30 hours free childcare- means tested?!

[bingbongbang23]

Sure I will get blasted, but I only just realised that the 30hr free childcare is means tested. I have paid full price for my child for past 2 years- at a whopping £1240 a month, but it is what it is.

Selfishly, i was so looking forward to her turning 3 and getting the free hours. Would be a massive help with mortgage going up. However I don't qualify. And it is not a sliding scale, I don't qualify for anything. So I would actually be better off reducing hours so I would qualify for the free hours- in what world should that be the case?! Makes no sense to me!

Apologies @bingbongbang23 , I don’t mean to be unnecessarily harsh with you. But I do get frustrated when I hear very fortunate well off people complaining that they don’t get to use and benefit from the system that is really only meant to help those who absolutely need it.

You’re right, on paper there isn’t a parity between those who earn over £100k and those who earn much much less, or between households where the earnings are much higher on total, without either person breaking the £100k threshold individually. You’re right, on paper this isn’t “fair”.

but I think you need to realise that this is splitting hairs, and that neither you nor the households earning more than you but who are still able to claim are really the intended recipients of the vital help the free childcare system gives to those who really do need it.

so when you start to not only complain about that, but also try to make some wider point (using words usually used by very angry conservatives who resent the benefits system full stop, and equate earnings to talent and merit rather than a socio-political and education system that is rigged from birth and always has the same winners and losers in life) about you not being rewarded for working hard. Or punished because you work hard. Well, that’s hard for me to stay silent about.

I think you just need to have a little more humility about it, and a little more empathy for those for whom the childcare hours are a lifeline, and their ONLY opportunity to not only work and maintain some sort of work life, but in many cases their only ability to have children at all. Whether you want to reduce a few hours of your £100k a year job to be able to get “the same” is sort of neither here nor there.

In an ideal world everyone would universally have the same access to help, but since our benefits system is in dire straits, massively underfunded and being cut daily - mostly disadvantaging the poorest, the least physically able, the mentally unwell and the people who are unable to find decently paid stable work, then I think you calling for parity for those earning more than most of us will dream of, all To funded by extra taxes we all have to pay, is pretty tone deaf.

sorry.

You won't get any sympathy on here OP as people are bitter towards high earners and because they're on crap wages hate the thought of anyone else moaning about anything even when it's unfair.

You should still get the 15 hours, but it's well known that there's a tipping point where you're better off cutting hours or paying more into your pension- have a Google it has been calculated where the area is that if you earn between x and y you're worse off. I think it should be universal, I'll never earn £100k plus but if you're a higher tax payer you pay more in than most. There's no real incentive anymore in this country to aspire to jobs that require a high level of education, responsibility and experience. Yes plenty of people on lower wages work hard too, but people can't be serious comparing someone who works in retail with a neurosurgeon for example (who ridiculously won't earn 100k plus for many years but still).

Kind of agree with you, my manager once really excitedly told me my pay was going to be increased by £4000 to £101000.

What he didn't know was that after tax I was worse off. I lost my 30 free hours and tax free childcare and now the higher tax rate kicks in.

But I have to remember that being just under £100k I was getting all the help that people on much lower salaries are getting.

The issue exists for salaries just on the £100k mark really

I get your point. DH and I earn over £100k between us but will get the 30 free hours. It’s going to massively help us as at the moment we are spending over our wages every month and eating up savings. We have 3 children and a mortgage. Yes we are much much luckier than some and are extremely grateful. We have a house that houses all of us, we have one holiday a year (usually UK) but we don’t live extravagantly and we are always tight for money at the end of the month.

Also what a lot of people are not appreciating is that the money you get back for childcare is an absolute drop in the ocean of the amount of tax you will contribute to the country as a higher earner. Why shouldn’t you have some of the benefits of this?! Is the solution to tax you less?

It's not until someone earns £130k that they're 'better off'- I'd certainly drop hours or overpay into a pension until my children were out of the childcare years.

School nurseries are some of the most reasonable options for childcare out there. If you’re eligible for 15 hours then you’re only paying for 15 hours a week on top of that.
The average price of a session by me is £15, so £30 a day.
You’re a high earner and you’re expected to pay maybe £75 a week for 38 weeks of the year to enable you to work.
I’ll bet my house your daily rate is much more than that and you are complaining!

(I appreciate the costs may vary by location but you take my point)

Also what a lot of people are not appreciating is that the money you get back for childcare is an absolute drop in the ocean of the amount of tax you will contribute to the country as a higher earner. Why shouldn’t you have some of the benefits of this?! Is the solution to tax you less?

Yes more tax for less access to services sounds like a great deal, ita a real mystery why so many young people with great aspirations decide to leave this country. I'm sure we will all bask in the skill shortages nicely in the decades to come, can't wait.

Why do you say you don't get anything, but 15 hours is universal? A tad dramatic. You'll be entitled to 15 hours the term after your child turns 3 (no, not immediately).

We weren't entitled to the 30 hours as one of us was a student. But we got 15 hours.

In any case, 15 hours is term-time only. If you're looking for childcare to ensure you can work f/t a school nursery isn't much use as it's a school-length day and term -time only.

I think people that are on £110-120 kare the worst hit they actually end up taking home less than people on just under £100k. It’s ridiculous.

School nurseries are some of the most reasonable options for childcare out there.

Not sure about elsewhere but in my area school nurseries are term time only.

