out of touch its not funny.

the top 10% of earners not wealthy?

The vast majority of public servants will never get close to £40 000. Teachers are one of the few groups that can get close. Virtually no others can at all. Almost no nurses will - only a very few that get to higher managerial grades managing multiple units will. Local government workers - bin men, school dinner ladies, care workers in council run homes, council workers of all types. £40 000+ is riches to be dreamt of not acheivable saleries

You really do need a large reality check.

If you've got a wife, children and a mortgage on a house in the SE to pay for, you won't feel wealthy on £40k.

You may not [i]feel [/i]wealthy but you are as 90% of the workers of the country earn less

The vast majority of public servants will never get close to £40 000. Teachers are one of the few groups that can get close. Virtually no others can at all. Almost no nurses will

The amusing thing about your protests TJ is that I am not a Higher Rate Tax Payer, but my wife, a public servant, is.

As for nurses, hmm...
Band 7: £30,460 - 40,157
Band 8: £38,851 - 80,810
Band 9: £77,079 - 97,478

Plus inner London loading of up to 20 per cent of basic salary (subject to a minimum payment of £4,036 and a maximum payment of £6,217).

http://www.rcn.org.uk/support/pay_and_conditions/pay_rates_2010-2011

If you've got a wife, children and a mortgage on a house in the SE to pay for, you won't feel wealthy on £40k. till you retire and see what the house is worth

FTFY
Someone who was not wealthy would not have the mortgage

You may not feel wealthy but you are as 90% of the workers of the country earn less

If you earn a million pounds, but I take away £999,999 can I still call you a millionaire?

Do you live in a palace with staff and a few cars and three holidays per year to exclusibve resorts but claim you are poor because there is nothing left at the end of the year due ot the "upkeep" of the stately home etc

It is interesting you could earn less than 40 k and be "better off "oop North with a cheaper house for example. That said I still dont see how we can call the top 10% of the uk population anything other than well off.

Looking at those Band figures Armed Forces Nurses earn significantly more than their NHS counterparts, and thus £40k is attainable at a lower Rank/Band.

That's really the issue isn't it? People have an expectation that if they earn £Xk salary, they can live a certain lifestyle, have a certain quality of house/area/car/holidays/etc. which then eats into that extra money and means that they don't have much more disposable cash than when they earned less.

And that's basically why TJ does have a point, though I'll reiterate that the way he presents it as ever makes it hard to win any one over...

Thats right graham s - only those on band 8 will get into 40% tax band and those are only those very few nurses managing multiple units get band 8.

A few at the very top of band 7 working in inner london might just scrape in. Again very rare - thats people who have had senior posts for many years - again a tiny minority.

a very few % of nurses will ever reach these levels

Thats right graham s - only those on band 8 will get into 40% tax band

But you said they [i]"never get close to £40 000"[/i] and [i]"Almost no nurses will"[/i]
That clearly shows that nurses band 7 and above can earn 40k or more.

And that's nursing, not a profession that is associated with high pay scales.
And is before you consider external factors such as pension, NHS Discounts, subsidised accommodation.

Care to look at doctors? Surgeons?

Thats right - almost no nurses will reach the top of band 7 or band 8. a very small % do.

But TJ - those nurses and binmen are amazingly well off. The average wage in Kosovo is $6500.

almost no nurses will reach the top of band 7 or band 8. a very small % do.

Hmmm Band 7 comprises of:
  Health visitor specialist
  Health visitor team manager
  Midwife higher level
  Midwife higher level (research projects)
  Midwife team manager
  Nurse advanced
  Nurse advanced (schools)
  Nurse team manager
  Nurse team manager (learning disabilities)
  Nurse team manager (mental health) community
  Nurse team manager (NHS Direct)
  Nurse team manager (schools)
  Nurse team manager (community)
  Nursing health visitor specialist (community practice teacher)

Seems like there would be quite a few of those roles across the UK.

Okay. [url= http://www.police-information.co.uk/policepay.htm ]How about Police?[/url] Again, not a job known for very high pay.

