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?

We have a productivity issue in the UK. Not just a taxation one.

There are people who don't mind working more, as long as its beneficial enough for them to give up their home work life balance.

One area we have the greatest productivity issues is within the NHS.

Its totally counter intuiative to say if we tax less and give more benefits to some of the highest earners that would result in a situation in which the treasury may be better off, as well as helping to reduce NHS waiting lists.

This is where I think the last government has failed hardest. They've gone down the route of assumptions that cuts save money but because of the nature of the cut, they end up costing more elsewhere and there is no joined up thinking. And conversely, taxation just doesn't work for the country as a whole in certain areas either.

Government is not linear in terms of finances in the same way that household budgeting is. And this is the trap that everyone seems to fall into.

OP I can’t find my origional post (electric car one) which I get is pointless if you don’t have space to put it. But if your husband is just over the £100k have you tried everything - extra pension contributions etc to get back under it - as you’d be better off? It’d be far less stressful than moving which you do seem to have looked into. If you have you and you can’t I’m sorry about that and it bloody sucks - the £100k cliff edge for working families where ONE partner is all it takes and the fact wages have risen but that hasn’t ever is a nightmare. If not - it’s really worth while. Charitable giving also counts - but if it’s not salary sacrifice he’d have to do a tax return.

Can husband increase his salary sacrifice pension payments, to bring him below 100k, would that work?

He absolutely can. OP said they are both paying the minimum (I assume auto enrolment) into their pensions which in their 30s is stupid anyway, not least with a 100k salary and moaning about the childcare cut off.

https://www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/sites/default/files/Resource%20Library/Childcare%20Survey%202023_Coram%20Family%20and%20Childcare.pdf

The most up to date family trust yearly survey of childcare costs puts the average inner London at £1700 a month for an under 2, down to under £1500 for a 2 year old in outer London. Both these london figures would then decrease at 3 when the universal 15 hours applies.
Some people might live in particularly expensive bubbles of London, and yes the London average is obviously higher than that of the rest of the country, but having £4k childcare bills for a toddler and a baby is not average or common.

@Coffeerum Coram have a more recent 2024 report

https://www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/sites/default/files/Childcare%20Survey%202024_1.pdf

This states that in inner London for an under 2, the cost is £428 a week. This is £1,850 a month.

So in one year, the average cost has gone up by £150 a month.

And - this data will be from the previous year, so it’s not too difficult to consider that this year has seen another £150 increase. And what figure does that give you? £2,000 a month.

I think perhaps when having a baby, you need to be prepared to do the first 3 years hard graft yourself. If not it is futile and pointless waiting for nursery spaces/subsidies etc. This is the principle I have worked on, which has so far served me well!

how much is your salary op? i need to weight that up with your dilemma whether to ditch your job to save on nursery costs. i note your need to remain in job for progression.

you got one thing right; commute into london. travel costs would just be immense if you moved to cheaper areas.

Thanks for this!
I looked at averages online and they seemed lower than any actual nursery fees I've seen.
I was thinking this could also be due to inclusion of school or community nurseries that don't have such long opening hours?

Our nursery increased its fees by a whooping 19% in the last 2 years and the latest increase will be applied from September, so it won't be captured in any statistics yet.
I do live in a more expensive area, but have friends all over London and just outside of London (from before children, so not a local bubble) and they all pay at least 80 GBP per day now, some as much as 120.

Mmm, citing stats based on costs in late 2022 to early 2023 is not going to get us very far. Not with the inflation we've had, and in a struggling sector.

I agree it’s rubbish that the government focuses everything for children on the salary of the highest earner not on household income. Because that approach basically results in women (who are usually the lower earner) being trapped at home and missing out. Child benefit and free nursery don’t take joint income into account, so the result is that one family earns 2x99k and gets everything, while another family earns 1x100k and gets nothing. People have been complaining for years and the government has outright refused to change the system.

Lots of women are in this situation though. Lots of us can’t work because of the cost of childcare. It’s no more unfair to OP than it is to the thousands of other women who also can’t afford to work.

In London it is by the look of it.
It is much cheaper elsewhere. It’ is around £65- £75 here and the area is far from classed as a cheaper area.

Sadly, costs in London are insane now.

I'm still in a flatmates group on FB and I see rooms in an average houseshare going for 900-1000 GBP + fees now. This is Zone 3 near a tube station.

I don't know how young people are expected to manage. The new generation is definitely screwed. It's definitely a case of "first come first served"
People who moved here years ago at least had a chance to buy cheap property, we previously rented an ex council flat worth 500k owned by a lady who apparently bought it for peanuts.

We at least benefited from relatively (1300 for an ex council one bed in Zone 1) cheap rent for a few years. I just looked and the cheapest 1 bed is 2000 GBP per month and it's only 440 square feet (refurbished, but I'd prefer an old flat with more space), salaries remained almost stagnant during this time. Of course, no one needs to actually live in Pimlico, but we saved so much time and money by cycling or walking to work, buying meals off Too Good To Go etc.