@TheWayTheLightFalls you're correct, that’s what the OP wants though

Agree with other posters who say that it only makes sense to drop hours if you earn slightly above £100k. Do the maths on your actual salary OP and you can work out if it makes sense for you or not. I tried but it didn't make sense for me. You still get 15 hours (which personally I don't think makes sense for people earning over £100k, so I think high earners should be very grateful for it). If your child is going to school nursery, they may allow you to pay the extra to get a full time place - our school nursery does and they charge £60/week for it, which is pretty reasonable frankly (especially when on over £100k and if you are using to monthly costs of £1200 for nursery).

What I think is ridiculous is two parents can earn 99k each and qualify.
But a single parent making 100k doesn't qualify. It should be by household income, not individual.

Note to all earning between £100,000 and £125,140 pa.

For those whose incomes fall within this bracket,* *in my opinion it's crazy not to put all earnings over £100,000 into a pension, due to the loss of your personal tax allowance in this bracket at a rate of £1 loss for every £2 earned. This means you are effectively taxed and pay NI at a marginal rate of 62% in the pound on this income. If you put this chunk of income into your pension, you are effectively only paying 38p for every pound of contribution, and you can retain your free childcare hours as you are keeping your relevant income under £100,000.

More information here:

https://taxscouts.com/high-earner-tax-returns/what-are-the-tax-implications-of-earning-over-100k/

I think you’ve forgotten that you can get 15hrs free that is not means tested!

Only the most selfish, thoughtless, “I’m alright Jack” people would leave the country of their birth just because they are asked to pay back some of the good fortune they have gained by living and working in it.

Only the most miserly, skinflinty, life-hardened Scrooges would complain bitterly about giving a few more of their precious gold tokens (proportionately much LESS overall than lower earners, by the way) to help those who earn only pennies wiping the arses, unclogging the veins, and cleaning the detritus from the gutters for all of us.

Only life’s coldest, meanest, grabbiest people would begrudge a system, imperfect though it is, that aims to elevate everyone to a quality of life that feels just about liveable and fulfilling.

Only those who believe their own hype, and inflate their own talents, believe that they are only where they are today because of those talents, and not because of a complex web of age-old socio-political and economic circumstances which gave them a head start before they were even born.

It you’d like to align yourself with that camp of people, go right ahead. But we see you.

Yes, same for two earners with each on 99K. That’s a massive loophole obviously.

They should also be paying for childcare.

I would reduce my hours. You'll have more money and more time for yourself- no brainer. You need to do what's best for your family.

Read the room

The ‘room’ is mumsnet where there are people on various salaries. Should only people up to a certain income be able to post? 🙄

OP points out the obvious flaw in the system and is right to. The fact that 2 people can earn more than one person but get this benefit is wrong. Just like the flaw in the child benefit model too.

Absolutely agree, and if we were staying in private nursery it would be a different story. I want to put her to the school nursery. She would then share the wrap around care that I already have in place for her sister- and so she would effectively go to having nil childcare costs (as I already pay for her sisters).

You may well find that you have fees to pay to the school nursery, if you aren't entitled to funding.

So you'd happily effectively be 30k worse off just by crossing an arbitrary threshold? Sure. I think tax scales are fair, but schemes like this aren't. We are a low wage economy with less prospects, people seeking a better life elsewhere where yes they pay tax but aren't penalised for earing a decent wage are the clever ones.

I’m a high earner, my husband is a ‘low’ earner. We don’t qualify for any help.

My sister and her husband both earn £80-90k EACH and are eligible for tax free childcare and free hours as individually both under £100k. On paper our total household incomes are similar, but their net take home is materially higher due to my tax.

Does this wind me up and seem unfair? Yes, sometimes but I don’t dwell on it.
Does it mean I should get some sort of child benefit or childcare allowance? OBVIOUSLY NOT!!!

It means they shouldn’t get any and the system needs changing to look at the combined household. But even that would have its own issues and be expensive to implement. So here we are. The one thing I can say for certain is, I have never felt the need to publically complain about this or expect the worlds smallest violin to play for me as I wipe away my tears with the +£100k that I earn. Christ.

As a side note (and I know this won’t be true for all high earners) - I’m a high earner because I work in private industry. With this comes a wealth of benefits: free private healthcare for my entire family, access to a 24hr private GP, generous leave to be used for dependents care (on top of usual annual leave), emergency childcare for 10 days a year, 10% discount on certain nursery chains, the list goes on. This isn’t intended to be a brag, but just to show that ultimately I, and others in my position, should not be whining.

ToDamp0rNotToDamp

Its not whining to discuss it and want the system to be fair. If it’s not discussed, it’ll never change.

My kids are way past the age of needing childcare so it’s of no benefit to me and I was a SAHM who didn’t use childcare when they were young anyway. I still want it to be fair for others and for it to make sense. My partner earns over the £60k child benefit cut off and my youngest isn’t too far away from being an adult, but again, I still want it to be fair.

If I had that much to tax in the first place then yes, I would. That’s the system I’m part of and it’s the system that I believe at least pays lip service to the aim of a better society for everyone. So I’m happy to pay my share.

I’m also happy not to be “clever”. Just stupid old me, dumb enough to only count my blessings, not my money. What an idiot I am. So stupid. Ho hum.

How is that a penalty in anyone’s head? That sounds like a dream scenario!! I’d kill for a “problem” like that.

Why we’re all obsessed with working a “full” working week of five days, if we can live comfortably on less money but fewer days is a mystery to me. It doesn’t mean you work “harder” to work five days, or to earn a huge amount of money.

Perhaps if more people worked fewer hours overall there would actually be more work and more money to go around - job shares being a very successful example.