Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to hope the £100k cliff edge for funded nursery hours is removed?

454 replies

horchatatresleches · 30/03/2026 10:03

News is that the education secretary is looking at nursery funding but it’s unclear if it’s to reduce or increase the support available at either the upper or lower thresholds. AIBU to hope that the harsh cliff edge which stops all nursery funding at £100k is removed or least replaced with something tapered so that people aren’t losing money for being marginally above the threshold?

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
LilRafe2024 · 06/04/2026 19:39

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Maxme · 05/04/2026 07:56

The simple version for those unable to read long text

Due to stupid tax system you get MORE income for being paid £99k than £100k - £150k if you have young children.

It's like if someone said you can have 5 oranges for £1 or 4 oranges for £1.20. NO ONE chooses to have 4 oranges.

The system needs changing.

horchatatresleches · 04/04/2026 08:06

purpleheartsandroses · 04/04/2026 00:16

Tapered would be better, yes. But presumably more expensive to administer?

In all honesty, I don't get how you can begrudge paying full whack if earning 100k+. Our children were before the free hours, youngest on the cusp with free hours from 3+. We were earning ~£35k each and cut our cloth accordingly. We were paying more than our mortgage on childcare but that was a known, temporary expense we had to consider before conception. Mortgage £1622pcm, childcare £1675ish pcm. We were absolutely broke, but it's temporary.

The threshold is such that anyone earning £100-125k with one nursery aged child, or £100-150k with two nursery age children is worse off than if they were to earn £99k. I don’t know who wouldn’t begrudge being tens of thousands of pounds worse off, especially at £100k where that amount of money is a significant amount of your salary.

Did see the post above where someone compared a household with two salaries of the average 39k and a household with a £100k salary? The £100k salary was only marginally better off so your example of two £35k salaries isn’t that far removed from a single parent earning £100k.

And since the funded hours came in place from 9 months, the day rates are nurseries have risen hugely because the government funding isn’t enough. So anyone paying full whack for nursery now is paying an artificially high rate to subsidise the funded hours which they don’t qualify for. There’s a lot of reasons the scheme just doesn’t work for people earning just over £100k threshold and why I have never seen a single person earning around that amount not reduce hours or overpay their pension to avoid it.

OP posts:
Violese · 04/04/2026 07:52

Scarlettpixie · 03/04/2026 18:07

This.

I thought the point of funding childcare was to encourage people back to work in lower paid jobs where there would be no benefit to them going if they had to pay childcare bills! The fact that this is available (or people think it should be available to) high earners seems mad to me.

Edited

What about the partner of the person on £101k? Where’s their incentive to go out to work? They’d have to earn a heck of a lot to make it worth their while.

Everybodys · 04/04/2026 07:42

purpleheartsandroses · 04/04/2026 00:16

Tapered would be better, yes. But presumably more expensive to administer?

In all honesty, I don't get how you can begrudge paying full whack if earning 100k+. Our children were before the free hours, youngest on the cusp with free hours from 3+. We were earning ~£35k each and cut our cloth accordingly. We were paying more than our mortgage on childcare but that was a known, temporary expense we had to consider before conception. Mortgage £1622pcm, childcare £1675ish pcm. We were absolutely broke, but it's temporary.

Just to clarify, do you understand that because of the free hours rules, people with DC in this age bracket can be worse off if they go from earning 99.9k to 100k? Because the value of the childcare they lose entitlement to is greater than the extra money earned.

ManchesterGirl2 · 04/04/2026 07:37

Lauren1983 · 01/04/2026 20:24

Where would you draw the line though? Should multi millionaires get child benefit? If not there has to be a cut off point somewhere.

It would be quite amusing if CB were universal though as we are a low income household who receive no help apart from CB for one child so it would be fun to point out to those who talk about all the benefits low earners receive that they actually receive the same as us or even more if they have multiple children!

Fwiw I do think the £100k cut off is a bad idea and would like to see the threshold for funded hours raised to help out more workers.

Why shouldn't multimillionaires get child benefit? There's not very many of them so it won't cost the state that much.

Making it universal will simplify the process, reduce the cost and complexity in the tax system, and make sure all citizens feel they are benefiting from the system that they are contributing to.

LiquoriceAllsorts2 · 04/04/2026 03:27

purpleheartsandroses · 04/04/2026 00:16

Tapered would be better, yes. But presumably more expensive to administer?

