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.

You’re boring me now and reading clearly isn’t your strong suit - my bill will be reducing by £260 at the most.

I don’t begrudge paying anything to those lovely ladies at all, no. My issue with your stupid bloody post was that you were making a false sweeping statement about UC recipients as if we’re all the same. You clearly don’t understand how UC works, that’s all you had to say.

I mean you are being obtuse - it's painful..

I think the uk pay gap is way too large!
For full time it shouldnt be some getting over £100k
Obviously for surgeons, drs etc exempted.
Working in a business where the bosses dont do any work but get paid often double sometimes much more.
My team mates sometimes got promotions but it actually generally wasnt the best at the job they were ok. Some couldnt even do all aspects of current job.
The bosses (team leader and managers etc) should have been at most on a few thousand more.
They spent all the time in pointless meetings..

Obviously other jobs people have skills like programming.

So i do find it a bit much people complaining. When its often luck or constamt job changing etc.

i do think it would be fairer to have the childcare limit on family but part of it is to ince ntivise staying at work woth young kids.
And for couples a £100k limit wouldnt do that.

Childcare was too expensive. From a 24k job in 2013 i would have been left with 3k after transport etc for doing 3 days a week. With the crap transport etc it would have been 8-6 with dp working 45min away there was a high risk of not making it back.

dd also has sen and didnt cope with nursery (which unfortunately wasnt great anyway (left in poopy nappy loads, pen lids left around, large pebbles but choking size around...). This was for about £50 a day but other nurseries were about £65.

lower paid jobs can be just as stressful (with the bosses contrantly accepting extra work or fewer staff or people leaving or off sick.

Bit rude.
Imagination just fine here.
I was responding to queries raised
I haven’t given any reference to where I stand in the grand scale of things
I do however make myself stand back and look at the big picture.

As an aside although actually the point
In the case of OPs thread I believe childcare support should be there when both / all ( if only one ) parents work. I don’t believe a stay at home parent should have free childcare as that’s clearly what they have chosen to do.

All said without having to patronise …..

Well obviously the amount of money you end up paying depends on the number of hours your child attends. Some parents in receipt of Universal Credit pay £260; some pay £100.

On the other hand, some parents not in receipt of Universal Credit pay £1200 and some pay £2000. They are the higher earners, but it brings us back to the point in question, doesn’t it? Are they actually better off than you? And who begrudges paying the most?

It’s ridiculous how out of touch some people are.

She could easily drop a couple of days and have more free time, still get a very good wage and get help with childcare but she’s not doing that because she knows how good she’s got it.

I agree there is some degree of comfort compared to lower earners, of course. But I don't think it is 'very' comfortable. There is still council tax and bills to pay. And this is based on a single child at nursery. If there are 2 or even 3, well this changes significantly. But whatever, it certainly doesn't allow too much room for the Range Rover, the foreign holidays and michelin star dining experiences that people perceive £100k earners to enjoy, and perhaps, controversially, their hard work, sacrifice, and contribution to society deserves.

Like if I said, if I had a very limited amount of fucks to give, they would be allocated to those in true poverty and suffering from ill health. But luckily, unlike many on here, I can hold two thoughts in my head at the same time; low earners struggle to get by and deserve help, higher earners are taxed until their pips squeak and don't get the reward their hard work deserves down to an unfairly penal tax system.

What I am illustrating here is that a single £100,000p.a. to support a family is not as good as it sounds on paper.

Interesting how you refer to he Industrial Revolution, yes it created jobs but correspondingly inflicted hideous conditions on many people's lives so terrible living conditions, poor nutrition, stressful lives with nothing to look forward to, health and safety problems..how are you not bothered that we are returning to those.

Exactly, 100k to 125k is when you start getting really clobbered. And someone on 12k will not be a net contributor by ANY means

Does this mean in principle:

Parent A: UC top up plus free hours / tax free childcare = total cost of £3,000 per year, of £4,400 pre tax income (at 20% tax rate + 12% NI)

Parent B: no free hours or tax free childcare = total cost of maybe £24,000 a year, which is £43,000 of pre tax income (at 40% tax rate + 2% NI).

Universal free childcare.

Surely it's also a good societal leveller? You (in theory) get little kids mixing with other little kids from all backgrounds, though of course geography will limit that to an extent. You don't get enclaves of children all from the same socioeconomic class.

For those who can’t believe how much childcare costs - 9 years ago as a baby my son was in a north London nursery costing £1850 a month for a four day a week place. We moved to east London after a year as just couldn’t afford to keep going with that, or even think about having another child. Nurseries in east London were still pricey for manageable.

£86 for someone who earns £13000 is an impactful percentage. Someone could pay a million in tax but as to do so they’d have to be making multimillions a year, that lost million would in no way impact their lifestyle like losing that £86 would for the other person.

