To be pissed off at the new tax free childcare

[childcarechallenge]

NC for this.

We have two DC in childcare and live in London. I'm starting a new job next month and my salary is 48K, after tax, student loan, childcare costs and tube to work plus a few other generally working expenses (clothes etc) I've worked out that I will take home less than £200 a month.

DH earns a good salary which is good because we almost completely rely on his salary for rent, bills etc. He just received a large bonus which pushes him over 100K which is the new limit for the new tax free childcare scheme from the government.

Essentially, between 100K and 120K after tax, student loan, the loss of his "tax free allowance" which is clawed back over 100K, and the fact that we will not be able to claim £4000 back on our childcare because he is no longer under 100K (This applies to BOTH of us because of his salary) means that of that £20K we are actually only £1800 better off. AIBU to think that this is complete robbery - DH works extremely hard, very long hours (sometimes 70 hour weeks) in a high stress environment and the government seem to take an obscene amount of his salary.

We have an opportunity coming up to move to a lower tax country in a year or so with his job and this just makes me really want to take it, AIBU?

Piglet the op will cover their NHS and GP costs as net contributors. Although will probably not use them and go private.

But not an option for acute emergency care in the U.K. You can pay £10k for a private birth in the Lindo Wing but if your baby needs SCBU or NICU then they'll go to the NHS section of the hospital. If you're hit by a bus then it's an NHS ambulance that picks you up and takes you for excellent acute care in an NHS hospital. Private cover would ensure that you then had excellent rehabilitation but it wouldn't save your life.

It's true Museum. Whining about taxes is pathetic. I've been a HR tax payer for most of my working life. I'm glad to pay taxes. I want decent education, healthcare and support for everyone. I am lucky to be able to earn more than average, as is every HR tax payer.

UK taxes are very low compared to a lot of places.

I'm a bit more fucked off that I've spent £14k per year in childcare for years, much if that as a single parent, and NOW they bring in tax free childcare.

But happy for those who will benefit.

OP - factor in your H paying a pro Rata share of childcare (pro rata to your respective earnings) and you won't be so "badly off".

As for "my H works hard" I feel pissed every time I read this. Do you not think people on minimum wage work hard? Cleaners, caters, shop workers etc? They work very hard and get a fraction if what your H gets.

Childcare costs are crippling, so I don't work but the women I know who do say that working cost them money till their kids hit school age - they saw it as a necessary cost of continuing their careers.

We caught in the £100k - £120k trap for a short period - didn't complain about it in public though, I didn't expect anyone to sympathise - I mean in a way it's a nice problem to have. But we have a new one now - Dh has now put so much into his pension he has hit the limit and now saving for his pension now costs him more in tax than he puts in. He has had to ask his employer to contribute only the legal minimum - I'm not expecting much sympathy on that issue either.

It's true Museum. Whining about taxes is pathetic. I've been a HR tax payer for most of my working life. I'm glad to pay taxes. I want decent education, healthcare and support for everyone. I am lucky to be able to earn more than average, as is every HR tax payer.

You're amazing Jiggly.

I always find it a bit strange that people on here get so irate when a women mentions she foots the childcare bill and then start banging on about it being a 'shared expense.' I pay the whole childcare bill, my partner pays shopping, mortgage, car, council tax, utilities etc. I think he'd be a bit if I expected him to pay half the childcare too.

I agree with upping the pension contributions to bring him to under £100k op

All those costs are shared across the family. They are shared expenses. Calculations should be done on that basis. Childcare isn't actually a "women's issue". The whole situation including all shared expenses should be looked at as what makes sense for the family. Why is that so hard to grasp?

It doesn't matter who pays the childcare bill, whether one person or shared.
It's still the same amount coming out of the family pot, how can it be more affordable I don't understand why some people think it is less if shared.
Most families with dual incomes that I've known have lost a full income due to childcare, at least until the last one started school.
Then part of their income goes on breakfast/ after school/ holiday care.
You are only really keeping your full income when you don't need childcare anymore.

