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:
dynamiccactus · 22/10/2025 10:12

I don't think the cliff edge makes any sense. Childcare is a cost of working and so however much you earn you should get the tax relief - at least for one child per parent (so two overall). High earners will pay it back anyway.

It's a really weird thing for a Tory/Coalition government to have done.

As for the high cost of childcare I think it's because of our adult to child ratios.

preparingforthepileon · 22/10/2025 10:06

MidnightPatrol · 22/10/2025 10:04

Jeremy Hunt introduced the 30 free hours from 9 months which has made the policy really terrible (and more likely to impact two kids at a time).

A couple of years ago, with a 9 month old, as a higher earner I lost out on £2k tax free childcare. This meant over £100k I needed to earn ~£5k gross to recoup my loss. Annoying, but didn’t really incentive behaviour change.

Today with a 9 month old as a high earner, I lose out on £2k tax free childcare and 30 free hours. This is worth £15k to me - and means over £100k I need to earn ~£35k additional gross to recoup my loss.

That’s all as a result of the policy introduced by Jeremy Hunt.

Edited

He didn't introduce the policy that excluded people earning 100k from tax free childcare or free hours. He extended the provision of free hours which increased the impact of the exclusion but he didn't introduce it.

Navigatinglife100 · 22/10/2025 10:06

The tax system in this country is full of unfair thresholds like this and successive governments never address them.

The loss of CB and CC help where two workers get it and one doesn't should be equilised- and the two workers get two zero and lower rate thresholds!!! Is extremely unfair and has been clear for forever. These unfair rules should have been stopped well before now, but anytime soon would be good.

They probably dont change it because of the complexity it would cause but systems but technology should not be a boundry to fairness.

CloudBuster66 · 22/10/2025 10:04

I agree we should have free chuldcare like they do in parts of Europe, as an investment in the country. This is yet another example of why I'm glad we're older and although there was no free childcare when ours were little in the 90s I can't even begin to comprehend having to pay 2500 per child. I honestly don't know how familiies survive in the South East.

MidnightPatrol · 22/10/2025 10:04

preparingforthepileon · 22/10/2025 09:59

The original poster asked who introduced it, it wasn't Jeremy Hunt.

Jeremy Hunt introduced the 30 free hours from 9 months which has made the policy really terrible (and more likely to impact two kids at a time).

A couple of years ago, with a 9 month old, as a higher earner I lost out on £2k tax free childcare. This meant over £100k I needed to earn ~£5k gross to recoup my loss. Annoying, but didn’t really incentive behaviour change.

Today with a 9 month old as a high earner, I lose out on £2k tax free childcare and 30 free hours. This is worth £15k to me - and means over £100k I need to earn ~£35k additional gross to recoup my loss.

That’s all as a result of the policy introduced by Jeremy Hunt.

YesImaman1100 · 22/10/2025 10:04

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

preparingforthepileon · 22/10/2025 09:59

MidnightPatrol · 22/10/2025 09:58

Jeremy Hunt extended the hours to 30 hours from 9 months, and kept the £100k threshold.

The original poster asked who introduced it, it wasn't Jeremy Hunt.

MidnightPatrol · 22/10/2025 09:58

preparingforthepileon · 22/10/2025 09:54

The loss of personal allowance over 100k (leading to the effective marginal rate of 60%) was introduced by Alistair Darling in 2009 and came into effect under George Osborn. The free hours initiative, which excluded people over 100k was introduced by George Osborn in 2014 / 2015.

Jeremy Hunt wasn't Chancellor until 2022, long after this stuff happened.

Jeremy Hunt extended the hours to 30 hours from 9 months, and kept the £100k threshold.

Fabulously · 22/10/2025 09:57

so childcare costs £30k a year, you earn over 1 million a year. So what is happening with the remainder of £970,000+?

