Loss of 30 free hours will cost me £37,000 of pre-tax income

[ChildcareCost]

9 month olds are eligible for 30 free hours from September. If you earn over the threshold, you do not get this 30 free hours plus the £2,000 of tax-free childcare.

My nursery typically charges £2,150 a month for an under-3. This works out at c. £10 an hour assuming a 50 hour week (open 8-6).

They have circulated the free hours schedule this week, and the monthly cost with 30 free hours is £1,100 hours for an under-3 (noting funded hours only cover 38 weeks).

This means the loss of the 30 free hours will cost me £12,600 a year. Plus of course the loss of tax-free childcare at £2,000.

So, I need to earn an extra £14,600 net just to cover the cost of not being eligible for this scheme.

To earn that £14,600 over £100,000 – I need to earn a gross figure of £137,000.

Surely this is not fair on the parents excluded from the scheme? It doesn't seem proportional that I need to earn an extra £37,000 just to recoup the loss as a result of not being eligible!

She’s not “scabbing off the state” she’s probably paying more in tax and ni every year than other people earn at all.

by higher earners paying tax, that’s why others can recieve various benefits

This.

Which is why I think OP would've done better to frame the issue in these undeniable terms, rather than making it about people's subjective notions of fairness.

Although it would probably have turned into that anyway, if previous threads on the issue are anything to go by.

So let’s make it universal free childcare for everyone, including millionaires.

Tax rates for those earning over £150k might have to go up. Tax for those on more than £100k, £40k may have to go up. A wealth tax may have to be introduced. A land value tax might replace council tax, so the £2000 a year bill might be £6000 for some people with expensive properties.

Or you can pay for your own childcare. Because you can afford it.

I bet you plan to pay your kids’ university fees and probably give them some money to live on. Maybe you plan to educate them privately. All this costs money that you probably are more than happy to pay.

It’s about priorities and choices.

Personally I am a higher rate tax payer and I don’t have any children, so I’m never going to benefit from free childcare or universal education. And that’s fine, because I think it’s important to support people who need support. You don’t need support.

I think people are reacting emotionally rather than rationally - and perhaps unable to think objectively about how they might behave if they found themselves in the same scenario.

Yep you lost me at £160000

Exactly she’s paying more than most into the system.

The problem is more insidious and more sexist.

In families where one partner earns over £100k and therefore the family lose their entitlement to childcare help, a huge incentive is created for the (usually female) lower-earning partner to exit the workforce and become a SAHP for a few years. And often they struggle to get back into the workforce when their kids are older.

🎻

This has to be a wind-up.

Fully agree.
But people don’t care about fairness, they just see a 100k+ salary and will tie themselves into knots trying to explain that you should not expect anything in return for being one of the few net contributors. They pay tax as well, they will say, conveniently ignoring the fact that they pay way less than they receive.

This!

I get it’s annoying but OP can suck it up for the limited time she will need to pay it.

So if you believe parents need to pay for their children would you support scrapping all child benefit? And make all non working parents on UC get jobs?

Maybe if you'd read a bit further on, you'd comprehend the issue.

But then again, maybe not.

💯

@ChildcareCost Have you considered stopping all your tv subscriptions and shopping at Aldi?

No. And multiply the unfairness by several magnitudes for single parents. Life isn’t fair.

I don’t know when this free nursery hours came in but when mine were babies around 18 years ago we had joint income of just over £30k and had to pay for all our childcare. So I went part time & we were lucky to have mother in law a day a week. But it was around £700/month.

I assume you have a partner which means your household income must be huge! You’re living in a different world to most people.

Well you’re a peach

Your take-home is nearly £8k a month and you're quibbling over £1k a month childcare.

Imagine how much of a RELIEF that drop is going to be to families who earn less than a quarter of yours, and who have been paying almost their whole salary towards childcare up to now?

A friend of mine was working for LESS than she earned when factoring childcare and travel to work

Read the room.

You're not entitled to Child Benefit either op, how much does THAT 'cost' you a year?

Irony.

OP where is the child’s father in all of this? Whether you are together or separated (and I apologise if you are a widow so there isn’t a father to be paying), he should also be shouldering some of the childcare costs. How much does he earn? You’ve mentioned a few times about it being unfair for a couple to be earning £198k combined and getting full support, whereas you on £160k get nothing - to fully compare we need to know the second income. If he’s not working at all, why isn’t he doing all the childcare?

I do think you are tone deaf. I get why you feel it’s unfair, I really do (and the cliff edge does sound wrong). But you alone earn more than double my husband and is combined income. We have 3 children that we fully paid for childcare for as all the free hours didn’t exist until 3 years old when I think it was 15 free. You factor in childcare costs when making a decision about having children. I would LOVE to be on £160k a year and paying full childcare costs because then I wouldn’t constantly be worried about what we can and can’t afford. We could have proper holidays again. We could go out as a family for a nice meal and not consider Macdonald’s as a family treat. Check your privilege.

The purpose of the welfare state is to support equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth and create accountability for looking after those less fortunate. Unless you have a magic money tree, this can only work if wealth is distributed from those with the most to those with the least. I can understand your confusion because the last two decades we've seen, for largely political reasons, the welfare state being extended into areas it previously did not touch.

You do seem to be missing the point here, though, which is that raising people who are far less fortunate than you will ultimately benefit you. The person working in the supermarket, the person cleaning your house, the person cutting your hair, and perhaps even the person who will need to wipe your backside when you are old or infirm. This is what the welfare state is for.

I have an income of around £20K/year, I'm also a carer, I also have cancer, and even I receive no benefits, so why should you?

Perhaps those that put in should be able to take out. Too many folk putting in nothing or very little bit taking lots out ... a strain on society.

Ah its that time again! Nice clickbait OP. Enjoy.

I don’t disagree. I just don’t think that universal free childcare for all is the answer.