Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

The £100k childcare cliff edge - how is anyone meant to make this work?

262 replies

Saladleaf · 21/10/2025 22:06

I completely understand that on paper, a six-figure household income sounds like a lot. I’m not trying to be ignorant of the fact that many people are struggling far more. But for anyone actually living it, especially in the South East, the reality feels very different once you factor in childcare costs.

We’re looking at full-time nursery fees of around £2,500 a month per child, and I honestly don’t know how families are supposed to make it work once you hit the £100k cliff edge and lose access to the 30 free hours. It’s completely unsustainable.

I know some people say you can get around it by putting more into your pension so your income technically falls below the threshold, but that just isn’t realistic for everyone. With the cost of living, mortgage, and general expenses, we simply can’t afford to take home hundreds less each month. We already don’t have holidays, don’t buy new clothes, and don’t even have a car. There isn’t any more to cut back.

It’s not even about wanting handouts, it’s that full-priced childcare in this country is so eye-wateringly expensive that it makes working impossible for many women. The system actually discourages the lower earner, usually the mother, from staying in work.

A friend of mine is a good example. Her husband earns over the threshold, and she’s just spent years retraining into a new career that she’s passionate about, but is now entry level. We worked out that if they have a baby, it would literally cost them money they can't afford for her to keep working once childcare, rising mortgage payments and bills are factored in. She’d have to give it all up. It’s so demoralising.

And the whole system makes no sense. Two people earning £99k each can claim free hours, but one person earning £100k can’t. Someone on £50k with one child gets support, but a couple on £100k with two children get nothing, even though their childcare costs are double and they are taxed more. It’s not unreasonable to have worked hard, built a decent career and want two children, but the government seems to penalise you for it.

Other countries manage to offer affordable childcare to everyone because they see it as essential. Here it just feels like you’re being punished for trying to do well. For those of us in the South East, it’s even harder. Living costs are sky high, childcare is extortionate, and it’s not realistic to just move somewhere cheaper when your jobs and lives are here.

It feels like you’re being backed into a corner. I find it so demoralising that the system seems designed to push mothers out of their careers, especially when you’ve worked so hard to build one in the first place. AIBU in feeling like this?

OP posts:
Coldsoup · 22/10/2025 17:51

Allswellthatendswelll · 22/10/2025 16:18

No one is criticising the choice to be a SAHM. They are saying women shouldn't be forced into it because their husband earns say 110k and they earn 30k. Therefore making them as a household much worse off then a couple both on 70k.

All those 30k jobs are often teachers/ nurses/ social workers and other public sector stuff which is important as well. And the South East and London need them too!

What is a "passive income"?

Edited

But the husband could pop £10k a year in his pension and then they would be much better off than a couple of £70k

I didn't realise so many of my fellow high earners were so self pitying and hard of thinking

GentleJadeOP · 22/10/2025 17:00

OneAmberFinch · 22/10/2025 16:29

Corporate law
Management consulting
Investment banking
Private equity, hedge funds & similar
Software engineer/PM in big tech
Senior management in corporates

^ not an exhaustive list but these are the jobs of me and many of my friends in London

Sounds clever stuff! Way above me

Allswellthatendswelll · 22/10/2025 16:45

OneAmberFinch · 22/10/2025 16:29

Corporate law
Management consulting
Investment banking
Private equity, hedge funds & similar
Software engineer/PM in big tech
Senior management in corporates

^ not an exhaustive list but these are the jobs of me and many of my friends in London

Also GP at some levels
Consultant at a hospital

The list is getting bigger and bigger because of inflation!

OneAmberFinch · 22/10/2025 16:29

GentleJadeOP · 22/10/2025 16:23

What type of jobs are you all doing to earn £100,000? I don’t know anyone on that amount or anywhere near it

Corporate law
Management consulting
Investment banking
Private equity, hedge funds & similar
Software engineer/PM in big tech
Senior management in corporates

^ not an exhaustive list but these are the jobs of me and many of my friends in London

Needlenardlenoo · 22/10/2025 16:27

Financial services, law, corporate.

London.

GentleJadeOP · 22/10/2025 16:23

What type of jobs are you all doing to earn £100,000? I don’t know anyone on that amount or anywhere near it

Needlenardlenoo · 22/10/2025 16:20

"Passive income" is from assets like shares or a buy to let.

Allswellthatendswelll · 22/10/2025 16:18

ThisTicklishFatball · 22/10/2025 14:10

After posting my initial comment, I went back to read the thread thoroughly and noticed several posts criticizing women who choose to be stay-at-home mothers.

