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!

Extra free places may mean shortages of places:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/nov/06/staff-exodus-could-hinder-expansion-of-free-childcare-in-england-providers-say

”Loss of free hours + tax free childcare means parents with two preschoolers will be £0 better off for earning £156k vs £100k. Surely no one thinks this is ‘fair’?”

Firstly, paying for childcare for preschoolers is a very short period of time in one’s full career. Secondly, most people realise childcare is expensive and choose not to have children super close together. Thirdly, the family earning £156k could drop a third of their income and still be very wealthy so there’s no reason why one parent or both can’t go part time for a few years.

All that needs to be said tbh.

ever heard the phrase “live within your means” ???

because us lower earners hear it all the time 🙄

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.

this!!

Not sure you are quite grasping this. The PP was saying on paper a person earns 50k more a year and yet sees none of it.

No one on their right mind would want to do all the extra work and sacrifice that it takes to make that 'extra 50k' to have no extra money at end of month to show for it.

A system that disincentivises people to work is flawed. You really think this is fair?!

But they are "seeing none of it" because they are spending it on childcare right?

Soooooo, don’t…?! Cut down your hours. Win win.

You're receiving 2 children's childcare! Just because it's meanial work to you and your £156k lifestyle doesn't mean you aren't getting 'nothing to show for it'.

Is this like when people own horses then say "I'm so pooooooor"

@Teder , it isn't a win win though, that's the point

If the person cuts down their hours they pay less tax, less money in the system overall for everyone.

It is also fair to say that in many of these jobs, part time is not an option. I don't earn 156k, would be nice! However, even on my salary, the job is not suitable for part time- so I don't think it's quite as simple as just cutting hours

I am confused. In that scenario the person isn't 'getting' childcare, they are paying for childcare. So they are working more hours but not actually earning any more for it.

And, to be clear, I don't earn this money, it is simply the scenario I disagree with. I feel it disadvantages all and discourages high earners from working more (and paying more into tax system that helps us all!)

Are you fucking kidding?

I didn't qualify either and damn straight i shouldn't have. I fucking do not need taxpayers money funding me when i can go earn £100k.

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. That for me is madness

Yes because if one doesn't work they don't fucking need state funded childcare and if they do want a bit more money in the budget there's a whole spare adult in the equation who can go get a job.

You could say that about any service you receive for payment.

I don't get annoyed and feel I work 'for nothing' just because I have to pay for groceries when others get food bank vouchers...

....or pay for my energy bils when some receive winter fuel payments....

.....or miss out on any other benefit that poorer people are entitled too.

Whinging on that your £156k doesn't stretch as far as you want is pathetic.

As is complaining that you 'Work hard for that money'. Well guess what, poorer people work hard too!

Hmm. What if a women, being responsible, doesn’t start her family until she feels financially ready, or at a point in her career when she’s ready and she’s late thirties? I personally wouldn’t really want to space my kids three or more years apart if I’m absolutely set on having more than one child.

Why would you need the 30 hours if one parent didn't work?

I agree that it would be fairer if it was based on household income- but also that both parents should be working at least the minimum required hours. I don't agree that those with an income over 100k should qualify.

Oh good, we've solved it. So for any family earning more one parent should just give up their job to provide full time childcare and not complain because they have loads of money. Remind me how that works for single parents again?

The fact is that the prudent, productive people are fed up with paying for the imprudent moochers. Bottom line.

Yep.

These rules are silly as they don't incentivise people to work. I'll be working part time after mat leave and telling DH to divert a bigger portion of his income into pension. Sorted. You just have to be savvy in this country if you actually want to take home a decent proportion of the money you earn.

During the 1980s my granny's house in Chelsea was worth £30k. Not sure millennials are the ones who have it easy.

You would maybe save £400-£600 a month with the 30 free hours assuming your child is in full time. If thats not a drop in the ocean for someone earning £100k then you are doing something seriously wrong.

Sounds like you have swallowed all the Tory propoganda. Most of the childcare you may or may not contribute for are for working parents and not moochers. Most people work.

Add to this that the lower earner is more often than not the woman who will give up her career, stop paying pension contributions etc. to look after the children.

A proper fair society is one where everyone pays high taxes and everyone benefits at the right time, like when they need childcare. No means testing. Access to services for everybody. This leads to no cliff edge cut offs that disincentive people from working a certain number of hours, nobody feels resentful. Like the Nordic models. But in this country there is nothing but nasty swiping at the people that earn more. It’s sad.

I think £600 per month isn't considered a drop in the ocean for anyone! For someone on £100k it's around 11% of their take home, and that's assuming they don't have any other deductions except tax and NI.

But this thread isn't about that. It's about the cliff edge for £100k where people simultaneously lose 30hrs childcare, tax free childcare and their personal allowance. It literally means people take home far LESS earning £100,001 than when they earn £99,999 and don't actually start earning "more" (in take home pay) until they have a bumper Payrise (£10s of thousands later). Who would be happy with this honestly? Hence, people reduce hours or throw into pension to come under £100k. They then earn "more" in take home pay again. But the country and public purses loses out as they don't get the tax.

People would be happy to pay 40% on their over £100k earnings. But the cliff edge means it's an effective 90+% tax and understandably that's just not acceptable (or worth the bother) for high earners.