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?

Where does she say she doesn’t have an issue with it? She’s annoyed she doesn’t qualify, and she’s also annoyed her fees have gone up. What are you struggling with?

These threads are so very tedious.

I agree. This “won’t-someone-think-of-the-poor-hard-done-by six-figure-income-earners” crap is boring AF.

I understand it must be frustrating if they have increased the prices to help cover the new hours. Can he drop a day and put in a flexible working request to get below the 100k limit?

Flip side having two children in nursery is a luxury for a lot of people. Most people in our area have 3-4 year age gaps as a minimum to allow for the costs.

They get the NHS, state education, roads, fire service, police etc etc. Now, I accept the Tories have mad a lot of that crap, but it’s still there. No. Paying high tax doesn’t mean you get it back directly in subsidy - what’s the point of that? It’s a mechanism to make the country liveable because people are generally able to work, study etc.

But you're happy for the subsidies to apply to a couple earning £99,999 each?

As @MidnightPatrol put it, a salary of £100k does not make you rich if you live in London and have a mortgage & 2 nursery age children.

That’s kind of the point of progressive tax. Though the poster doesn’t say she earns less - lots of high earners do grasp this.

You understand a whole lot of 2 children families live in London on less than half of that? Let’s save subsidies for them, eh?

But two people can earn 99k each….So. Total of 198k and they get the hours !
So your happy to subsides those with a combined income of 198k?
But not a couple who earn 115k between them because one earns over 100k????
it’s not fair! Your so short sited!

i am not struggling with anything. She merely stated a fact that she does not qualify. Surely if she had an expectation that at earning over £100k that her childcare fees should be subsidised she would have stated that. Clearly the issue is that her fees have increased because of the alleged free childcare and that is the fact that she has issues with. What are you struggling with?

Radio 4 recently did a study on how tax burden is highest for 70 years and yet some people since 2010 have had tax cuts. They found most people have had tax cuts in that period BUT the highest 10% have had massive tax rises due to things like loss of child benefit, loss of any personal tax allowance etc etc. It is as if the state wants to encourage those who pay the most to work less and pay less tax so the poor suffer - there is a huge disincentive. the marginal rates in practice are about 62% and add on 9% student loan/graduate tax and marginal rates are massive. I would prefer that where both parents work full time the whole child care cost could be set against tax and I wanted that even back when I had my first children in the 1980s and want it now for my grandchildren (OR I would like maximum flat tax/NI of 20% instead).

I think the 15 "free" hours in term time(for children aged 3) still does apply to higher earners even though the 30 does not

YANBU at all in the slightest.

Systems like these, full of cliff edges and disincentives to work, are bad for all of us. There are lots and lots of them. It could be someone on 100k, it could be someone who feels they can't afford to risk losing FSM, it could be any one of multiple permutations. We do it far too often, and it's just not a mistake we can afford to keep making when we have such a tight labour market.

Unfortunately, people are stupid enough to be blinded by whether they happen to sympathise with the entitled rich/idle poor doing the complaining, rather than taking a whole society approach and acknowledging that we need to fix this.

I’m struggling with you being deliberately obtuse to fit your own opinion, HTH.

You're missing the point.

We have someone wanting to go to work and contribute to the UK economy, but by doing so it will essentially be PAYING to be able to continue their career, just because their partner earns over £100k.

The OP is forced to either give up their career or work for a loss.

And £100k in London isn't a huge amount given the cost of property/rent.

@cardibach no one is objecting to paying progressive tax rates.

They’re objecting to being the ~1% of parents that are excluded from this enormous financial subsidy, that people on slightly lower incomes can still claim.

While paying massively over-inflated nursery costs, which are being inflated yet further by the need to subsidise the poorly funded government hours.

Two kids in London is £4,000 a month of nursery fees. That’s very painful, even on £100k.

Same wirh child benefit . Can’t claim it as DH earns abit above the threshold and we can’t afford to stick it all in pension. Even though I have a really small wage.

Yet we could both earn 60k each and then claim it?

But you don’t need child benefit if someone earns 70k! Hahaha! !!!

They’re objecting to being the ~1% of parents that are excluded from this enormous financial subsidy, that people on slightly lower incomes can still claim.

And in some cases, higher. A single parent on 101k would be excluded, a two income household with both parties earning 99k each is A-OK. It's a ludicrous system.

Well it makes a change from the well off subsidising the lifestyles of the feckless doesn’t it? Let’s thank the Gods for the well off (of which I’m not one), because otherwise if we had to rely on the taxes of those who don’t work, we really would be up shit creek…

I have done this. We pay to send the children to nursery as it costs more than I earn but I really struggled with PND when I was at home and I didn’t want to not work for 3/4 years until we got some funding.

It's a moot point. Everyone I know on about £100k are dropping hours or maxxing out pensions or both to keep the childcare. Everyone else earns enough not to care or get their major costs funded by family trusts instead of wages so aren't affected.

Would it be worthwhile for your husband to work 80% work weeks for a while and collecting the nursery element, then return to full time when they're in school? Bonus, he'd get more time with them/downtime?

So just like the rest of us who earn way less then, I have to work full time hours over four days a week because if I was in work the extra day I’d be paying more in nursery fees than I earn to go to work. I know people who were in NMW jobs and jobs that were above NMW who had to give up work because they couldn’t afford work and pay nursery fees. £100k is a huge amount of money for one person to earn.

So where do you propose the cut off of 100k after pension and other salary sacrifice deductions are taken off?

£4k a month in London is incredibly extreme. The average costs in London is within the range 1.2-1.6k. The only people I personally know paying 2k have decided to use a “family club” style nursery due to some perceived idea of exclusivity, 4k for two kids is absolutely not the going rate. Not least because OP does receive 15 hrs from 3years.

There's a reason this is to be phased in AFTER the election.

The point is THe State would fund this if they earned £198000 between them….