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!

Ummm… I don’t think you’ll find too many others on £160k a year moaning about not getting their childcare benefits, no

Well, the government’s accounting books are a mystery to all of us, but I can imagine there are quite a few less than valuable things they plough money into that could be redirected towards childcare and early years. I won’t mention what those things might be because obviously that will just start another huge argument :).

I agree it is ultimately a matter of priorities. I do truly envy the systems in Europe that have made childcare and early years an actual social priority. The nastiness and tearing down on this thread is depressing.

Perhaps not for OP specifically. But it will for others. It's a short sighted policy based upon perceived fairness and "deserving".

I don't think the OP has made her case at all well here, BUT in my opinion ALL childcare should be tax dedubtible. So should school fees.

This country needs people to work, and needs young people who will be able to work. Working parents set an example to their children (I'm not saying they need to be CEO working 90 hours a week, just in general they do). Working when you have children is a sacrifice, lots of us would rather be with the kids more. We have a plummeting birthrate and a pensions crisis looming. We should not be penalised further for daring to both procreate and work at the same time.

[two tier system]

Is it though? We've seen already how the private sector lures away the most talented professionals (eg healthcare) with higher salaries, leaving the public sector short-changed.

And how private education creates a well-networked elite (hello, Bullingdon club), which deprives state-educated people of opportunities.

An equitable system would give a leg up to those most in need, not those most able to pay for it.

Well you'd have access for those two need and you'd save for those with the money to pay private. It's better, IMO, than an arbitrary cut off. You would, of course, need a minimum quality of care. But you have a two tier system anyway, cheaper nurseries are often dire and many of the good ones charge top up fees.

Insane being in the top 5% of earners on this country and you still want subsidised child care especially if you’re from a 2 income household. The cheek of it

And a salary threshold is a means test.

Not when people have paid thousands for childcare on lower. wages and haven't complained in the manner of OP.

You will get 15 hours regardless of income when your child is three.

That said, some people paying full time childcare pay more or close to what I earn so it is the equivalent of paying out the earnings on a full time min wage job. It’s understandable that’s hard to lose but it is only for a year or two and then you will reap the rewards of having lovely children and a high income.

No im sorry ive read all these posts and all OPs replies and still can't find much sympathy.

Stepping back from this thread now. Wish you the best OP. Im sure you will cope

To quote you, kids are a huge personal cost and you as their parent earning the salary you do, should fund the cost yourself!

It wasn’t that they disagree, it’s that so many on this thread seem not to understand the point OP is making. She’s been patient and consistent in explaining the point. Yet still there have been accusations such as telling her she’s saying for eg. Nurses don’t deserve free childcare if she can’t have it, greedy btch and so on. There are more many more examples but I’m not going to regurgitate them.

What profession are you in @ChildcareCost ?

I suppose the point is there is no such thing as ‘free childcare’ someone is paying. If the government should pay for your childcare where should they recover that money elsewhere? By putting up taxes? For lower paid workers? For higher paid individuals? Paying less childcare support overall?

I suppose I struggle to see your perspective as I had my children when there was much less government support and I factored in childcare costs when deciding when to have children and making sure I could afford the nursery costs.

I broadly think that the less government support I need the better. And I say this on a much lower salary than yours.

Every taxpayer funds social benefits for other people that they don't use personally

Society

Suck it up.

Sounds awful. Could you organise a whip-round at work to get more money? Sounds like you desperately need it.
£160,000. Each year. Every year.

@ilovesooty no of course I’m not saying that. That’d be ridiculous. My sister and her husband both earn minimum wage or thereabouts. They work extremely hard. Much harder than me. They’re both very bright. They’d be able to understand the point OP is making.

My siblings and I had exactly the same upbringing. The road may diverge and we make of opportunities what we can, or what we wish. Or not.

Not greed, fairness

It doesn't need to be equal to be fair.

Oh sorry you’re right, being an asshole online is yet another great contribution to our society..

You talk like this is evidence of hardship but I know plenty of women (myself included) who had to spend more than 50% of their take home pay on Nursery fees when their children were small. I'm talking about people on much lower salaries than you.

In fact, some of the women I know had to either accept that they would essentially be working for nothing (due to Nursery costs taking up their entire take home pay) until their DC started school, or give up work altogether. I remember feeling grateful that I wasn't in their position, rather than bemoaning my own lot when the DC were young.

If you genuinely don't understand that the ability to hire a full time Nanny and still have significantly more than the national average FT salary left over is a position of immense privilege, then I can't imagine you'll ever be happy with your lot.

She already pays £64,000 in tax and national insurance, or £70,000 if she lives in Scotland. She is already subsidises the free childcare.

Do you need the money? If this benefit was never introduced for anyone, would you be struggling?

Your gripe isn’t that you need the money and it’s been taken away from you and as of 1st Sep you’re really going to struggle (as the title suggests). Your gripe is that this NEW benefit (which you’ve not needed before and still do not need one presumes) is going to other people. As I always say to my children, don’t worry about what other people have. If someone has more than you, it doesn’t mean you have any less than before. If you had enough before, then you still have enough. What so and so over there gets has made zero difference to you.

To be fair I don’t think cliff edge benefits are fair, no. But I also think bleating about someone on £99k basically earning the same as someone on £137k is beyond tone deaf. Plus, you’re waaaay over those sums anyway!

I earn less than a third of what you earn. I never got 30 hours of free childcare. Does that mean I “lost” it, as indeed you keep saying? I wasn’t eligible because I had my children a few years ago.

But isn’t the date it comes into effect also a cliff edge of sorts? If your child is due to start school on 1st September have you not also lost out on these free hours? For those children born on 31st August 4 years ago and starting school this September, their parents (if eligible) will miss out on a year of this benefit. Maybe the child next door was born the day after on 1st sep and they won’t start school until next September. The parent of the August baby may complain and ask is it right that they should miss out on the £14,600 simply because their baby was born one day earlier than their neighbour’s baby? The house next door is £14,600 better off. Because of one day. Aren’t you saying the same?

You have enough. You didn’t need it last week and you don’t need it next week. Stop worrying about what other people have.

^^This

Just out of interest, what £160K pa job do you have that gives you time to write 71 posts on this thread, on what for most people is a working day?