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!

Everyone gets the 15 the extra 15 is to encourage those who would otherwise work part time to start to up their hours or even to look for work so that they don't fall further behind in their careers as a result of having to do more of the childcare. Lets be real this is usually mum. So it's a good way to help close the gender pay gap.

We both earn over 100k so we didn't get this either. Takes the piss a bit as we pay so much tax and then our children can't even benefit from any perks we pay towards. But, we have 4 in private school now, nursery fees are a drop in the ocean compared to that.

Well yes the shitty system we have, that's the point, people leave for a better one. Reality is people work for money, if you'd martyr yourself and happily lose out on tens of thousands of pounds just because then that's up to you, I don't judge those that find it unfair because I can empathise upwards as well as downwards.I think some people assume everyone in that tax bracket grew up with a silver spoon shrouded in generational wealth when it's no longer the case. And the point is people do already pay their share by paying a huge % of tax!

Do they not benefit from the NHS? You could send them to a non-private school if you really cared about getting your money's worth.

Indeed but high earners are also women and mums, it encourages them to drop hours or turn down promotions whilst their children are young as who wants to work harder for less money?

Anyone earning £100k is paying over £30k in tax so already heavily subsidising a system they don't benefit from.

You don't owe strangers your money or time OP, and if the system is unfair people will opt out by working less.

The government doesn't care about those women as they've already "made it".

Actually no, we have private health care so we don't benefit from the NHS. I had a private midwife so they didn't even benefit from it then. I wouldn't send my children to state school as, sadly, they are shit. Same reason we don't use the NHS. I am happy to pay extra to get the level of education and health care I feel we deserve. I feel everyone deserves it tbf, just sadly not everyone has the means to provide it for their family.

I don’t assume that at all. And neither do I martyr myself. It’s not a big personal sacrifice to earn a bit less to support a generally beneficial system.

How much money is enough?

I would like quite a bit more money to buy nice things, go to nice places. That would be lovely. But I don’t have it so I don’t sweat it. And if I earned more and got taxed more I wouldn’t sweat that either. I’d think how nice it was that I was still earning more!

I like the country in which I live, and it’s broader aims and values, more than I like money I guess.

Send them to state then if you want to benefit. Mind you if you can afford four lots of fees you can suck up missing out the funded hours.

Your choice then. You are able to use the NHS and the "shit" schools that you help fund if you really want to get what you pay for.

So exactly why don't you qualify.

So it is all shit but you still want your slice of pie? Okay.

If we all paid into the social systems we have, and stopped voting for the people who want to erode them because they think private everything is better, then guess what - we WOULD all have a better standard of schools and healthcare.

£100k after tax and everything else isn't anywhere near the take home amount to be going on about when is enough money enough, especially for a single income household who isn't eligible for TFC etc. It's not just to buy nice additional things for everyone is it, that's very narrow minded. One of my close friends from school grew up with parents who were addicts, zero parental financial support or inheritance. She's grafted her way to a decent job and since her DH died is running a household by herself- she's taken herself below the £100k purposefully because she can't afford to be several tens of thousands worse off, can't blame her I would do the same regardless but for some it makes even more sense. Again if you're happy to pay more tax on top of a high tax rate already that's your perogative but to judge those who see it as a bit shit is ridiculous.

This is why the rich get richer, because you disagree with systems in place to make sure only the needy can get help.

You’re taking the piss, you don’t need the help. You’ll just have to have smoked salmon 4 times a week rather 5.

Well I can certainly see your point more if you/she live in London. That’s probably the only place in the UK where the usual income expectations don’t apply, especially if you are a single income household. So I can meet your halfway on that one, granted.

But London may as well be another planet as far as I’m concerned. Anyone wanting to leave the country to avoid taxes should probably just move a bit further North from London. Job done.

But almost anywhere else in the UK, I’m sticking to my guns.

It's like child benefit - both adults in the house can earn 49,999 with a house hold income of essential 100k and still qualify, but a house with a sahm and a partner on 60k get nothing.