In all honesty, I don't get how you can begrudge paying full whack if earning 100k+. Our children were before the free hours, youngest on the cusp with free hours from 3+. We were earning ~£35k each and cut our cloth accordingly. We were paying more than our mortgage on childcare but that was a known, temporary expense we had to consider before conception. Mortgage £1622pcm, childcare £1675ish pcm. We were absolutely broke, but it's temporary.

Earning 100k normally comes with a stressful job with long hours. On 100k a third will go on tax then after student loan repayments and pension and commuting costs you probably have half it at most. After nursery costs for 2 you probably have only a very small amount left and less than others who are getting the childcare free hours.

purpleheartsandroses · 04/04/2026 00:16

Tapered would be better, yes. But presumably more expensive to administer?

In all honesty, I don't get how you can begrudge paying full whack if earning 100k+. Our children were before the free hours, youngest on the cusp with free hours from 3+. We were earning ~£35k each and cut our cloth accordingly. We were paying more than our mortgage on childcare but that was a known, temporary expense we had to consider before conception. Mortgage £1622pcm, childcare £1675ish pcm. We were absolutely broke, but it's temporary.

RedToothBrush · 03/04/2026 23:30

Skinnysaluki · 03/04/2026 18:05

100k is a fuck of a lot of money (to most ordinary people) and I think it’s pretty hard to justify any childcare benefits for a family with this coming in given the kind of cuts and shortages happening elsewhere.
If there was less inequality in general, or years of austerity hadn’t hit everywhere else, then sure.

You've not read the thread nor understood the problem have you?

You've just seen the number £100k.

It's depressing that so many people just see the headline and don't understand how this works in practice to the detriment of everyone.

Dragonflytamer · 03/04/2026 22:04

I agree only really high earners shouldn't get it the support with childcare. I'd set the limit closer to £500,000.

We really ought to be helping the people who actually contribute tax in this country to work.

Midwifelife · 03/04/2026 22:03

I'm in Wales and we don't get any funded childcare until 3 which is so frustrating, same in Scotland and N Ireland I believe. Devolved issue but high earners are not the only non-benefiting group!

Flushitdown · 03/04/2026 21:27

sashh · 03/04/2026 06:35

This shouldn't be about parental income it should be bout the child. As a society we need new people growing up and contributing.

Surely there is room for state nurseries like state schools. Free to use with the option of private nurseries for those who want them.

In some counties (including mine) there were state nurseries. It very quickly became apparent that the funded hours funding wasn't sufficient to run them and without parents paying full fees to subsidise them, they couldn't maintain the buildings and equipment to a safe standard and had to close

SpaceRaccoon · 03/04/2026 21:20

Skinnysaluki · 03/04/2026 18:05

100k is a fuck of a lot of money (to most ordinary people) and I think it’s pretty hard to justify any childcare benefits for a family with this coming in given the kind of cuts and shortages happening elsewhere.
If there was less inequality in general, or years of austerity hadn’t hit everywhere else, then sure.

But as is pointed out, they just salary sacrifice into a pension or work less hours to get it below the threshold, get the benefit anyway, and there's less tax overall to the treasury.
Plus longer NHS waiting lists where doctors work less hours.

Dexterrr · 03/04/2026 21:04

Everybodys · 03/04/2026 18:56

199k is almost twice as much, yet the system that some people are defending on this thread allows the childcare hours to that household as long as neither parent goes above 100k.

And it does need to be pointed out that one of the shortages elsewhere is in specialist NHS doctors. But we have a system that makes some of them worse off because of working more, and the introduction of the free hours at 9 months rather than after 3rd birthday has hugely expanded the period of time may be applicable for. I have a family member on the waiting list for an NHS consultant appointment at the moment, as no doubt many of us do. I wonder if they're having to wait even longer because of the 100k cliff edge.

Re NHS consultants
Will work less than full time for NHS
Why would you shoot yourself in the foot, losing money and time, by working full time for NHS

In other sectors you can safely bump your pension
As that's not possible in NHS, working less hours is the solution, declining any waiting list initiatives etc

Everybodys · 03/04/2026 18:56

Skinnysaluki · 03/04/2026 18:05

100k is a fuck of a lot of money (to most ordinary people) and I think it’s pretty hard to justify any childcare benefits for a family with this coming in given the kind of cuts and shortages happening elsewhere.
If there was less inequality in general, or years of austerity hadn’t hit everywhere else, then sure.

199k is almost twice as much, yet the system that some people are defending on this thread allows the childcare hours to that household as long as neither parent goes above 100k.