As someone who became a SAHM by choice after careful planning, I find it absurd to criticize this decision. I believe being a SAHM isn't an issue for any woman who has thoughtfully prepared for it—I personally chose a high-paying career and did everything possible to secure my future before taking this path, making deliberate decisions before marrying my husband. Marrying someone you don't trust is simply a bad choice. Too many women end up choosing the wrong men as husbands and then spend their time lamenting and regretting their poor decisions.

I’m a SAHM with passive income and a high-earning husband. We’ve worked hard and continue to do so to protect what we’ve built—saving, investing, and making smart decisions. Taxes already take a big chunk, and we expect next year to be even tougher. So, we’re taking reasonable and legal steps to avoid paying more than necessary. It’s not selfish; it’s just being prudent.

No one is criticising the choice to be a SAHM. They are saying women shouldn't be forced into it because their husband earns say 110k and they earn 30k. Therefore making them as a household much worse off then a couple both on 70k.

All those 30k jobs are often teachers/ nurses/ social workers and other public sector stuff which is important as well. And the South East and London need them too!

What is a "passive income"?

OneAmberFinch · 22/10/2025 15:39

Saladleaf · 22/10/2025 14:18

This. All day long. How is it that things have got this bloody dire that to live in London in an ex-council house, you are struggling to make ends meet on a salary well over £100k. The system is broken. And people don't understand that - but as inflation rises and the headline figure of £100k is eroded more and more, an increasing number of people are going to experience this. The fact is, in London, over £100k just isn't enough.

We pay over £3000 a month in rent and bills, then £2500 a month on childcare. That'll be leaving small change for living on quite a way over £100k given the sheer amount you get taxed from £100-150k.

My point is also, women I know are literally realising they're going to be locked out from working in the near future if they choose to start a family. It's shameful.

Yes. There are many things I appreciate about my life and I'm happy with my lot.

But I find it hard to be lectured to by people who think I should just cut back on avocados because I must simply be profligate to waste all that money. My costs are similar to yours. We've got a 2nd on the way. We've been doing the sums on nannies, not because we're posh snobs, but because the cost for 2 kids in nursery is over £5k when you aren't funded! Five thousand pounds!

People just don't have any idea of the actual costs of things. I'm Mrs Moneybags and should be swimming in it - well, maybe I would be if I were paying all the subsidised versions of my biggest expenses...

Needlenardlenoo · 22/10/2025 15:34
  1. The childcare is not free but inefficiently subsidised. 2. By definition if people fall into the £100k "cliff edge" they're paying a great deal of tax already.
OriginalUsername2 · 22/10/2025 14:39

So the lower middle class want more free childcare but not more taxes. How does this work mathematically?

Saladleaf · 22/10/2025 14:34

Digdongdoo · 22/10/2025 11:25

Or their circumstances are just different. The value of the subsidised hours is thousands of pounds a year. Someone who bought a house a decade earlier might have a mortgage tens of thousands of pounds (or more) smaller. Or they might have social housing. Or a cheaper commute.

Exactly. We haven't even had the luxury of buying a house, we are trapped in eye watering rent; I wonder how many of these small-minded people who have tiny mortgages and telling me I'm living beyond my means had help towards a deposit. We are trying to move on in life, and have built a decent salary in an attempt to do so, but it's not enough.

OP posts:
Saladleaf · 22/10/2025 14:29

GentleJadeOP · 22/10/2025 09:32

What is so bad about becoming a SAHM for a few years? There seems to be an expectation from women that they have to work. When I was younger I would definitely have been a SAHM if my husband was on £100 k. The early years are so precious for you and your child. A few years out won’t hurt

Easy to say that - firstly, I'd have no career to go back to with a career break of a few years. Secondly, being a SAHM with no support, potentially two children to look after, and no chance of either being able to do any time at all in nursery or with a childminder to give me a break. And being able to not afford classes, activities, holidays, or anything enjoyable. And older DC having to go to school without ever having gone to nursery or preschool as we literally could not afford it. It's not mentally appealing to me sorry.

OP posts:
Navigatinglife100 · 22/10/2025 14:26

Although my numbers were all much smaller, and there was no CC funding, we did find we lived on a really tight budget when the children needed nursery in the 90s. Then, when they both went to school, as I was part time I worked school hours and it did feel like we had released a mortgage level of money each month, and things got much easier financially.

Those years were definitely the worst.

