To be angry about the new "free" nursery hours

[pimlicopubber]

We're not eligible for the new "free" hours starting at 9 months, because my husband is lucky enough to be earning over 100k. However, I earn far from that, so 2 sets of nursery fees are more than my salary. We live in London with 2 small children.

We are comfortable, but don't splash out, we shop at Aldi and don't own a car. Our salaries basically evaporate after paying rent and nursery fees, yet the government is treating us like we are the Kardashians when it comes to the marginal tax rate.

As a result of the "free" hours that don't actually cover nursery costs, our nursery increased fees for everyone, because they need to cross-subsidize the free hours. Also, the ratio of caregivers dropped from 1:4 to 1:5 and we can't move to a slightly cheaper nursery further away, because they have incredibly long waiting lists due to the huge demand. I'm thinking of quitting work, even though it will be damaging to my career in the long term.

AIBU to be disappointed and angry that a policy that was supposed to motivate people to work has an opposite effect for our family?

penalise women

Think that’s a pretty standard cost, nursery is very expensive

Not to mention very low university fees in Germany so you don’t have /have lower student loan repayments

If it makes you feel better op we have a combined income of under 50k and we don’t qualify for free hours or the tax free childcare

I work full time compressed hours
partner receives a private pension above the minimum weekly earnings you’d have to receive to work and qualify. The rules don’t qualify his private pension as earnings so no free childcare until child hits 2 and then we will qualify for the 15 hours but never the 30

entitled to no other benefits

It doesn't matter that two sets of nursery fees are more than your salary. If you want to work then you work. It's a joint cost.

This is what I was thinking. OP, don't get me wrong, the system IS stupid, but you must see how it comes across to people who work full time but can't make ends meet? Even in London, 100k is a lot; people make a LOT less than that. I get that it is shitty to lose so much money - it's insanity how much it costs, and it should be blanket subsidised imo so that women are not encouraged out of work.

But in your situation, like the poster above says, you can still work if you want. If you want a career, it is surely still possible to work as your salary will just about cover the nursery fees. If you prefer to stay at home then you also have that luxury. This is what I'm trying to say: your post sounds entitled because you DO have that luxury.

Man, I WISH so much I had the options that you have. I would love more than anything to stay at home while my children are young, or to perhaps just work part-time. As I am the only earner and my salary just isn't enough for three of us, I can't.

Childcare is shitty. But look on the bright side: you are incredibly privileged and you are SO unbelievably lucky to be able to choose what you want to do: work or stay at home.

This is a really stupid comment.

If your partner doesn’t work why would you need near full time childcare?

15 hours for preschool sounds fine in that case.

Plus the 2 in nursery is for an incredibly short period of time in the grand scheme of things. There is likely to be a maximum of 1 year before the oldest child receives 15 hours and that’s with a ridiculously small age age, and then the oldest will be in school reducing fees even more.
When OPs children are in school she will have a disposable income most of the country could never dream of.

Well that is high, relative to affordability- which is why I'd move to a more affordable area. There's life outside of south London, where I'm also from/in.

For a few years. The. They’ll find they would have been better off if she continued and progressed her career. Nursery years are short. However I have said free at the point of use childcare should be funded from general taxation (though taxes would be higher).

We could go around with these arguments infinitum but if you are helping subsidise something most reasonable people would expect access to that something too. Honestly, this attitude does not help women at all, especially if OP now has to seriously consider giving up work. Also, why do you have the moral high ground to dictate who should be helped with sky high childcare costs.

Issue is, if you can't afford it you can't afford it. You tend to have kids at a point where you have the highest repayment left on mortgage, not at top of career etc.

My nursery cost for 1 DC is £18.5K a year. Not abnormal. Considering university tuition is £9K a year, putting a child in nursery costs the same, if not more, than putting a child through a year of uni with no loans. And very few can afford to that either at a (usually) much more financially stable part of their life. Mortgage largely paid off, higher up career ladder etc.

The effect is that the woman's career is going to be the one that suffers, in most cases. I agree it should be a shared cost but in reality if money is pooled then it makes sense to do what is best for the family not the woman.

I think it should be dependent on individual income. You don't get free hours unless both parents earn over the minimum and you shouldn't lose the free hours unless both parents earn over the maximum.

I didn’t say I needed full time childcare but we miss out completely on the under 3 funding of 15 hours a week and don’t qualify until term after 3rd birthday

luckily only need 1 day a week

partner is retired. Earning more than the minimum weekly income required to qualify and yet we don’t qualify. Just another example of how the system does not work
you can have 2 parents earning 99k each qualifying
but where 1 parent earns over 100k and 1 less than or other parent stays at home and you don’t qualify And you lose child benefit too
or you can be in our situation with an age gap and you don’t qualify if one persons income is their private pension
you could also be in above situation and then not able to claim PIP due to age and so can’t even qualify on disability either.

you need two working parents
or two non working parents on benefits and then you qualify for the maximum hours as child is seen as disadvantaged
or single parent on benefits also qualified for maximum hours as child seen as disadvantaged.

simply pointing out blanket rules can be seen as ‘unfair’ leaving the 99k couple in a great situation but disadvantaging to others

It’s not about your earnings it’s about working. Your partner is not working therefore you don’t need access to childcare.
The funded childcare is for working parents so their children are cared for while they work.
You still have access to 15hours for early years preschool education.

