Avoiding the childcare trap

[Difficultquestionplz]

hi! I know there are a lot of high earners in this group so maybe other mums can help me. I am caught up in the 100k childcare trap.
back in the days when my salary was around the 100k mark, I was able to top up the pension, but that was before my child was born. Now my child has turned 3 and was hoping to finally get a little relief but it looks like it’s not the case…
currently my salary is higher, almost exclusively due to sales commissions and I am going to finish the fiscal at 260k. My husband is livid that he loses on benefits because of my salary and I am actually wondering if there is anything I could do in terms of investments that can be deducted that could bring me below the threshold.
I am not using any financial advisor because honestly when I looked into it they wanted to take 3% management fee just to manage the easy bits (pension, isas) and it obviously compounds.

thank you for helping
(please be kind, I don’t come from money, my job is paying well now but also highly at risk due to performance management or constant layoffs mixed with the joy of nepotism, unconscious bias/ blatant sexism of a male dominated environment)

I don't think this is a childcare problem at all it seems to be your DHs attitude and I don't know why you are compensating him or paying all childcare bills?
If he earns under the threshold and you don't pool all finances then set up a joint account and pay a ratio based on take home pay.

As others say you are well above the threshold for actually little gain overall given what you would have to drop in comparison.
If he doesn't get that sit and do a spreadsheet with him - tax funding is max £2000, funded hours depends on age and childcare fees bur your probably talking a difference of 10k average per year. So say 12k difference. You would have to reduce by 150k even after tax that's a 65k difference.

I get your financial instability but would be saving a buffer into a cash isa instead.

We do and our total household income is considerably higher than yours.

We did the sensible thing. We got financial advice. Ensured both our futures are secure. Not just the one who earns the money. We cover all the necessities, pension, bills, holidays, savings, whatever is left over is split. Because we love each other and we are a team. There’s no fights. Because we are immeasurably fortunate enough that we have enough money we don’t need to fight. It sounds to me like you’ve potentially created a situation where you’re actually treating your husband terribly.

There is a big difference between demonsing high earners generally, and demonising a rich person for asking how to hide half her earnings in order to claim state benefits. Your post seems to suggest that the wealthy should be beyond reproach, we mustn't criticise them or they will leave and take their wealth with them! Well, wealthy people who are intent on hiding their assets in order to avoid contributing to the public purse might as well leave and take it with them. I have no problem with high earners generally, but I do have a problem with someone earning £260k who thinks that they shouldn't have to pay for their own childcare.

Is the 15 hours a week still term time only? If so, the amount you'd save is so small in comparison to your salary. It's also worth noting that childcare settings can only claim a fixed very, very small amount for these 'free' hours. The non free hours basically subsidise the free ones...

It sounds like he’s livid because she’s enforcing my money / your money and he has less of it thanks to her. So she’s living the rich life and he’s barely getting by.

I don’t think people realise how common this situation is becoming, and how high the value of the hours is - and how big the loss once the 60% tax rate is included.

Really common problem in London, I know countless families working four days to accommodate it while they have small kids. I imagine we will see even more people doing it as of September, as that loss is so much greater.

And - that includes people earning >£160k going part time so they can put max pension contributions in. For a year or two with two kids it will be financially sensible with the new 30 hours offer.

I didnt know you could claim benefits if your partner was a high earner

You can get financial advice as a one off - we did. Personally I didn’t think it was worth it because it was very obvious stuff like highest earner puts more in a pension, use ISA allowances for kids etc and stupid things like - you can save money if you don’t make those charity donations…
DW is the higher earner. Puts more into her pension, pay % more into our joint account, I also pay into joint account and all bills come from there.
Not sure why you aren’t doing that- and we have never been eligible for any child benefits etc and just count ourselves lucky that we don’t need them.

Even though you don't share finances, surely your DH benefits from your salary in some way? Like presumably you go on holidays (and to nice places!), eat out, have a nice home etc on that salary, which you wouldn't be (to the same extent) if you were earning under £100k?

Sorry but at your income you can't expect stuff for free. I say this as a higher earner myself (although still considerably under your income). If you want the free stuff then find a job where you can keep your income under £100k. I know what I'd rather have though - £260k versus £99k is a no brainer regardless of the tax rate. Otherwise, where would the cut off point be? £500k, a million, a billion?

Paying for childcare is only temporary anyway. It doesn't last forever unless you choose private school.

You will still get 15 hrs funded childcare now your child is 3 though, I think everyone gets that? What other benefits is your DH missing out on?

You're missing the point. Someone able to hold down a job with a £100k annual salary, would not need extra money to help with a disability. This particular person said they needed the money for therapy. Something they should be able to finance out of their very high salary.

Free childcare hours have never been universal and accessible to everyone, no matter what your belief is.

And if your belief is that they should be accessible to everyone, even super high earners, you would have to move to countries like Sweden or Germany, where you would have to pay a much higher tax rate than in the UK.

My DH is a high earner and i don't work (I did work as a social worker but left about 8 years ago as i was burnt out). I have almost no pension. DH has always been adamant that what he earns is for us both. I can spend what i want on a day to day basis but we always discuss higher cost purchases together. It always seems odd to me that married people have separate finances, especially if one earns very much more than the other. DH has just retired and i have been involved in all aspects of the financial planning for this because we are a team.

If you are at the point where you can’t meaningfully pay into a pension then in my view you need financial advice to ensure you have the right set up to fund your retirement.

Yes. We do, shared bank account and credit cards. But then none of us would make a crazy decision and discussing things like finances is just part of married life.

Absolutely. Whilst those who dont work and live off the state contribute miniscule amounts to keep society ticking over.

You can’t. Literally the point of the post.

Yes, we do. Have done since we got married. Household income larger than yours. All in one pot, everyone spends what is needed/required/desired. Because (while we've taken the relevant advice to protect ourselves) we are a team, raising our kids as a family unit, and we trust each other.

I your husband is livid that he can't claim benefits, then let him take responsibility for childcare

Both sets equally self entitled..

It doesn’t make sense that a smaller number of people can’t access them every year though, because they never change the thresholds.

In 2010 over £100k was top 1% of earners.

In 2025 over £100k is top 5% of earners.

When will it become unfair that one group is excluded? Top 10% Top 20%? The latter are now paying higher rate tax - is that fair? That was originally introduced for the top 3% of earners in the early 90s.

And… as ever, it’s not just about the money, but about the way removing the benefit incentivises behaviour around working. Remove huge amounts of support at a cliff edge anywhere, and people will cut down hours and use their pensions to avoid it - and that reduces overall tax take.

And when the highest earner has maxed out their allowed contributions to pension then what happens?

I could understand your frustration if you earned 101k but your salary is huge. I totally get you pay loads in tax but I would just pay higher nursery fees, it’s only for another year. I think you’ll have to suck it up. Even with the best financial advice I don’t think you can get a 260k salary to look like a 100k one.

What is your view on Nordic countries? Are they all parasitic?

Not really. One group pays in more than they will ever take out.

The other group just takes out.