Second worse was moving house and negative equity!

Saladleaf · 22/10/2025 14:18

OneAmberFinch · 22/10/2025 12:16

Sure, the pension value is non-zero. It just doesn't help today with bills - I can't sacrifice down to £100k because that plus my partner's income doesn't cover our housing, loan repayment and living costs. FYI - we live in a 2-bed ex council terrace in zone 3 London, not a rough area but not posh either. But we bought recently with a 10% deposit, no family money, so exhausted all our savings and have a huge mortgage.

I appreciate that many people literally can't do that, but I guess my point is the only way I can earn that flashy income is by living in London and paying exorbitant nursery costs this year, not in the future.

This. All day long. How is it that things have got this bloody dire that to live in London in an ex-council house, you are struggling to make ends meet on a salary well over £100k. The system is broken. And people don't understand that - but as inflation rises and the headline figure of £100k is eroded more and more, an increasing number of people are going to experience this. The fact is, in London, over £100k just isn't enough.

We pay over £3000 a month in rent and bills, then £2500 a month on childcare. That'll be leaving small change for living on quite a way over £100k given the sheer amount you get taxed from £100-150k.

My point is also, women I know are literally realising they're going to be locked out from working in the near future if they choose to start a family. It's shameful.

OP posts:
ThisTicklishFatball · 22/10/2025 14:10

After posting my initial comment, I went back to read the thread thoroughly and noticed several posts criticizing women who choose to be stay-at-home mothers.

As someone who became a SAHM by choice after careful planning, I find it absurd to criticize this decision. I believe being a SAHM isn't an issue for any woman who has thoughtfully prepared for it—I personally chose a high-paying career and did everything possible to secure my future before taking this path, making deliberate decisions before marrying my husband. Marrying someone you don't trust is simply a bad choice. Too many women end up choosing the wrong men as husbands and then spend their time lamenting and regretting their poor decisions.

I’m a SAHM with passive income and a high-earning husband. We’ve worked hard and continue to do so to protect what we’ve built—saving, investing, and making smart decisions. Taxes already take a big chunk, and we expect next year to be even tougher. So, we’re taking reasonable and legal steps to avoid paying more than necessary. It’s not selfish; it’s just being prudent.

mustytrusty · 22/10/2025 13:58

Also, wait until you meet student finance.

Bearfan · 22/10/2025 13:51

Halloweeeeeeeeen · 22/10/2025 09:50

Maybe for the childcare but I am thinking in terms of income tax as well, it does need to be proportional to salary but I don’t agree with the bands.

What’s your issue with tax bands? What would you rather see happen? I think they are quite fair apart from the ridiculous marginal rate at £100-125k. I’d give everyone a personal allowance and put a penny on higher rate tax to pay for it.

An alarmingly high proportion of people think that if you are a higher rate taxpayer (40%) then every penny you earn is taxed at 40%.

Allswellthatendswelll · 22/10/2025 13:48

GentleJadeOP · 22/10/2025 09:32

What is so bad about becoming a SAHM for a few years? There seems to be an expectation from women that they have to work. When I was younger I would definitely have been a SAHM if my husband was on £100 k. The early years are so precious for you and your child. A few years out won’t hurt

What if her job is really useful to society like a hospice nurse or cancer researcher? What if her marriage is financially abusive? What about her own pension? What about her student loan which will still need to be paid off? What about her career progression?

Just become a SAHM isn't good enough in 2025. Plus going down to one income in this climate isn't a great idea.

IF both partners can work part time with no repercussions to their careers and share childcare then I think it's great but lots of jobs don't allow this.

ThisTicklishFatball · 22/10/2025 13:42

YANBU at all.

OP, this is MN. If you are anywhere on the scale other than the breadline, you will be absolutely annihilated. And if you dare complain about getting by on your income, you will be told to ‘read the room’, ‘check your privilege’ and all the other cliches.

People seem to hear “£100k household income” and picture champagne fountains and designer handbags, when in reality it’s just normal working families trying to stay afloat — especially in the South East, where the cost of existing is absurd.

Childcare isn’t a luxury; it’s infrastructure. The whole “cliff edge” is completely nonsensical. Two parents earning £99k each can still get support, but a single earner just over £100k loses everything? It’s not about greed, it’s about the system making zero logical sense.

You’re absolutely right — it ends up punishing ambition and pushing women out of work. Most families in that bracket aren’t living extravagant lives. Once you factor in tax, NI, mortgage, nursery fees, and rising costs, there’s barely room to breathe.