Theres nothing unfair about it not applying to you when only one of you works and the other is free to look after the children.

Two non working parents are also not eligible for 30 hours.

The presumption is that the non working parent cares for the child. If they are too old to cope then probably not a great idea to have a child? Or if they are in good health and you really want the funding they could get a part time job for a couple of years

2 non working parents are eligible for the under 2 funding as child classed as disadvantaged

a retired person may not be in full health to be able to run around after a toddler 8-6pm

never going to be able to keep everyone happy with any policy unless there are zero restrictions attached to it e.g free school for every 4-16 year old as that does not leave anyone ineligible

@Curtainseeker a retired person may not be in full health to be able to run around after a toddler 8-6pm

Oh come on! Someone can’t expect to receive nearly full time childcare because they chose to have a child older in age and want to have a leisurely retirement not looking after them. This is their own child we’re talking about, it’s not unreasonable to expect them to be looked after by a parent who is at home all day.

The provision for disadvantaged children a year earlier is not comparable imo.

This is true I was just making the point that they have a private income over the minimum earning threshold

The workaround is going self employed declaring a false income of 150 per week having a tax bill of £30 per week (20%) so £30 out of pocket but then eligible for the 15 hours potentially saving £150 per week in childcare fees minus the £30 tax making you £120 a week better off (I am not condoning breaking the rules here and not have I done but just demonstrating how some work around it)

Are they disadvantaged to have two parents at home at leisure to take to libraries, play groups etc etc and 15 hours a week (30 between the couple) to sit at home at leisure whilst child is funded by others?

unless SS are involved and there are issues in which case I would support a full time free funded place

Agree with this and I’m not even in the high earners of we don’t qualify bracket. The loss in tax must by far cost the government more than the funding they could provide.

I think the only way it will ever be seen as fair for all is if they make it more like school - everyone is entitled to a free funded place for x hours, maybe more hours for an initial period like the tax credit run on period to support those off benefits to initially make the return to work easier

For those saying that anyone earning over £100k shouldn't be subsidized, have you seen this example from Dan Neidle about how the current system disincentivizes work?
Would you work 61 hours for no benefit?

"I had a message yesterday from a consultant anaesthesiologist.

He earns just under £100k - that's typical for a junior consultant. He currently receives fifteen hours a week of free childcare.
His hospital trust has asked him to work extra hours, for which they pay £125/hour.
But there are two problems. First, the personal allowance taper means that he has a marginal rate of 62% on earnings above £100k. Second, If his earnings hit £100k then his eligibility for free childcare disappears.
These factors together mean he'd have to work 61 hours to make even £1 of additional net income. So he doesn't.
There are hundreds of thousands of people in the UK in this position, and we've created an incentive for them to avoid work. It's hard to think of a more anti-growth feature of the tax system.
If your answer is that you don't care about people earning £100k then you should. It's irrational to tax someone earning £100k more on their next £ than someone earning £150k. Yet that's what we do, and it stops people working."

I've spent quite a bit of time looking at rightmove, and we'd still pay 2k for a 2 bed in a cheaper, but commutable area. We'd also have to find a new nursery for our children, all seem to have a year long waiting list.

The results seem 50:50, which is better than I expected!

I wanted to emphasize that he cost of nursery and housing are "cost of doing business to us". We can move to a slightly cheaper area, but since we need to come into central London almost every day, we can't pay the same amount for rent or nursery than we'd in Manchester, Bristol or even cheaper areas.
I'm addition, we don't have any family around to help out, like most people in London.

Someone here said that I'm rich because I can afford to pay 2.5k for renting a small 2 bed flat - the same flat might cost 1k far away from London. Are you also rich if I point out your house would cost 200 pm in Vietnam and you could eat pho 3 times per day for 3 GBP? Nope, because this is about the quality of living rather than the cost. A lot of people are obviously triggered when they see such massive salary mentioned, but they don't see all the extra costs associated with the high salary - rent, commute, university loan, childcare, the other partner having to take on more childcare due to the main earner working such long hours.

Other than that, looking for my children to start school! We'll still pay for childcare on holidays and for holiday clubs, like everyone else needs to (hat's the cost of working!), but it will be low compared to nursery fees.

Regarding me being lucky to be able to be a SAHM - I know this is a good positioning to be in. Yet I really like my career and it's so hard to get back once you stop working, my field moves forward so quickly!

Also, I don't think the person who said average nursery cost in London is 1200-1600 said which London zone this is in? As I mentioned, I've looked at all the nurseries in a commutable distance and the cheapest one is 80 GBP per day (it's in a great community nursery in a church with a very long waiting list), average is 100+ GBP!

Most of them seem blissfully unaware, and then we've had a couple of unverified claims that people in that position don't actually drop hours because it can't be done in that type of job. What with every role that pays 100k or more being exactly the same.