And it does need to be pointed out that one of the shortages elsewhere is in specialist NHS doctors. But we have a system that makes some of them worse off because of working more, and the introduction of the free hours at 9 months rather than after 3rd birthday has hugely expanded the period of time may be applicable for. I have a family member on the waiting list for an NHS consultant appointment at the moment, as no doubt many of us do. I wonder if they're having to wait even longer because of the 100k cliff edge.

Boohoo76 · 03/04/2026 18:54

Skinnysaluki · 03/04/2026 18:05

100k is a fuck of a lot of money (to most ordinary people) and I think it’s pretty hard to justify any childcare benefits for a family with this coming in given the kind of cuts and shortages happening elsewhere.
If there was less inequality in general, or years of austerity hadn’t hit everywhere else, then sure.

It’s about £5k per month. Once you’ve paid out £2k+ for childcare and similar for rent, there’s not a lot left. I personally work in London with three single mum’s on £100k. They are all living month to month. One was quite depressed about her finances when I spoken to her last week. The killer is that they are paying £30k+ in tax and NI to support people who have more disposable income than they do. It’s a very unfair situation.

TracyLords · 03/04/2026 18:22

Skinnysaluki · 03/04/2026 18:05

100k is a fuck of a lot of money (to most ordinary people) and I think it’s pretty hard to justify any childcare benefits for a family with this coming in given the kind of cuts and shortages happening elsewhere.
If there was less inequality in general, or years of austerity hadn’t hit everywhere else, then sure.

on a salary of £100k, they would come out with about £5k a month after tax and NI. There could also be student loans payments, and other professional / CPD fees. Including childcare costs and in some areas; high housing costs: they are really not earning ridiculous money.

The people earning £100k via PAYE are paying a very high proportion of the very tax that covers the benefits and childcare that everyone else gets. They are quite right to expect to also be entitled to the same as everyone else

sanityisamyth · 03/04/2026 18:10

Peonies12 · 30/03/2026 10:05

Tapered fine, but not removed. £100k is an insane salary to me and no-one earning that should get any state help.

This.

Scarlettpixie · 03/04/2026 18:07

Peonies12 · 30/03/2026 10:05

Tapered fine, but not removed. £100k is an insane salary to me and no-one earning that should get any state help.

This.

I thought the point of funding childcare was to encourage people back to work in lower paid jobs where there would be no benefit to them going if they had to pay childcare bills! The fact that this is available (or people think it should be available to) high earners seems mad to me.

Skinnysaluki · 03/04/2026 18:05

100k is a fuck of a lot of money (to most ordinary people) and I think it’s pretty hard to justify any childcare benefits for a family with this coming in given the kind of cuts and shortages happening elsewhere.
If there was less inequality in general, or years of austerity hadn’t hit everywhere else, then sure.

Dexterrr · 03/04/2026 15:19

TracyLords · 03/04/2026 13:56

I imagine if she is a doctor, she will know a lot of doctors in similar positions. And I know if I was in that position, I’d cut
my hours to end up under the £100k mark

Precisely. I am on many doctor discussion groups.
Very obviously there isn't a doctor in the country working extra to have less money and less time with their children!!
We regularly discuss keeping pay below threshold and limiting NHS hours to ensure this.

It's actually delusional to think there is ANY doctor in the land doing additional work to lose both money and their previous personal time.

TracyLords · 03/04/2026 13:56

BIossomtoes · 03/04/2026 12:45

Of course you are. 🙄

I imagine if she is a doctor, she will know a lot of doctors in similar positions. And I know if I was in that position, I’d cut
my hours to end up under the £100k mark

BIossomtoes · 03/04/2026 12:45

Of course you are. 🙄

Dexterrr · 03/04/2026 12:43

BIossomtoes · 03/04/2026 12:38

Hilarious that you think you know everyone’s circumstances.

Not hilarious. Is just a fact that I am all- knowing.

BIossomtoes · 03/04/2026 12:38

Dexterrr · 03/04/2026 12:14

Nope, no one does.

Know any doctor who uses childcare who allows themselves earn over the line? Didn't think so!

I am on multiple doctor groups and literally no one who uses childcare goes over the mark. We actually go to great effort to ensure we don't!

Happy to have some unpaid leave.

Definitely no one bothers with waiting list initiatives or whatever, when the 'reward' would be to lose a load of time and money in terms of childcare eligibility.

Hilariously foolish that you think ANYONE is doing this 😂

Hilarious that you think you know everyone’s circumstances.