It’s not asking for handouts — it’s asking for a system that doesn’t make working parents regret… working. Other countries see childcare as a social investment. Here, it’s treated like a moral test of character.

You’re spot on: it’s demoralising, unfair, and completely avoidable if policymakers actually looked beyond the spreadsheet and saw how people are living.

TheNinkyNonkyIsATardis · 22/10/2025 13:09

A friend of mine is a good example. Her husband earns over the threshold, and she’s just spent years retraining into a new career that she’s passionate about, but is now entry level. We worked out that if they have a baby, it would literally cost them money they can't afford for her to keep working once childcare, rising mortgage payments and bills are factored in. She’d have to give it all up. It’s so demoralising.

I mean, that kind of sucks, but it sucks because of their planning.

We planned our career moves around having a baby and house moves. First I retrained, then shifted to a better paying role, then my husband moved jobs after he'd used paternity entitlements. Then we'll move house and I'll go freelance in time for his school start.

I agree that there are issues with the childcare allowance, but no system in the world is going to incentivise every career path.

tigerdog · 22/10/2025 13:01

It is insane. I’ve managed it by going part time (compressed hours to manage a day off with only 10% reduction in salary) and the paying the maximum amount into my pension. I earn a base salary of £120k, usually £20k bonus plus car allowance

Better to give it to pension than the tax man if there’s no way around it as at least you’re benefiting your future self.

GentleJadeOP · 22/10/2025 12:54

We both worked opposite shifts when the children were small. It wasn’t easy, but it meant we never had to use nursery or childcare. We definitely wouldn’t be able to afford nursery nowadays. The children are only little once, enjoy them while you can. Parents evening, sports days, school fetes, etc are all so important for a small child to have parent there and I would never have wanted to miss any of that for a career. Pensions, investments etc are unimportant in the grand scheme of a happy family and more importantly a happy child. You can always catch up with pension later on in life. Just my opinion

OneAmberFinch · 22/10/2025 12:44

january1244 · 22/10/2025 12:35

I think what about of people don’t realise is that with the expansion of the free hours from 9 months not being funded properly, the private nurseries had to whack up the costs on those not receiving the subsidised hours. With this, plus the NI increase, our nursery put fees up 30% this year. With one month’s notice! So it’s now £2574 a month for the baby, and a little less for the toddler. But that’s basically £5k a month on nursery. That doesn’t leave much over out of that £7k figure you mention for mortgage, bills, food, £600 a month commute into London….

I wouldn’t have had an issue with paying the original amount of nursery. It was expensive but just over £1.8 k per child. But to have it go up to cover others free hours, while also paying 62% tax and not receiving any free hours myself makes it really tough for us. We have accumulated a lot of debt. I cannot drop a day, flex working request turned down.

Exactly!

I don't mind paying a bit more than others reflecting that I proportionately earn a bit more than others.

But paying disproportionately more income tax
Higher base costs of nursery
No discount on nursery

How many more times over am I expected to pay?!

january1244 · 22/10/2025 12:35

Cantseetreesforthewood · 22/10/2025 06:59

Thing is, if you need ft childcare, and don't qualify for the 30 hours, your household income is in excess of 125k - 100k to loose the childcare, plus 25k minimum wage (unless a single parent)
I don't think it matters where you live, that is a phenomenally high household income. While the cliff edge is fundamentally wrong, there should be ways to survive on a household takehome of over 7k a month!

And yes, when mine were young literally my whole (professional) salary went into childcare - we got 15 free hours from aged 3. And life was tough - we budgeted. But costs went down, salaries went up, and now they are at secondary we are comfortable. It's definitely a game of short term pain for the longer term benifits.

I think what about of people don’t realise is that with the expansion of the free hours from 9 months not being funded properly, the private nurseries had to whack up the costs on those not receiving the subsidised hours. With this, plus the NI increase, our nursery put fees up 30% this year. With one month’s notice! So it’s now £2574 a month for the baby, and a little less for the toddler. But that’s basically £5k a month on nursery. That doesn’t leave much over out of that £7k figure you mention for mortgage, bills, food, £600 a month commute into London….

I wouldn’t have had an issue with paying the original amount of nursery. It was expensive but just over £1.8 k per child. But to have it go up to cover others free hours, while also paying 62% tax and not receiving any free hours myself makes it really tough for us. We have accumulated a lot of debt. I cannot drop a day, flex working request turned down.

Swipe left for the next trending thread