Rank of Sergeant is £36,519 - £41,040 plus a "competence related threshold payment" (plus possibly a £2,277 London weighting)

Are you telling me there are hardly any sergeants?

But TJ - those nurses and binmen are amazingly well off. The average wage in Kosovo is $6500.

This is true. 50% of the world live on less than $2 a day. Even the very poorest in the UK are very "well off" (as we've already established that location and living costs should not be considered).

Across the UK band 7 does not get you into higher rate tax - only if you hit the top point and get inner london weighting - and again you show your ignorance - there are very few people in those positions.

the only nurse that will hit the 40% tax band are band 7s at the top of their scale in inner london and band 8 with a few years seniority.

Both rare.

Across the UK band 7 does not get you into higher rate tax

Stop moving your goalposts.

You said that [i]"£40 000+ is riches to be dreamt of not acheivable saleries"[/i] and that [i]"Almost no nurses will"[/i] earn that.

Band 7 gets you to £40,000 basic salary, without even considering supplements such as [url= http://www.rcn.org.uk/support/pay_and_conditions/supplements_-_unsocial_hours__and__oncall/unsocial_hours ]unsocial hours payment[/url], [url= http://www.rcn.org.uk/support/pay_and_conditions/working_hours,_overtime,_annual_leave ]overtime[/url], or [url= http://www.rcn.org.uk/support/pay_and_conditions/supplements_-_unsocial_hours__and__oncall/on_call ]on-call payment[/url]. Or the external benefits and nice pension.

So explain to me again how 40k is not an achievable salary then?

That's really the issue isn't it? People have an expectation that if they earn £Xk salary, they can live a certain lifestyle, have a certain quality of house/area/car/holidays/etc. which then eats into that extra money and means that they don't have much more disposable cash than when they earned less.

There's certainly an element to that - but not in the BiL example I cited ^^, that really was down to moving with work to a very expensive area.

Personally speaking, we've spent too much on cars over the last decade. Not choices made to satisfy personal petrolhead fetishes, but made largely to satisfy work requirements and car allowance rules.

As I posted on the "Parent's House" thread - in this country there is a fairly compelling argument for backpedalling, taking the social's coin and not advancing yourself. Pursuing ambition, career enhancement and additional responsibilities attracts more salary, but also considerably more costs

And that's basically why TJ does have a point, though I'll reiterate that the way he presents it as ever makes it hard to win any one over...

TJ's point is quite right, in essence, but the black / white nature of it, and as you say, dogmatic presentation, ignores a few key considerations

I earn pretty much bang on that £42K line

Am I well off?
Well, I'm the only wage earner in our house

Up until the 2 girls left to make their own way in the world and we finished paying the mortgage, we struggled at times, now we're comfortable

so it depends 🙂

TJ's point about 'wealthy' is silly. Wealthy is a meaningless word without precise definition and there isn't one that everyone will agree on. From what I know of TJ's circumstances, I know people who would consider him loaded though I'm sure he'd disagree.

Well, I'm the only wage earner in our house

Which brings us back to the point that individual salary, rather than total household income, is a very poor measure of wealth.

having had a conversation with my kids primary school head about the schools poor performance he blamed the recent problems at the school on 'poor rewards' for the teaching staff.. i cited that the average full time equivilant at the school was 39500 which was above the regional average he said he was having to pay top scales as very few were prepared to work in our little community faith school and that he had been the only candidate for head so again had been offered a premium.
checking the other 4 primaries in our village ours has the second most expensive staff and the most teaching hours per pupil the lowest absenteeism and cannot achieve the academic levels reached by a school in near by rochdale where 1 school is 70% non english speakers in reception and yet come year 5/6 they are better at it than my kids school..

i dont care how much they get paid.. I just want them to do the job. if a nurse saves my life ( and they have) give them the earth if a teacher cant get a bright native speaker to the same level as non speaker what do they deserve..

GrahamS - Member
Ah gotcha thanks.

