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!

If you think it’s that easy to have a high salary why don’t you have this shaft load of luxury then, please enlighten us

If my DC were younger we would definitely be leaving. My oldest is going into year 11 so not the right time for us. I am, however, encouraging my DC to consider life outside the UK and DH and I will retire abroad. The attitude of some people on this thread highlights why we want to go. They are biting the hand that feeds them…

This.

you earn more than me, my DH and both my adult DC put TOGETHER by some margin.

Read the fucking room!

What? I do have a high salary. I don't whine about not receiving freebies.

There’s too few people putting in v how many reliant on the state. And we don’t encourage higher tax payers.

She's already paying lots ... I'd put an additional £61k per annum in my pension ... be foolish not to as long as you can afford to do so.

I agree that it is ridiculous that a couple earning slightly less can still receive help but as a single person you can’t…

but… you don’t NEED it and neither do they on that income.

Could you take in some ironing to cover the shortfall? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Kindly, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I agree with you OP but people see 160k salary and can't think straight.if someone earns this sort of money they have either special knowledge or bring a lot of money for their company so makes more sense to encourage them to work as much as possible. Now we have 19 part time receptionists paying no taxes and 1 project manager bringing million of profit for their company and paying 80 k of taxes. Government gives each receptionist 10 k of childcare subsidy, project manager quits , Government pays 190k of subsidy, loses 80 k of taxes from PM and 250k of corporate profit. Everyone on mumsnet is 😊

Surely when you're retired is exactly the time you'll get the most out of public services thanks to the nhs?

The whole policy is flawed and papering over cracks because the truth people don’t want to face is that these young babies should not be in nurseries.

She also pays more tax than all of you combined. So read the room and say thank you for your NHS, schools etc

I disagree with any cliff edge benefits. But you have worked out how much more you need to earn over £100k to be quids in and you earn more than it. So even with a tapered reduction, you would still pay the full amount.

It's not the same as access to NHS etc, as nurseries are private, not public services. It makes sense to subsidise early years for lower earners, as it keeps women in work, payingtaxes and into pensions. The government aren't doing it just for the fun of it.

The freezing of the thresholds hasn’t really been mentioned here, but that is going to be a factor too.

The £100k personal allowance threshold has been there for over a decade, and I think the childcare cut off at £100k was introduced in 2017. So unless these move - more people on lower (adjusted for inflation) salaries are going to find themselves in this trap every year.

Given the cost of childcare continues to grow too…

Why do people always miss the point that as a higher earner she is also contributing a lot more tax to fund everyone rather than calling her cheeky. There is a vast gulf between those earning 6 figures as part of a PAYE and those who are rich enough to have accountants to advise on tax avoidance

And this is why we need the laughing reaction back! 😂

I struggle to comprehend your degree of entitlement, OP. When I had my children I was self employed took 6 weeks off work and because of irregular working hours as a criminal defence solicitor paid childcare costs which amounted to 80% of my income (though they were split 50/50 with DH for payment). I can only suggest you count your blessings.

Will cost you 37,000...???

Err. No. Not exactly.
That's what you think you should save at the cost of every taxpayer who contributes to childcare funding, the vast, VAST majority of who earn nowhere near as much as you.

You earn 10 times more than most of my tax paying friends and family and you're whinging because you can't SAVE money on childcare.

You are beyond entitled.

Crikey. Are you also going to complain that (because you have a job) you don't get unemployment benefit? Or because you have legs you don't get a free wheelchair? If you don't want to pay for nursery, look after your own child.

What does this even mean. Do you realise in the US average maternity leave is 6 weeks. Are women just not meant to work??

I also earn a high salary, there is not a lot of left after nursery costs for luxuries.
if you had young children and really earned a lot ie over 100K (and not just imagined it) then you would know that

Fancy earning a huge salary, having a child and having to pay for childcare. Your cheeky fuckery is astounding.

Yes this definitely happened or they gave child card vouchers. Companies wanted to retain their workforce.

I know right... madness...