Also, the building was still mostly council tenants. It seems kind of wrong that council tenant are living in a location where the vast majority of taxpayers can't and high earning professionals are told to move away from Zone 3, but that's a wholly different topic.

wow! don't know where to start with this, it is revealing as to the source of your frustrations.

flatshare has always been 800-1500 ppm all bills in across London (yes, zones 1-6) with little variance, sometimes 600 for single room in shoddy area. most settled for 1200 or 1300. so now with col, they are firmly 1500 and higher.

I see you chose lifestyle (good enough when young) over planning for future whilst you wanted a family (none can have it both ways!) and now everything is unaffordable for you and are being pushed out of the centre. join millions other young professionals who made similar choices. luckily I chose the Central London lifestyle as young, knowing I could remain with my family- yes, I bought in Central London. otherwise, I would have moved to cheaper areas I could afford and come to cl to socialise- like million others do.

your thread belongs in politics so you can let the governing party know of your frustrations. this is about past choices and regrets. we cannot help.

It seems kind of wrong that council tenant are living in a location where the vast majority of taxpayers can't and high earning professionals are told to move away from Zone 3,

Ok you lost me with this. Why are high earning professionals somehow more entitled to live in zone 3 than anyone else!? If you are high earning enough to actually pay for it then sure that's capitalism but being high earning doesn't give you some kind of extra moral entitlement.

Thank goodness there are still some affordable options for essential workers who do not earn much and need to live close to their work.

The poster is probably paying tax to support cancer care & fire services, without being ill themselves or their house being on fire….these are costs associated with a civilized society!

Not very pro-women to make it unaffordable for them to have their own careers and pensions because of their earnings of their husbands.

Yes this is what really gets me about this policy.

Missed the point there my friend.

They have a child of nursery age. But they cannot access support for nursery.

A better analogy is having cancer and not being allowed to use the NHS. Or your house being on fire and the fire service refusing to help.

We don't necessarily have to subsidise them. We could offer a tax break for nursery fees by making it a reclaimable expense to HMRC. Their own money is still used to pay the fees but they just pay less tax instead. This would also mean they would still pay the same tax rate but can recieve all nursery fees as a tax refund. It's a win win.

There's no foresight or competence in government at all because they are so far removed from the realities of working life. Yes they work but they can just request to work from home because of this there is a lack in solutions. I don't understand why someone as mediocre as me can sit here and find solutions to this stuff but the government who ever they maybe are completely incompetent.

Just to say I’m on benefits and I don’t get free childcare at 9months either. 15hrs free after second birthday. Single parent here.

This is a controversial subject and I feel somewhat suits the Government to have people pitted against each other.
Much better to make it universal, take out all of the hate around it, and the costly layer of bureaucracy, basically give people access to childcare so they can work.
I also agree with others and think there is a strong argument for the mechanism to be around a tax break.
The worst will be if the Government gets even more divisive and cherry picks which higher earning sectors are now ‘worthy’ of this subsidy.

The issue with selectively providing nursery funding is very, very similar to selectively providing council housing.

1. It motivates people who wouldn't necessarily need to live in Zone 1/want or need a nursery place to apply for them and therefore restricts demand for those who might need it more. Some people who would have previously used nannies/childminders or kept children with family members are now applying to nurseries at least for a part of the time (I know a few myself). People who work 16 hours per week are entitled to free childcare, but those who work 50+ hours per week are often not.

Friends of mine, a couple, both work for the NHS and funnily enough, the free hours are apparently not for them, they use childminder because their hours are different than nursery hours. They're now looking into combining nursery and childminder to access the what amounts to a selective subsidy.

2. Conversely, many people now won't be able to use the free hours just because they won't be able to find a nursery place. Our nursery currently only accepts new applications for September 2025. We applied 2 months in advance when our child started, so it will be worse for more popular nurseries.

"A sharp rise in demand for childcare linked to increased government funding will place more pressure on the childcare system in England"

https://www.nesta.org.uk/press-release/early-years-sector-needs-27500-staff-to-meet-46-rise-in-hours-spent-in-childcare/

If you view council housing as a "work benefit" for essential workers, my view is that they should just be paid enough to be able to cover their own rent/mortgage payment themselves and not having to rely on the lottery that's council housing. The current waiting times for council housing are insane and only benefit those who applied a long time ago and were lucky enough to get it. Now it motivates them to stay put no matter what. The young/not so lucky essential workers? Good luck, have fun commuting from Zone 10.

Having lived in a nice council house (50:50 council and ex-council flats, no noise, drug dealing etc you hear about in some media) in Zone 1, we had some lovely neighbours, but I can only think of a single one who was actually an essential worker, most had normal jobs.