It doesn’t seem like the right hill for you to die on.

readingismycardio · 22/10/2025 09:56

100% agree. I am from (and live now) in a country in Europe that is often looked down on in the UK. I went to uni in Scotland. I left the UK in 2016, but it was always shocking to me how education isn’t free - we have free nursery/kindergarden (unless you choose to go private), affordable private healthcare and state healthcare - you get to see a dr in the same day you have a problem. So yes - the cost of childcare is eye watering.

preparingforthepileon · 22/10/2025 09:54

Theyreeatingthedogs · 21/10/2025 22:18

It was Jeremy Hunt. Remember him?

The loss of personal allowance over 100k (leading to the effective marginal rate of 60%) was introduced by Alistair Darling in 2009 and came into effect under George Osborn. The free hours initiative, which excluded people over 100k was introduced by George Osborn in 2014 / 2015.

Jeremy Hunt wasn't Chancellor until 2022, long after this stuff happened.

EvangelicalAboutButteredToast · 22/10/2025 09:53

Sterlingrose · 22/10/2025 09:44

Because they are complaining about being hard done by at paying for childcare, yet they're bringing in 100k a year and allegedly they're not spending any of it on normal things like a car, clothes or holidays. So where's the money going? They're acting like they're poor when they're not. At all. They have plenty of money, they just don't think they should spend it on childcare.

How much do you earn out of interest? How much is your house worth? Mortgage or rented? Any top up of income whth UC or are you in receipt of any help through other means?

i think a wage over 100k is a magical amount for those who earn far less. Yet when you dug into the numbers of most peoples incomings and outgoings lots of people are really really shocked at how much they get in help monthly to how much a high earner pays out.

Kitte321 · 22/10/2025 09:53

Sterlingrose · 22/10/2025 09:44

Because they are complaining about being hard done by at paying for childcare, yet they're bringing in 100k a year and allegedly they're not spending any of it on normal things like a car, clothes or holidays. So where's the money going? They're acting like they're poor when they're not. At all. They have plenty of money, they just don't think they should spend it on childcare.

But the cliff edges currently in place create a disincentive to work. Regardless of your views on OP’s earnings and expenditure, surely we all agree that a system where there is a net positive impact to tax receipts benefits society as a whole. The current system does exactly the opposite 🤷‍♀️
Not to mention the impact on women and inequality.

Halloweeeeeeeeen · 22/10/2025 09:50

Kitte321 · 22/10/2025 09:20

The answer is not to means test at all IMO.

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.

EvangelicalAboutButteredToast · 22/10/2025 09:46

PoorPhaedra · 22/10/2025 08:09

I agree and other European countries have much cheaper childcare. But this is because it is heavily subsidised and paid for by higher taxes - particularly income tax and often VAT. But people in the UK seem to have some primal fear of raising taxes and refuse to consider paying more tax so we’re stuck in this conundrum.

People in the U.K. have a primal fear of raising taxes? Since Labour took over all we’ve done is pay ever increasing taxes with more taxes to follow in the October budget. What people in the U.K. are sick of is our taxes being misused by successive governments and society gaining nothing of benefit to show for it.

Sterlingrose · 22/10/2025 09:44

Kitte321 · 22/10/2025 09:29

How is any of this relevant?

Because they are complaining about being hard done by at paying for childcare, yet they're bringing in 100k a year and allegedly they're not spending any of it on normal things like a car, clothes or holidays. So where's the money going? They're acting like they're poor when they're not. At all. They have plenty of money, they just don't think they should spend it on childcare.

MidnightPatrol · 22/10/2025 09:35

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

a) affordability of only having one income in context of the high cost of living

b) long-term prospects of the non-working parent in terms of financial independence / ability to earn / ability to retire

Nothing wrong with choosing to be a SAHM - but you shouldn’t be forced into it because you’re excluded from using childcare provision which the other 97% of parents are allowed to access.

Oh - and of course, some of these £100k+ earners are women ourselves…

GoBackToTheStart · 22/10/2025 09:35

“A few years out” really does hurt women’s earning and professional potential. If that’s the choice of the woman, it’s one thing. If she’s pushed into it through necessity because of tax policies, it is quite another.

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

somethingnewandexciting · 22/10/2025 09:32

I get it. I'm a single mum and don't earn anywhere near what you do, largely I feel because I couldn't afford to work when DC were small. I got 30 hours free, when they hit a certain age (obv had to wait years for this to happen) and no where employs someone for 30hrs a week, let alone a single mum with responsibilities.

