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

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 😂

It’s not about paying “as little tax” as possible though, it’s about not actively losing more money than you earn. And it’s about high tax payers receiving the same support for a really important life stage that is hugely required by the country (people having babies).

The cliff edge is a lose-lose because people avoid earning over 100k to keep getting the childcare benefit means that the government (1) pays for the childcare benefit anyway and (2) doesn’t earn any tax on the extra income that isn’t earned. If it was universal the cost would be similar but they would also be taking in more tax!

The Canadian government did a study that showed every $1 invested in childcare = $2.80 return for the economy. It is better for everyone to make this universal.

Additionally, if you call yourself a feminist you should support this benefit being universal. You need a salary of around £32k just to cover the cost of FT nursery without subsidies - so if the higher earner meets the £100k threshold there is pressure on the lower earner (typically the woman) to stay out of work and do the childcare herself, which is shite for women’s financial empowerment and equality in the workplace.

It’s so interesting that these are the %! It makes it even more of a no brainer to make it a universal benefit considering the additional costs wouldn’t be that much and the benefits huge, especially with the issue of low birth rates we should be encouraging everyone to have children particularly higher earners.

The number of clinicians who work extra hours to be worse off is probably higher than zero, but we already know about some who are choosing to work less because of it. This is a problem that needs to be solved, especially with our ageing population.

Educated career driven women are already structurally disincentivised from having children young as typically studied longer, climbed career and when they do have them, it is often in short succession, out of biological need etc. To penalise them further is madness.
All the research shows that attainment is linked to the educational level of the mother and wealth. So if you want a new generation to replace, this is exactly where you invest, in a reasonable way.
All nursery fees should be tax deductible from top slice of income, as a minimum. After school care etc, as well. Nothing else really makes sense. The state could easily apply assumptions in PAYE itself depending on how many kids you have as a tax allowance. It is what they do in some countries.

This thread is another illustration of the potential conflict between Boomer/Gen X vs Millenials/Gen Z looming. At the end of the day, society is going to have to work for everyone to thrive long term, not just skewed towards the elderly sitting on all the political power and assets.
I would be happy for the younger generation to have access to universal state nurseries, even though I did not benefit myself. When mine were little, I could find a nursery that was £50 a day in London. That is early 2000s. House prices were lower, my student debt was lower.
Given demographic challenges it makes sense to encourage educated women to want to have children, not the opposite and having to choose career vs child/how many children is absurd. Having several kids should not be an unaffordable luxury limited to those getting extra benefits to do so.

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.

Its a crude average per head of population. You can cut it other ways but it basically comes back to huge state reliance on a relatively small number of tax payers.

One illustration of this reliance is that a tax payer earning 30k a year pays around 4k tax. A tax payer earning 130k a year pays around 40k tax. The government spends 17k per head of population (including young and old). Even accounting for vat etc the skew doesn't change it much.

So to confirm, you're currently well off and of state pension age? Have I got that right?

Obviously £100k isn’t a fortune. Don’t be ridiculous.

It really is the same!!!

and now I realise that you are probably passed the age of paying for childcare, the general cost of raising kids, paying back student loans, paying into a pension, the cost of commuting and quite possibly finished paying the mortgage (or paying rent). So you probably think that £100k is a fortune: it’s more than average but it’s very quickly eaten up

No one does it though.

I’m sure some people do.

No one does it though.
No matter how much it 'makes sense' to you!

Almost every doctor I know stays under the cut off as we are not free to put extra in pensions.

And none of us will do extra as there's no incentive. Happy to take unpaid leave and have extra time off with the family rather than working harder to lose out. Shocker, that.

Two kids three years apart which isn't untypical. That's not four years. That's seven. So parents in these circumstances only have one kid at most ...

It’s temporary. Children are in nursery for four years, a career spans four decades. It’s short term pain for long term gain.

But that's the issue isn't it. When you have kids in nursery, you don't get to enjoy the money because you lose it all and then some.

Of we could take the pay rise and enjoy the money, we wouldn't be complaining.

There always jas to be a threshold, which is never going to make everyone happy. It could be tapered and paid accordingly but also ion a very high salary then it will probably increase and childcare is temporary is the devil's advocate. Xx

And btw taxation is a total disincentive to have a higher income and therefore spend more in general

Not in my experience. I had absolutely no problem with taking pay rises and enjoying the money. You should try it, it makes life much more pleasant.

It's not the either side of the argument though is it? There's some fairly clear evidence that people would be less tax efficient if there wasn't the cliff edge, likely paying more tax overall, including longer term for women who then have less incentive to step back professionally, but you won't have it.

And btw taxation is a total disincentive to have a higher income and therefore spend more in general - I'm self-employed and make extremely sure I don't tip over into higher rate tax. It's better off in my pension than in the treasury. If there was less fiscal drag, I'd take more out and spend more. Now I don't, and not only that, I'll retire earlier.

I suspect that’s aimed at me. Someone earning £100k isn’t a rarity in my circles. I’m not jealous, my income doesn’t rely on benefits and I don’t want anyone to “suffer”. It’s interesting - although tediously predictable- how it gets personal when someone presents the other side of the argument.

I suspect she wants people she perceives as wealthy to suffer, even if there's a net loss to the treasury.

£100,000 wouldnt even cover a year of rental? (or was it another figure you were talking about?)

where do you live?

That's not the same.

Paying for something and not benefitting from it because it doesn't apply to you is one thing (e.g being child free and not accessing free state education). But paying for something and then being denied it when it does apply to you is another. It would be like being refused a school place or being refused universal credit.