Because it often gets assumed that it's the woman's expense to allow her to justify working. Because we don't live in a gender neutral world, it's important that it's not seen that way. It's a joint expense and a family solution is needed, which may be that either partner stays at home full time, both work part time, or there is full time child care.

It makes sense to take it out of my salary because if I wasn't working I wouldn't pay for childcare.... and that's the main alternative that I have considered.

If I split out rent, childcare, all bills and expenses 50:50 and then take it out of my salary my figure would be negative...

Yes I realise that it will still be a lot, but there are other benefits as a whole to your family of both partners working. Some women completely want to be SAHP and feel it's absolutely best for the children. Some don't and their mental health would possibly suffer if they didn't work. It is not just a woman's expense. It's about the family agreeing what is best for everyone.

And as pp have pointed out, you will spend money if you are at home that you wouldn't. But we've established your calculation is somewhat misleading.

Childcare is only payable when there are no SAHPs so, logically, it is a cost attached to one earner rather than shared.

Logically, both parents would be working part time rather than one SAHP, as that would give the family the best balance of security and flexibility (and maximising tax allowances, reliefs etc). So childcare costs should be assumed to be 50/50.

The gender pay gap makes that arrangement unlikely but it does happen and can work well.

Even with a full time staying at home partner you still should send your child to nursery especially when the child is more than 1.5 yrs old. They learn so much more with other children and having much more fun. You still need to pay for childcare to go for your own thing(haircuts, small treat, going out). If you earn well(over than £50k) and your partner earn less than £200k and you are paying for mortgage/rent, its the only way to have the "middle class" feel in London(if no inheritance etc)

May I ask why you pay so much in childcare??

That's a matter of opinion Grey. I'm a SAHM and my kids haven't had much formal childcare (until entering school).

Pretty sure the available evidence says there's not much difference in outcomes either way, as long as the care is good quality.

Children don't need to go to nursery at 1.5 to play with other DC, especially if they have siblings and live in a town or city with parks and swimming pools.

Your DH could retrain as a teacher. Problem solved

SO in marriages like mine ( I earned 10x his fuill time wage) the "sum" is whether it is worth him (the lower earner -plenty of married couples have a lower earner man even when both work full time by the way in 2017) working both now and in the future (as it is so hard to get proper career back if you go part time or stop work.

In London you will pay at least £14,000 per child for childcare full time. My relative pays £24k for one at nursery. We had three looked after at home at one point by part qualified daily nanny and that cost about £25k I think it was. £30k once you include paying employer NI if you're ot using a nursery so that is about £50k of before tax income. Still work working of course if you both earn over £100k as plenty of couples do even though the state takes a large part of your £100k earnings.

"OP I have a somewhat libertarian view.

Tax is theft from the government. There should be no general taxes. If the government needs to pay for parks, NHS etc you pay a "use fee"

That way you pay for what services you use."

Import taxes etc should pay for the military etc, not the individual.

Yeah, because poor people don't deserve parks or education or basic fucking health care.

Christ what the fuck is wrong with some people?

People take different views on tax and we are all welcome to express them here. Not everyone thinks high taxes are good for individuals.

tehre are lots of taxes around - we could possibly give up charging any income tax and NI at all and still cope - we have a lot in in corporation tax, stamp duty, inheritance tax, VAT and all the rest. It is not wrong to propose we abolish all income tax. In fact many contributors to the Financial Times and its journalists and economists think we should be moving to no income tax at all and instead taxes on the capital value of the assets you own . In fact one result of the Trump/Brexit success might well be a move in that direction. It does not mean there will be less to spend on benefits or roads.

Gunslinger it dates back to the Victorian idea that people are poor because it's their fault, and the wealthy are wealthy because they deserve to be- you know, like Donald Trump....

Yes, as I said earlier, some people would like to see workhouses back. And that's grudgingly. Not out of the goodness of their hearts. Because they know they'd be murdered in their beds otherwise.

If you don't want to fund services for the community, there is no community.

nonsparkle that's just what childcare costs in London. It's not a particularly fancy nursery.