To be irritated by this £100k a year whiner

[Viviennemary]

On Question Time tonight they were talking about subsidised childcare and the new benefits for younger children. Then a woman came on with a boo hoo sad face and said she wouldn't be getting it. So I think Fiona Bruce said because your income is £100k a year plus Then she said that it wasnt fair as there was only one wage. And their household only had one earner.

Well tough. Folk on just over £12k a year are paying tax and this cheeky woman thinks her child care should be subsidised. It made me mad.

Yes, she's better off than many. But as a single earner she loses free childcare at a much earlier point than double earning families, and that's unfair.

There's also an absolute cliff edge at that point where you can actually be worse off by earning more. The tax system should be good enough to not create these issues.

She’s right about the inherent unfairness though - same as child benefit. Should be on household income. And £4k a month for childcare is insane!!

Plus the Tory was being totally disingenuous as the new childcare payments are proving a disaster before they’ve even started - there simply isn’t the provision to meet need and the subsidies don’t cover costs.

I saw it too, but the reality is that we’re reaching a tipping point in the UK, where people earning those sort of salaries (and it’s not many of them) are propping up the entire country. Somebody earning £12k a year is paying nowhere near enough tax to fund their own DC’s childcare and that woman’s tax bill is funding maybe 3 kids childcare bills plus having to pay for her own on top. And the general consensus from the general public is that she should pay even more. I’m not surprised she’s ’whining’.

The point she was making (badly, TBF), is that if she and her DH each earned £99k, they'd get the free childcare but because one of them earns £100k, they get nothing. This means that a family income of £199999.99 can pay £0 for childcare, while a family with a household income of half that on £100000.00 pays £4k a month for the same childcare. This is inherently unfair but it also pushes the lower earner (usually the mother) to either go part-time or become a SAHP. As the woman on NN, was saying this is both bad for the mother who wants to work more and for the economy, which needs women paying income tax to fund pensions, the NHS, support for Ukraine etc

Take home pay on a salary of £100,000 is £5,650 per month.

I looked up how much childcare for 2 children would be in my local area, and how much the mortgage would be for a fairly basic 3-bed house. The total comes to £5,680. So before council tax, other bills or food the person’s already at minus £30 for the month.

Of course £100k isn’t a bad salary (and I earn less than that) - but the cost of childcare and housing is out of control. That’s the real problem.

And doing the maths, if you earn say £13k a year, you’re not exactly ‘paying tax’ are you. It’s £86 a year you contribute. That’s pretty cheap for free childcare.

@Viviennemary to put this into perspective, that persons partner earning £100k will be paying £33k a year in income tax to pay for the person on £12k a years benefits, healthcare, education their children have and child care their children have. If she had access to affordable - or god forbid free - childcare the woman with the £100k a year partner may actually be able to work herself and in future pay even more in tax to support the person on £12k.

Some people earn £12k because they are sick or single parents. Some earn £12k because they are low skilled and a bit trapped in often undervalued occupations. Some earn £12k because they couldn’t be bothered at school and have no interest in bettering themselves because they are happy with their lot. But they all rely on the people who did make the effort to better themselves and/or do work hard or stressful jobs that might not always be especially fulfilling to pay the taxes required for the people earning £12k to enjoy the benefits of the welfare state they enjoy.

There was a massive thread on this the other week with some good arguments.

My view:

It's a stupid economic argument to cap at £100k, people drop hours or pay additional pension contributions to avoid the £100k cliff edge. This reduces tax take with no tangible benefit to the taxpayer. This is because it's such a penal cliff edge that you would need to earn 120k or more (depending on how many kids you have in childcare) to take home the same amount as £100k. You can (and do) have the situation where getting a small bonus costs you money due to the cliff edge.

Also the £100k was introduced years ago and would be closer to £130k if it had increased with inflation. Why is £100k the right number? If it never moves then even average earners will be hit eventually with fiscal drag.

Reframe "childcare" as early years education (which it is) and there is a nonsensical argument as to why we universally fund schools for age 4 plus but don't fund under 3 education in the same way.

People on 12k do not pay tax…and if they do it’s hardly earth moving. They are taking out WAY more than they put in even if they are never using the NHS!

A person earning 100k a year is subsidising a person earning 12k a year.

From £100k to £125k you effectively lose your personal allowance too.

Unless you’re earning well over £100k, it can be with putting extra into your pension, get yourself under the £100k and then you can get your tax free childcare and free hours.

You can think it’s unfair OP, but break down the figures.

Someone we know earns just over £100k. By the time they’ve paid their mortgage of £1.5k (normal 3 bed semi), childcare of £3.6k and their student loan, they can’t even cover their food and bills. They put a few thousand extra into their pension and get help with childcare costs.

People hear £100k and think you must be rich, but if you’re paying childcare costs, it’s just not the case. And tbh, these people are paying lots of tax so getting a bit back for a few years when their children are young seems fair to me.
They are ‘the taxpayer’, the actual net contributors.

Yes, it is unfair. I no longer need childcare, but if I did, I would be mightily pissed off. As a lone parent on a reasonably good salary I have never qualified for any help with anything. Even council tax is discriminatory as I only get a small single person discount.

Issues like this become problems when you have a small number of earners paying more in income tax than the national average wage. Which must demonstrate that the tax burden in those who are working is falling to a small proportion of people. Add in arbitrary cliff edges and no movement for inflation and it all starts to feel unfair. Yes if course £100k is a lot of money, but she could work less and earn less and have more cash at the end of the month or benefits such as child care, and it's daft people can do that. I have colleagues who have turned down bonuses because it will wipe out their childcare eligibility etc

I agree OP, I thought that she was a cheeky fucker

Yes but £100k is only one salary. Presumably if they are going to pay for child care then she can work as well.

As a couple they could easily be earning something in the region of £150 - £200k

YABU. While higher earners should definitely pay more tax, we cannot keep expecting people to pay higher tax rates and not see any benefits. That is before you consider, she may have very reasonable outgoings and that there is effectively a 60% tax on those earning between 100k and around 125k.

Child care cost should be universal and benefit all in society. Like child benefit previously. I think it's fair and actually helps WOMEN!

Stop the fight to the bottom.

Well said!

True, and the second salary goes 100% into bills (council tax:200, food: 400, energy: 300, phone/internet: 70, commute: 350, loan repayment: 400).

Savings, holiday, etc: 0.

She was making a point about unfairness in the way it’s worked out. Still never miss a chance to have a pop at someone earning well. You come across as quite bitter.

I agree with your point and do think it's unfair.

But just on what the funding actually covers,the higher earning family in your example wouldn't be paying £0. The funding won't cover it. If someone is paying £4k a month then that is full time all year round. The funding will cover a couple of days of that (30 hours a week for 38 weeks stretched across 52 weeks comes to just under 22 hours a week), then there will be additional fees for the "free" days such as for food. They'll probably still be paying £2.5k a month.

Womp womp!

Why am I not surprised by some of the comments on here

How much tax do people earning 12k pay vs 100k? Not anything significant I'm guessing.

As PP said, higher earners are propping up the NHS and national services for everyone else. So don't resent them too much. You can't have your cake and eat it.

This woman is right. She should be entitled to childcare given how much tax she is paying. What's the point of working if you're going to give everything to a nursery or the tax man?

Whose responsibility is it to pay for childcare?