I don’t think you can get tax-free childcare on top of UC. But UC pays up to 85% of childcare costs. So if @orangesareorangey‘s childcare bill is reduced to £780 a month after the funding is applied, she could potentially claim back £663 of it from UC. Evidently, she doesn’t get the full amount, but she will still be paying less than £300 a month.

In my experience, most people get the full amount. But my nursery is in central London, where costs are high.

Parent B in your scenario would get tax free childcare, saving 20%.

I'm assuming parent B earns over £100k and so is not eligible for that.

As the comparison was earning £100k+ vs support via UC.

I am very much in support of people being helped with childcare costs FYI, I just think it should be universal (ideologically - before we even consider the impact of the cliff edge removal of the benefits).

I would much rather have a 20% tax/NI flat tax and no childcare help for anyone (or two full time working parents could put their £60k a year childcare costs against their tax bill). Instead in 20234 we still have the worst of all worlds and now the highest tax burden in 70 years. Even in 1984 with our first we each paid 50% of our net full time salaries for childcare.That DID enable our careers and we both work full time now even 40 years on so it was worth it but very expensive and very high taxes.

In 2024 we bite the hand that feeds and hurt through tax those who are net payers into the system and then are not even thankful to them.

In 2024 we bite the hand that feeds and hurt through tax those who are net payers into the system and then are not even thankful to them.

Indeed. And then people moan when they put their money in offshore accounts etc.

What’s that got to do with anything here.
Just constantly derailing doesn't prove anything other than a good ability to talk off point.

Only one way to respond to this really @Barquentine

Be careful. The people who supposedly 'bite the hand that feeds' are the very same people who look after your kids in nursery, clean your bathroom, serve you coffee.

It’s a good salary but that’s £67k after tax and she won’t get tax free child care or child benefit etc.

if her and her partner were on £99k each, they would get tax free childcare and funded hours.

Shes paying her fair share of tax so I think it’s fair she wants the administration of childcare to be fair.

£100,000 really isn't as much as it used to be. A £100,000 in 2024 is equivalent in inflationary terms to £68012 in 2010 (using the Bank of England's inflation calculator). Coupled with this housing costs have increased considerably, same with childcare costs - whilst at the same time the tax thresholds has barely moved. This means someone now on a salary of 6 figures is comparatively poorer. They are still paying £33000 in tax, working all hours under the sun (you often have to opt out of the working hours directive which means that you receive no limits on the hours you work), whilst enduring punishment aka forced to pay for childcare whilst having to supplement everyone else's childcare. I can see why people get angry essentially becoming a cash cow for the state, paying most of the tax and receiving very little back as a thank you - and ultimately paying for other people's kids... Which is made even worse by the people you are paying for having the cheek to be angry about you being a net contributor!

We essentially now have a system in the UK where the more you work and generate in tax, the more you are punished and suffer. This has caused many of the problems that the country is suffering from.... 1. Low productivity and 2. brain drain (many skilled professionals leaving the country) and 3. significant fall in birth rate. Whilst many people do not see this as a problem, you have to remember that the welfare state that you all love and rely on is only possible to exist because of those paying significant amounts of taxes to pay for you and your free childcare.

I mean it has been explained but I'll try again - the OP (of they are genuine) is just aiming their resentment at the wrong people, it is a distraction from the real source of the problem which is the very wealthy. The wealth inequality is not caused by people earning £100,00, we should be addressing our concerns to what is as the OP's complaints are born out of resentment. I was agreeing with others that had posted this.

No doubt you will reply predictably with faux disbelief on any of this being the cause of the rising disgruntlement (anger) in this country over wealth inequality.

If people take a year mat leave.
then we are quibbling over 12m-36m old. Until children got the 15-30hours free.
even at 18k thats 36k altogether.
about 1/3 of 1y gross pay.
Full time here would be 11yrs ago 14-15k i dont even think that was 8-6..
And that would have been from my 24k.
so i would have paid 28k out of 24k.

36/200 18%
28/48 58%

even when th e kids started school it was £5 breakfast and £10+ afterschool club.
then £25++ per day holiday club.

2925 per year before/after =12% per child

If 2kids
2kids x195daysx7yrs =40950 or 1.7 yrs work
For 100k salary 2.95%... For 1yr
Or 40% of a year on 100k

Even 2kidsx£25 per day for 2weeks holiday club =£500 or 2%

I would say the breakfast after school and holiday clubs are a big issue to lower paod people.

People on just over 12k a year are paying fuck all tax and obviously working part time. I'm not surprised this woman is 'whining' seeing as she's getting up for work everyday, paying tax to subsidise others and getting fuck all back.