So you're saying that to have been in the Pre-tax Top 10% (for 2009-10) you had to earning £46,600 or more before tax.

And to be in the Post Tax Top 10% you had to be left with £39,200 after tax.

[b]Hmm... doesn't that mean you can be top 10% pre-tax but not post?[/b]
According to Stanley a salary of £46,600pa in 2009-10 should leave you with £33,805 after paying £8,570 income tax and £4,224 NI.

Yes. Because not all income is taxed at the same rate (pensions, property income, investment income), and the figures are averages.

To re-iterate the top 10% of earners in the UK earn over £39,200 [b]after tax[/b].

Given this discussion is about child benefit, there is some interesting difference between income levels between age groups. But that is still focusing on individuals, not households (where the majority of kids live).

To re-iterate the top 10% of earners in the UK earn over £39,200 after tax.

Thanks.

Should I interpret this as further evidence against TJ's point that a higher rate taxpayer is automatically in the top 10% wealthiest people in the country?

I think the point about individual versus household income is the most important one.
TJ would have it that someone earning 50k [u]must[/u] be "well off" and can therefore afford higher tax and less benefits, regardless of circumstance.

However a household with a single 50k income has £36,656 after tax.
That's a decent amount. No argument.

However a household with both parents on £25k (i.e. below the national average) will have £38,976 after tax, but is apparently not "well off" by the same measure and still entitled to child benefit and any other benefits based on individual income.

We're also leaving off over time in these calculations. As a private sector employee I do not get paid overtime for evenings, weekends etc etc.

Friends of mine in the public sector have a lower basic but make significant amounts in Overtime.

I also find the pre tax / post tax comparison a little disingenuous. I am in the top 10% pre tax, I am significantly below that post tax for one reason and another. I could earn a million pre tax but if my post Tax is 24K I don't benefit from it. Interestingly our top 10% pre tax income leaves me below the 26K maximum benefits threshold mentioned previously.

graham s

Well put
Some people on here can't see the wood for the trees.

Agreed household income is key to this debate and actually the key to fair taxation but we won't go there.

Graham, just remember, TJ don't ski. 🙂

Of course someone on £50k can afford to lose benefits. Surely the question is can someone on £40k do so. If the answer is yes, then the rest is irrelevant unless you haven't learnt that life isn't always fair.

What bothers me more is the inequity between households with the same income depending on how the income is split. If you have two households on 60k one with a single earner and the other with two below the 40% threshold then the two income household pays lower taxes so has a higher take home pay. In addition they get the extra help. The person who pays more gets hit twice, once in the tax and again in the lack of child benefit. So in effect single income higher rate payers may well be less well off.

Higher rate payers are not necessarily well off but we are better off than some. its all about your hpusehold's mix AND what other free help you get (grandparents doing free childcare etc).

Edit: I am absolutely not complaining about what we have or even losing the benefit but I am fed up of being a soft target for political capital.

It's very easy to manage if they simply stop it for anyone in the 40% bracket - the tax system simply does it

figuring out dual incomes will be a nightmare for them

Looking at these income statistics makes me wonder even more how bike companies get away with their 2012 pricing? Who is buying all these £3-5k bikes?

Have you seen how much tandems cost? 🙂

I think that the conclusion is that after 150+ post there is no simple solution.
Living in a low rent area as isn't going to provide high paying jobs, therefore high tax band have to live in area of high demand therefore high costs.
The families might have one or two parents and one, two or three children and their associated living and childcare costs.
Why should a two parent family where only one parent works, but doesn't earn enough to qualify for the higher tax band, but has a parent at home to look after the child receive benefits?
The children in that environment will be receiving a lot more than the high earners who provide nannies, kindergartens and prep schools for Tarquin and Jemima?

CFH - you made me spill my beer!!! 😉

If you have two households on 60k one with a single earner and the other with two below the 40% threshold then the two income household pays lower taxes so has a higher take home pay.

The single earner could get a poorer paying job and get their freeloading partner into McDonalds flipping burgers. Problem solved!