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!

still hasn't answered my question of where the father is in all of this and what he earns?

or if not together, how much do you get in maintenance from him?
or do you think it's only the women that make a contribution and have to be affected/pay?

Imagine going out with all your pals one nights. You earn a bit more, so offer to put extra into the kitty. After you’ve put your money in, they tell you that you’re not getting any drinks as you’ve got plenty of your own money to buy your own drinks.

i think you’d be a bit pissed off

Also let’s be honest- anyone in the future who is gaining above the current technical threshold and still able to claim money via salary sacrifice absolutely would do. It’s the government to blame for the current system- why would you refuse to accept the money offered to you? Complete nonsense.

Nope. As a net contributor, they will (by definition) pay more in than they take out. All most expect is to be treated equitably.

BUT even if I agreed with you (I don’t). It wouldn’t negate the argument that most are just changing working patterns or net earnings to ensure they don’t lose out. So it reduces tax receipts - crazy really.

You’re completely right. I don’t earn £100k. I’d need to work harder, take on more responsibility and work longer hours. Frankly, I cannot be arsed. Especially as so much of the earnings would be taxed

What she means is to meet the net cost she needs to earn £37k over the threshold just to fund what she used to get for nothing.

But the 30 free hours, increased from 15, came into effect in 2017, so I can't understand why your nursery couldn't tell you, or is it a case of that they didn't know you were a higher earner?
I'm confused as to why this is news to you.

YOu have not lost anything, it has not cost you anything more - you earn to much to be eligible for a scheme.

Just pay your chid care costs like most high earners do.

The greed is why we have a financial black hole in this country. High earners do not need government subsidised anything.

30 free hours from 9 months starts next month and is funded differently to the 30 free hours from age 3.

The funding is a lot higher for the under-3s - almost double, I think, depending on location.

One that reduces your income to a paltry £123000 a year .....

Try thinking of it the other way 'round.

After childcare costs your income is £123000. In truth what you want is to recieve a benefit that would allow this to be boosted to £160000.

How you have the gall to allow a thought like that to exist in your head is beyond me ...

This MUST be a wind up…

Not at all. I’ve answered two posters who jumped to this illogical conclusion. Used to it on MN though.

Oh, I didn't know that @ChildcareCost.
I've now just googled it, it does state £100K limit. The info came out in May this year it seems.

Majority of people would consider working more to end up with less losing money, won't you?

Economical naivity you are showing now is part of the problem - if the state just kept the benefit/used some sort of sliding scale instead of a cliff, it would get significantly more in taxes from people around the edge than it does now.

This "saving" public money in an unfair (1 high earner vs 2 high-ish earners) and stupid way just costs the society more overall than it saves.

The £37k is just the free hours and tax free childcare.

To pay the full nursery bill it’s more like the full £60,000 of earnings needed over £100k to pay the ~£26k nursery bill.

If you are wanting to look at it that way.

But, if I am wanting to ‘look at it the other way round’, I could work four days a week, pay 20% less for childcare, claim all the free hours, put a big chunk in my pension… and probably end up ~5% worse off net a month.

Why?

Hear hear.
£13k a month gross pay and needs the government helping….what the hell.

My heart bleeds for you.

To put it simply .... by the standards of most people in this country you are stinking rich. There is absolutely no need to subsidise the lives of stinking rich people like you.

I suggest you listen to the Deacon Blue song "Loaded". Classic Scottish blue eyed soul that very nicely highlights the utterly absurd thought patterns like this.

That is .... assuming this thread is even real which I doubt!!!

I'm a sahm so I this really doesn't concern me personally but I'm all for a state (county/city organised by gov funding) provider of childcare accessible for everyone. It would give an incentive to work for all women (not the reason I'm a sahm- one child disabled) and it would also be easier to manage (imagine all the work going in to managing the funded hours). Noone would have to work less in order to get the funded hours. Also, very important : there would be a real quality control of nurseries. Private nurseries can be good but can also be really bad which they will try to cover up. Why not treat early years like school and NHS?

I don’t know why I’m responding but I’ll try. OP is having the ‘hall’ to suggest that she doesn’t understand the logic of a system that means earning more could actually decrease your take home pay.
This is bad for us all as tax receipts reduce.
But sure, get all hot under the collar because someone earning £160k is daring to question whether the current system is equitable (news glad - it isn’t).

🤦‍♀️

You do surprise me OP. Most people of my acquaintance on a salary as high as yours have a nanny - much more flexible. Start living to your salary, not to a quarter of it.

Why don't you?

A nanny would be a massive stretch on £160k. You'd need a high earning spouse or generational wealth. A nanny is expensive!

its like talking to a brick wall I’m afraid.