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!

The op is still a taxpayer though, to a higher degree than many.

Of course it does @Blossomtoes , you’re a devoted Labour acolyte

So - do you object to not being able to claim universal credit?

Stop scabbing off the state when you are earning more than 5 x the average wage

Are you a single parent. Why is the father not contributing to childcare costs?

Oh boo hoo.

In 1997 I went back to work full time when DD was 5 months old (that was all the maternity I got then as a teacher) and we had to pay for all the hours used with a childminder, got nothing free. We had to pay full whack for private nursery too as there has never been one attached to the school.

Pay the extra, you can well afford it.
I bet you moan about your mortgage too. We lived through 16% interest rate on a 100% mortgage, with all of one wage going on the mortgage. I’m sure you’ll cope.

This is the only part that I agree with you about. The threshold should be set across both parents. But that would be too difficult/costly to administer so here we are.

So you do earn £37,000 more, so what's the problem? This scheme is there to support people who are really struggling to afford to live and pay for the childcare they need to enable them to work. Making choices about trying to survive on one salary because childcare is almost the entirety of one partner's wage. You're so out of touch it's crazy.

No one will hear you OP, YANBU.

People are busy flaming the OP - start your own thread if you've got a bit of FOMO..

On the one hand, I completely agree that the cut off is stupid as it may destroy almost as much tax revenue as it saves - but I don't dwell on it.

I'm a solo mum of 2 kids in London (so the lost potential benefit is even higher) and hit the same issue you do with the cutoff but without the ability for a partner to earn 99k as well as me before the cutoff kicks in. Yet in theory i need the childcare more than a 2 parent family - it sucks but I don't feel super sorry for myself either as I recognise lots of people have a harder time.

The £37,000 more after tax, benefits and loss of childcare support is… £0.

The scheme is not just there for people who are really struggling to live as households earning up to £198k can claim it in full.

Same here got vouchers for the last two terms before DC started reception no vouchers for elder brother and for eldest DC had to stop working as there were next to no nurseries.
Universal free childcare is beyond what is affordable - you benefit from a ridiculously high salary (more than most doctors and all nurses) - how about free elderly care for all so I can stay working and have DP's stay in their own home

Agreed.

My heart bleeds for you op.

are your diamond shoes too tight as well?

😂😂

Wow a lot of unpleasantness on here. It is people like OP who fund the welfare state for everyone else - totally unfair to say she is scabbing off the state etc. High earners are still allowed to send their children to state school, so why shouldn’t they also receive the same access to nursery. Totally unfair in my opinion to expect high earners to pay for services for everyone else but not to be able to use them themselves.

I think you need a reality check or you need to look outside of your wealthy little bubble.

My DH earns same as you and we would never dream of expecting assistance. We recognise the privilege we enjoy.

Even after you have paid for your childcare you still earn a huge amount. More than most people could ever dream of. Eventually you won't need childcare and you will be very wealthy indeed.

If, as you claim, you really are on more than £160k per year then surely all you need to do is cut down on one flashy holiday per year to make up the difference? If you can’t afford childcare on that sort of salary then you are living above your means and you need to cut your cloth to suit your pocket. It’s only for a couple of years anyway. I couldn’t afford childcare even with the funded hours without cutting down on our monthly spending.

OP come on you surely must see how this looks?

You are complaining on that salary, and yes while you still have bills to pay so do the rest of us!
Many women go back to work and their entire salary covers the cost of childcare.

When my daughter went to nursery (we were not entitled to 30 free hours until she was 3) I was paying 1k for three days a week nursery and relying on grandparents for the other ones. Now she gets 30 hours free I still need to rely on help for two days a week as she can only go to school nursery for three days.

It’s just something you get on with or plan for and part of the cost of having children. It will be for a handful of years and then you will be back up to earning your full incredible salary

Exactly. But we can see that a lot of people cannot understand, or are simply unwilling to understand the point OP is making. (Perhaps that’s why they’re not high earners…)

You earn £160,000 and think the taxpayer should fund your childcare?

@ChildcareCost I object to being excluded, not to other people getting it.

You can object as much as you want, OP, but I'm saddened that you cannot comprehend why some posters find your whinging offensive. The welfare state, of which this is a part, helps level up people less fortunate that you and provide them with opportunities. The welfare state is not an invitation for people with very high incomes (3-4x the average) to put their snouts in the trough.