Our household income is 150k but because it's split equally across DH and i we qualify for funded hours and tax free childcare. We are actively avoiding decent pay rises and decent bonuses for the next two years til the youngest starts school.
The truth is that even though our household income is so good we simply cannot afford the childcare costs - with all the other basic costs and childcare costs where we live we are already struggling each month.
We don't have sky tv, we don't drink / go out, we buy own label food and we do a quarterly review of household finances to make sure we are getting the best deals (just before someone comes on and tells me clearly we should manage our money better because with 150k gross each year we should be living like A listers and taking nothing from the state)

I agree it should be a sliding scale, and at the very least the TFC should be available to everyone regardless of salary. No I don't know how they would fund it but if you are working and paying into the system then that shouldn't be the criteria for removing your eligibility for any kind of support.

@WingingIt101 surely you can have sky with that household income? I pay for Netflix and we roughly get a fifth of what you earn.

YABU and you're wrong, it's not means tested. Having a £100k salary cut-off is not the same as making it means-tested. You qualify or you don't and the amount you get doesn't change based on the amount you earn (like, for example, Universal Credit).

"So you could have couple each earning £80k and qualify; then have a couple where one doesn't work and the other earns £101k and they don't qualify."
Actually, a couple with a SAHP does not need childcare - 30h funded childcare is meant to support working parents (whether a single working parent or a couple in which both parents are working) so they wouldn't qualify even if the working parent was earning under £100k.

There is a universal entitlement to 15h funded childcare from age 3 and your child will be eligible for it. You won't get the extra 15h (30h total) because of your salary, unless you choose to reduce your hours or increase your pension contributions so that your salary is under £100k.

The 15h will surely still be helpful?
https://www.gov.uk/help-with-childcare-costs/free-childcare-and-education-for-2-to-4-year-olds

Slightly off topic, but... This is a bit narrow minded surely? I'm certain you're aware that other areas of the UK do exist and also suffer from incredibly expensive housing and other costs. London is expensive yes, but many other parts of the country are also incredibly costly too.

For example, Surrey, parts of Essex, Kent, Sussex. I live in Cambridge and can assure you that a one parent income of £100K (or a tad over) won't have you feeling like you're living the dream or living in a particularly special house with much disposable income. Housing costs here are excruciating and a local private nursery space is around £1,600pm on top.

Regardless, whether or not £100K earners should get 30hours is not the issue here in my mind. The real issue is the loophole that exists on the basis that it is not judged on household income - that is the real insanity of the system. Likewise, child benefit.

There will be lots if sour grapes on this thread but YANBU at all, OP.

I don't know who people think pays for these free hours for everyone. Not those earning 20k and paying fuck all in taxes, that's for sure.

You think low earners are subsidising high earners?

Really?

Do you understand how taxes work?

I agree with you OP. Its nuts. Unless you earn well over £125k, I would put the excess in your pension in order to qualify. You will be in the same net position cash flow wise but making provision for your own pension as well.

Mumsnet is batshit about stuff like this.

This is a very jealous thread. I don’t earn close to OP but I try not to judge lest I be judged myself. I’ve known many a success story come from a poor background, it’s why I do not presume someone’s ‘had it easy’. I also agree that it should be based on household income not individual, it penalises single income households (usually single parents).

The fact of the matter is that over half the population are taking out of the system more than they put in. We either need to accept that this has to be reduced through less public spending, or we need to encourage more high earners and people keeping more of what they earn. Archived Times article on this: https://archive.ph/XC5tf. This is a government issue, the high earners are the scapegoats.

Currently as OP is demonstrating, high earners are wondering what’s in it for them anymore and if they reduce hours thus salary etc to access help - then there’s even less for public spending. This is a real issue if those on 100k + are wondering what the point is. I don’t know anyone on 100k who has their feet up and has an easygoing job personally. It’s why I couldn’t do it as I don’t have the grit for jobs that pay that sorta money.

I’m not even on what OP is (not close) and I’m getting tired of feeling shafted for saving money (interest rates rubbish, taxed if you save a certain amount) working full time to spend purely on bills etc. Especially important because as women, when we are working full time to effectively have someone else raise our kids, it grinds you even further. So tensions will rise in the community as living in Britain is frankly crap these days.

I see both sides but this is a delicate balancing act in which pure envy does nothing. If we keep losing high earners and businesses keep moving abroad and not paying U.K. tax - we’ll be up the creek.