Should tax-free childcare and ‘free hours’ be universal?

[Nursery772]

Having attempted to apply for the new 15 free hours for my nearly two year old, I discovered you are not eligible if you earn over £100k.

My four year old also receives only 15 of the 30 free hours for the same reason.

I am not sure if the additional 15 hours from 9 months / 2 years will be income contingent.

Between this and tax-free childcare, I will lose about £12,000 of post tax income in 2024/5 tax year.

This seems very onerous!

Should tax-free childcare and ‘free hours’ not be universal? It is an expense to allow me to work, and I’m paying quite a bit of tax.

Also being applied as a cliff edge is brutal, seems to create an artificial ‘cap’ on the amount parents of preschoolers can earn.

Having two children close in age so in need of childcare at its highest price such as 2 under 2 is a choice.

Having two children close in age so in need of childcare at its highest price such as 2 under 2 is a choice.

Because in your world things go perfectly to plan. You’re clueless. 🙄

This.

Support needs to be targeted at those most in need, not high earners

It's a viewpoint often trotted out by the wealthy when much poorer families have multiple children without the means to fund them.

Why not thus way round too?

Of course. I definitely planned to have twins this time around.

Unplanned pregnancies happen
Unplanned situations happen such as twins

I still don't expect the government to support me financially because I'm a high earner. It needs to go towards the most in need.

@Willyoujustbequiet why are households with a joint income of ~£200k eligible while one with an income of £101k is technically eligible for nothing?

That doesn’t seem to be targeting those who ‘need it most’ either.

The real problem now in the UK is that we have a majority of people who are now dependent on the state (54% are net tax recipients)

So of course they will vote for policies were "someone else that is not me has to pay for it"

Problem in the UK is that trend has come up against demographics and behavioral economics (put marginal tax rates high enough and people work less or change behaviors (like pension)).

So the end result will be people on £50k or above barely scrapping by (due to high marginal tax rates, childcare costs, student loans etc) while the rest (below £50k and subsidised by higher earners) keep getting poorer because the higher earners will not work more simply to get back less than 50% of their efforts.

Its complete economic madness.

When you think about the difference between £60k to £100k, it seems massive (£40k is a decent chunk of money). However, it’s crazy how much tax etc you lose when you get to £100k and the take home pay isn’t that much more than a salary that’s 40% less.

If there is a household with 1x person on 99k and one person on 101k then they are idiots for not putting the 1k into pension.

No because it benefits the child through socialisation.

Also many disabled people are unable to work and are already impacted by higher costs. Their children shouldn't lose out.

It absolutely should be means tested. Help should go to those who are the most vulnerable and not high earners

This is because wages in this country are so pathetically low and costs are so high, it is not the publics fault, but the governments. The national minimum wage should be far higher than what it is.

Nobody wants to rely on government support, its incredibly stressful, but they don't have a choice.

I learn this in my job in the public sector. Thank you.

As pointed out, the cut off only affects 78,000 individuals. I do think the cut off should be on household income, not individual but perhaps you missed that earlier point. It’s important women are not unfairly disadvantaged.

More people working does not automatically mean the government policy and allocation of funds will change. I assume you were taught this in school?

I do think there needs to government intervention in a number of areas, including childcare. Seeing other public services, it is simply not top of my list.

I agree the single/joint income anomaly needs changing.

It's really not all about who we support and don't though. It's much bigger than that and basic economics at thatS

If someone earns just over £100k they are putting money into pensions etc to circumvent it, or cutting hours = less tax take.

If one of a couple earns over £100k and the other earns £30k (probably the woman) then the woman ends up giving up work. Again less tax take.

We have a workforce crisis in this country especially since covid where lots of people retired early. Tphe government are trying to get newly retired people back into work for example. This is a whole group of people who aren't working as it's not worthwhile for them to do so. It's nonsensical.

That’s what baby and toddler groups are for. And school at 4, which is younger than many other countries.

Why should higher earners be happy to do nothing but slave away to support the most ‘vulnerable’ who get the lot for free? It’s about time people took responsibility for their own lives and choice to have children. We’re all adults aren’t we?

This is particularly unfair and I cannot make sense of this decision. Ditto the cut off for child benefit!

It's a choice to get education and choice to get healthcare. You can choose to remain illiterate or remain sick.
I am so sick of the woke cult saying having children is lifestyle choice. Having children is how human civilization survives dumbfucks.

@Teder Is it unfair that the thresholds have been frozen for a decade meaning more and more people are excluded?

Is it unfair that the % loss to those people increases every time a new scheme is introduced?

Why is £100k the right place to have the cut off?

Not all areas have such groups and the odd hour here and there is no substitute for nursery.

It's interesting you feel high earners slave away. Does that mean those lower down don't? In my experience it's quite often the opposite.

I was a high earner and was more than happy for my taxes to be used to support the most vulnerable in our society. I'm certainly not the only one who feels this way. It's called having a conscience.

Because then you're punishing the children. It's to benefit the CHILDREN, not the adults.

But then we’re just locked in a kind of emotional blackmail where we do everything to support other people’s DC not our own. And their parents just get to keep popping them out knowing other people will stump up the cash ‘because it’s mean if you don’t’. Is that fair?

Exactly.

“The real problem now in the UK is that we have a majority of people who are now dependent on the state (54% are net tax recipients)

So of course they will vote for policies were "someone else that is not me has to pay for it"

Problem in the UK is that trend has come up against demographics and behavioral economics (put marginal tax rates high enough and people work less or change behaviors (like pension)).

So the end result will be people on £50k or above barely scrapping by (due to high marginal tax rates, childcare costs, student loans etc) while the rest (below £50k and subsidised by higher earners) keep getting poorer because the higher earners will not work more simply to get back less than 50% of their efforts.

Its complete economic madness.”

Agreed and it is also really stupid to disincentivise higher earners from having more children. It is all upside down. Everyone has a right to have children but it isn’t fair on children if poorer parents are more incentivised to have them or too many of them than richer parents who can give them a better life.
Once lots of poorer people have children the state then has to support those children, but it does not make it fair on those children.

The subsidised care is coming out of a pot, tax payers contribute to the pot. And the point is are people earning £100k a year a priority for tax payers money for subsidised childcare. I would say absolutely not.

The higher earners fund those who are most in need. If you don’t look after the higher earners everyone else would soon be in trouble.