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!

I say this as a fellow public sector worker on pittance - we’ve made a choice. It’s not OPs fault she found a high paying career.

We have two kids ... just wondering why taxe payers are funding people's choice to have kids. Did not realise this new rule from Sept.

In London I guess that salary may buy you a tiny flat…

You earn an incredibly good salary, and should be able to afford childcare out of that. It’s funny how all the chat about only having children you can afford focuses on people at the bottom end of the income scale and not people brining in around £8k a month.

Completely agree!!!!

We are a high income household, we would love free childcare, who wouldn't! But we recognise our fortune which brings with it privilege.

People are hostile because posters like the OP are basically greedy, they don't understand why they cannot have a 'benefit' that others get, because they already have way much more than other people

I find it hilarious that so many people seem to think a £160k salary is the norm just because the OP lives in an expensive area, or that earning anything less would bankrupt them. The average full time salary in Surrey is £45k. People have to manage.

My understanding is that households earning up to £198k across two earners can claim it.

So - it’s not about neediness, more about the high cost of childcare and keeping people in work.

This. The point is with universal childcare, the cost of that is paid by people paying higher rate tax. Universal childcare should be universal. The government is effectively losing money as well as the OP.

Not being funny but if you're earning 100k you don't need help with childcare costs. Try living on 30k a year and having to spend on childcare

The OP is nowhere near the bottom.

This 100% and some more!!! FFS.

FWIW, I agree. We are in Wales so we can only access funded hours from the term after children turn 3, so in that sense there are a portion of us in the UK who also miss out compared to the offering in England.

I don’t agree with it dropping off entirely. We’ve made changes in preparation for DD turning 3 so that we benefit and will then change things again once she goes to FT school but I am talking about dividends rather than PAYE.

Choices are to accept it because you CAN afford it, or do something to change your income so you do benefit.

You're so right.
But people are so bitter about the fact that you're a high earner that they just aren't willing to comprehend what you're saying.
The system is completely flawed.

Good luck trying to claim that the cost of childcare is unaffordable on a 160k salary🤣

The loss of childcare being worth £37,000 of pre-tax earnings is very significant and is likely to change people’s behaviour around work - pensions, hours worked, promotions gone for etc.

My children are much older but even I’ve heard the advice to put enough into you pension so you earn 99k on paper.

Wasn’t there something in the news about rules about pensions and tax leading to doctors retiring early because there’s a limit that they can contribute or something?

I don’t think any government cares if the rich change their behaviour or suck it up and pay more until the child goes to school as rich people benefitting from public money is seen as a bad thing politically even if the tax payer “wins” overall. Subsidising the people on lowest incomes more will always win over making it universal since more people benefit and at 161k, you can afford to suck it up.

Similar story here. I’m a teacher and received 15 hours for my children at aged 3. No bitching here - just the way it was.

I have moved home 4 times - stamp duty paid each time. Again no bitching - way it was. Lost 55k on my house post crash. Least I had a house.

I don’t usually comment on posts such as these but I’m astounded the OP feels hard done by.

And please tell us - what is your partner's salary?

Yes the cutoff is dumb I agree. Don’t forget about loss of personal allowance over 100K too.
it was introduced by Tories I think when 100K were a lot more money, about 15 years ago

right now what it does is drives high earners to cut their hours or contribute more to the pension hence reducing government tax receipts so the policy is really stupid
one if the reasons there are big GP queues is that many of them cut their hours to stay under threshold, and other doctors too

but you won’t get much sympathy here. Just frothing at their mouths how you must be filthy rich if you are a high earner so should just shut up and take it
hatred of higher earners is unreal

there will be people who had ton of opportunities being born in western country with no visa issues and free excellent educated moaning how privileged you are (whereas they had same opportunities and more than the rest of the world and just didn’t take them)

No it isn’t.

but no need to whinge about her high paying career and having to actually pay her own bills.

i had to pay all my childcare on my public sector salary. Why should o/p get free childcare on 160k when plenty on 1/4 had to fund their own childcare.

Not greed, fairness.

Happy to pay lots of tax to fund good services accessible by all.

Less happy to pay lots of tax… and then be excluded from the services accessible to 95% of people which I then have to fund privately at huge expense at tax rates of up to 62%.

Arsehole reply
the point is after they pay childcare they end up with less money than someone earning less

they will pay a whopping
48k tax
4.5k NI
37k childcare

so there deductions and childcare will come to just under 90k not to mention if they pay into a pension at least 5k

so realistically they can kiss goodbye to nearly £100k of there salary they will be no means rolling in spare cash

ohh and that pay more in deduction they most of us even earn why shouldn’t they have there share of state funded help they pay most to it yet get fuck all there paying for the rest of us

We had ours i nursery just before any of the free childcare schemes. We probably paid 150k in nursery fees overall. I imagine what we could have done with that cash :( but
I am a higher earner too and it seems unfair but designed to enable parents to work who otherwise couldnt if you look at it through the lense of enabling women yo work who would otherwise just leave the workforce it makes sense. As a higher earner then I didnt need to leave work to afford nursery.
If toubare going to get annoyed about it then you might as well be annoyed about all social welfare schemes. Or just accept it

No, but you're probably the only one grumbling about it.

Honestly !!

Why at £99k can you claim £14,600 in childcare help because it’s deemed unaffordable.

But at £100k it’s perfectly affordable and you get nothing?