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.

It is unfair. The tax on that sort of salary is eye watering. You are judged for earning that amount by people on less. I do know people on high salaries and their jobs are bloody difficult and also the result of years of hard work to get where they are.
It smacks a little of jealousy tbh. You think it's unfair, then go out and do the training and work to get yourself to that level of income.

And no, I don't earn anywhere near that.

Looking back it seems Count had to give up work because of childcare costs so not actually a ‘rolling in it’ Count either.
No offence @CountAlmaviva

just a play on your username🤣

It isn’t fair though, so 2 people in a household earning £99k each would get free childcare, but a single parent on £100k wouldn’t…

I like your view.
There will be an election before the end of January 2025. None of the parties have demonstrated that they have a clue about UK citizens, in that vacuum, the electorate should be suggesting manifesto commitments - as well as how quickly any government should seek re-election when they contradict those commitments.

Here’s the problem OP. If someone was a single parent and renting on only £12k: they’d be getting quite a lot of benefits. Any teeny amount of tax would be eaten up by this.

the woman on £100k is paying a huge amount of tax, losing out on child benefit on childcare?

Working people should not be pitted against each other. Many people doing the 100k a year jobs are doctors or teachers or engineers - people who are vital and who may choose to reduce their hours to fall into a better tax bracket. I put lots into a pension to reduce my tax bill.

Lower earners are generally doing the most important jobs in society. Basically, working people keep society going, whatever they do or earn.

Children also keep society going because they will the ones supporting us (indirectly or directly) as we age. It is unearned wealth that is not taxed sufficiently.

Wages have been frozen and tax brackets have been frozen for years now.

Child benefit is a bit of an outdated benefit for me and certainly was brought in so you could save it to give to kids at 18/21 as many do. Personally I’d scrap it completely and redirect the savings to those who actually need it.

And it's happening at lots of points across the income spectrum too, including for lower earners. But lots of people are so stupid and short sighted that they refuse to see it, and instead yarn on about who they sympathise with. As though that's important.

£100,000 PA after tax, in England, before any student loan repayment or pension contribution sees a take-home monthly pay of £5,650. My childcare is £18,000 per year on full time which is £1,500 per month. At present interest rates, a mortgage on a modest home may see monthly repayments of £2,000. That leaves c. £2,000 to deal with council tax, insurances, running a car, food, clothes and so on. There isn't much left here for luxuries. Can you not see how £100,000 is not the rolling in it you might think it is?

You aren't paying more taxes. Those children exist regardless of whether their parent is earning 99k or 100k. So penalising someone on 100k will only incentivise them to work less, thereby paying less tax while being better off each month due to subsidised childcare.

Where did I ask for a dissertation.
The previous poster gave very specific figures so I assumed they knew.
I asked where these figures came from in terms of ‘subsidies’ handed out.

The article posted in response doesn’t give any of that information,
So i still don’t know what actual ‘ subsidies’ are being handed out to individuals on high salaries.

Hang on a minute. I own a nursery. I send out bills and I provide receipts for people on Universal Credit.

I know exactly how much they pay after the funding is deducted.

That's the key point before we all get emotional about £100k/yr.

Two parents earning 50k/yr each are in a far more beneficial tax position vs a single parent earning £100k/yr.

And that isn't fair at all.

Tax allowance for children added on to your own personal allowance would help with this problem.

Yes, I have and it's all factored in by these companies. You're not looking ahead to the broader picture; you're trying to apply your own situation to these equity companies.

Why do you think these investors are falling over themselves to invest in childcare? It's because they know they're going to make a killing when the time is right.

Possibly, but then you'll get the question of why people who decide or cannot have children should pay a higher rate of tax, which is a fair question.

I don't think this squeeze would be as intense if the tax thresholds had moved with inflation over the past 15 years or so. A £51k a year earner wasn't the intended target of higher rate tax, and £100k earners don't earn enough to bash them with erosion of the personal allowance. Its a sneaky creeping tax increase that they get away with year after year because the headline tax rate remains the same and thresholds don't hold the headlines, and a large proportion of people don't really understand the tax system.

I’m surprised people don’t understand this. The current tax system just stifles progress and growth. No one in their right mind would work more to end up with less money at the end of the month, regardless if they’re on £99k and risk losing childcare hours or on a low income and risk losing benefits.

Yes, that's it, subsidies being handed out to high earners? Sorry what are you on about? Did you really not read what the poster stated. It is not about high earners ( as well you probably know) it is those who are very very wealthy, wealth from passive income, nothing to do with their salary, it is the tax system, regulatory systems that are enabling that wealth to become bigger and bigger and bigger, I posted this earlier but conveniently overlooked, by 2035 the wealth of the richest 200 families will be greater than the whole of the UK's GDP of the current trajectory continues!

Going on about subsidies is an argument in semantics and you probably know that!

The amount of people on this thread refusing to accept facts and basic maths because "their lot is worse" is appalling.

You don't need to be a high earner to be able to recognise imbalances. I kind of hope it does stem from lack of ability to understand how all this works economically.

Surely there aren't this many people in real life that actively lose empathy for people's situation because by their (incorrect) assumption, it's a non issue?

Higher earners should not be subsidizing anyone. Too many people on welfare, taking too much out of the system and not contributing anywhere near enough.

Tbh I am not buying this. What childcare are they missing out on?

Specifically yes!

Is she talking about tax free childcare, talking about child benefit, talking about rishis new ‘free’ childcare. Talking about universal credit top up?

I say specifically because this 20k lost everyone bandies round I would love to know what that’s EXACTLY consisting off. Because I am on less than 100k and do some of these supposed things and no I am not getting 20k of benefits.

We are in a private nursery. Tax free childcare reduces the costs by 20% for a portion (about 3 days as the cap doesn’t reach the full week). The new hours only marginally reduce the cost as it’s not being fully offered. I think it’s £10 or so extra a day reduction.

I have found nurseries linked to primary schools for 3.5+yrs. There it’s £25 a day as opposed £100 in private with no free hours. And additionally if on free hours it’s about £25 a week. Sure that adds up but it is a quarter of the cost even if you’re paying.

So I just can’t get my head around all these saying they are not getting these free hours. I doubt they live in an area where there are free hours?!

So is it UC top up she’s not getting? 80% childcare paid

Because if upset about that I think that’s ridiculous. I’m on about 30kish and I don’t get UC because a company director.

I’m guessing the issue is not so much subsidies as the Govn doesn’t hand out money to the wealthy it’s more a case of tax relief on savings and pensions.

So if you pay into a pension , for example, that money is not taxed. That’s for everyone
However, given state pension is very low here in the uk ( hence the need for top ups, winter payments etc) it’s not a bad thing to not tax the money put into a pension in order to encourage more people to put away for retirement.

They will never make a killing. They might make a tiny profit.

Childcare requires too many staff to be profitable. You can only charge what people are able to pay, and ultimately, as costs rise, so do expenses.

That is an assumption - if the woman quoted in the OP is needing childcare presumably there is not another parent at home to do this?

Your other points are variables. Commute/work wardrobe/lunch don't apply to everyone - if you walk or cycle to work, costs are minimal to nil. Many workplaces have adopted casual dress codes. There may be some environments where a packed lunch is tricky but there's nothing to stop the majority bringing in their own lunch.

Someone on 100k is paying 40% tax on everything over 50k - so £20,000 on that portion of income.

If that 50k were being earned by a second person they'd pay no tax on the first £12750 and 20% on the rest - so the single earner is paying an extra 12.5k in tax. That's a huge difference.