Trying to find a job now is the same thing - you've had time out, you have kids, your degree isn't relevant any more. So bored of it. Living on the breadline being told I'm lucky because I live in SE, where everything just seems more violent, expensive and angry.

Kitte321 · 22/10/2025 09:29

Sterlingrose · 22/10/2025 09:24

How on earth can you have £100k a year coming in and yet you allegedly live like paupers? If you don't have a car, new clothes or holidays, you must live in a really, really expensive house. All that money is going somewhere.

We are on half what you're on in the south east and we manage just fine. We live according to our income. Why are there so many wealthy people on Mumsnet who are determined to try and convince themselves they're victims because they don't get free stuff that they can easily afford?

You're doing better than the vast majority of people. Stop feeling sorry for yourself and check your privilege.

How is any of this relevant?

MidnightPatrol · 22/10/2025 09:29

Sterlingrose · 22/10/2025 09:24

How on earth can you have £100k a year coming in and yet you allegedly live like paupers? If you don't have a car, new clothes or holidays, you must live in a really, really expensive house. All that money is going somewhere.

We are on half what you're on in the south east and we manage just fine. We live according to our income. Why are there so many wealthy people on Mumsnet who are determined to try and convince themselves they're victims because they don't get free stuff that they can easily afford?

You're doing better than the vast majority of people. Stop feeling sorry for yourself and check your privilege.

They haven’t said they live like paupers.

OP mentioned childcare costs of £2,500 a month. With two children, this would be 100% of the take home pay of a doctor on £100k after tax and pension.

If they have a £500k mortgage at 5% - that’s another £3k a month on housing costs. In London that still wouldn’t buy you an ‘average house’.

The value of the free childcare hours is very significant - if you were losing this much of your income due to bad tax policy (while paying tax rates of 60%+), I’m sure you’d be complaining too.

Everanewbie · 22/10/2025 09:29

Part of the issue here too is that thresholds have been frozen for quite a while. £100,000 salary 10 years ago had far more purchasing power than £100,000 now. With housing costs where they are, £100k really isn't the land of milk and honey anymore.

The punishing of high achievers really needs to stop. We hear all this "broadest shoulders" talk, but someone earning £125,000 is paying a rate of tax in excess of 60%, plus the nursery fee cliff edge.

Its a great salary, don't get me wrong. And I can understand (but not agree) why people would say "cry me a river", but it wont make you loaded.

GoBackToTheStart · 22/10/2025 09:26

Coldsoup · 22/10/2025 09:02

There is if they chuck it in a pension. That's still money, just deferred.

And i volunteer for a charity that supports people who don't have two pennies to rub together. So forgive me if I have limited sympathy for people who can't cut their cloth.

And how are the people you support being helped by a Government that is incentivising people to pay less tax?

It isn’t about high earners not being able to cut their cloth. It’s about a loss of £20k+ entitlement which basically guarantees higher earners will “chuck it in a pension” or reduce their hours because otherwise they need to earn such a ridiculous amount more to offset the loss.

We’re talking up to tens of thousands a year per person which would be taxed at the higher rate, now disappearing from the income tax calculations because of a Government created incentive.

Multiply that by the many people doing it now which is much higher than when the cliff edge was brought in because 100k isn’t worth anywhere near what it used to be ten years ago and is a more common salary, and that is an awful lot of lost tax, at a time when public services are crumbling and the Government is talking about how there isn’t enough money. It’s idiotic.

Sterlingrose · 22/10/2025 09:24

How on earth can you have £100k a year coming in and yet you allegedly live like paupers? If you don't have a car, new clothes or holidays, you must live in a really, really expensive house. All that money is going somewhere.

We are on half what you're on in the south east and we manage just fine. We live according to our income. Why are there so many wealthy people on Mumsnet who are determined to try and convince themselves they're victims because they don't get free stuff that they can easily afford?

You're doing better than the vast majority of people. Stop feeling sorry for yourself and check your privilege.