AIBU to hope the £100k cliff edge for funded nursery hours is removed?

[horchatatresleches]

News is that the education secretary is looking at nursery funding but it’s unclear if it’s to reduce or increase the support available at either the upper or lower thresholds. AIBU to hope that the harsh cliff edge which stops all nursery funding at £100k is removed or least replaced with something tapered so that people aren’t losing money for being marginally above the threshold?

Agree. Husband is a consultant surgeon. Obviously pays well, but would he would need to earn an extra 55k to break even from loss of funded childcare after 99.9k. NHS wants him to work more, but we can’t afford the hit (I’m not a high earner).

With early years childcare it's temporary and needs to be budgeted for, which many do on less earnings. You will continue to progress in your career, albeit higher tax bracket.

I'm unable to see what I'm posting and can't edit so apologies for any grammatical errors.

That is just ridiculous, makes my blood boil that people can’t see just how stupid policies like this are and where it will all end up.

They are the tax payers. Most people are actually costing the system so much that the tax they pay doesn't cover themselves, let alone anyone else.

They can see, but they don’t care beyond their desire to fuck over ‘the rich’. It’s spite, that’s it.

It doesn’t matter to them if such a move would actually benefit the economy and country as a whole.

I don’t think I’m clueless I think I disagree with you. It’s extraordinary that the only rationale that you can reach is that those that disagree with you are clueless, or jealous as someone suggested up thread. It doesn’t seem to cross your mind that there could be people willing to pay for their own childcare and who think providing support to those with smaller incomes is a good idea.

No one expected you to actually admit the chip on your shoulder.

Perhaps though you are merely economically illiterate.

More higher earners incentivized to work = greater tax revenue = better funded services for those most in need of them. It’s really not that difficult to grasp. Without higher earners there is no money to support those most in need with. It’s already reaching crisis point in the UK, and it will only get worse if nothing changes.

I understand why lower earners get a lot of benefits that higher earners don’t but I struggle with nursery fees given that it is an essential cost of going to work and puts them in to a period of potentially struggling despite shouldering a lot of burden and paying a lot of tax. Given all the tax they pay I think they should get something back to support them during this period.

In New Zealand we use household income for this. Also for top ups for those with children such as our wff scheme, although that does vary a bit when parents live apart.
Wff stands for Working For Families and is probably similar to you UC.

I think the argument is even simpler.

If the overall household budget cannot cope with the loss of nursery subsidies at £100k, families will find ways to stay underneath that such as reducing hours, maximising pension payments or using the lower earner give up work completely.

Once people have reduced their hours or given up work, that isn’t just the 5 years or so of having small children that there is a reduction for - it is potentially years.

For many families this will work well, for government finances and encouraging growth it is totally hopeless.

I don’t agree with this. It’s usually the man who is earning over £100k. If the woman earns £80k (probably would be in £100k if she hadn’t had to constantly prove herself!), then there would be no point in her going back to work full time. We then become stuck in the cycle of the woman giving up work after a baby, perpetuating the gender pay gap.

"which many do on less" yes they do - with assistance from the funded hours, the tax free childcare and depending on income, potentially universal credit covering up to the remaining 80% of costs. The % of salary used on childcare is much, much less if you earn less.

So in this scenario you are suggesting that a household income of £180,000 isn’t “enough” to provide for your own children? Bollocks.

Well a couple who each earn £99000 are entitled to childcare help so the government has said that £198000 isn’t enough to pay for your own childcare as a couple, but £100,000 is too much to get any support as a single parent.

Yes a household income would be more rational if parents are not going to be made to take responsibility for their own children.

I rest my case.

You clearly don’t understand the point being made.

In the scenario given above, the woman earning 80k with 2 nursery age children would end up paying nearly her entire take home pay in nursery fees so will inevitably not bother working.

That means she pays no tax whereas if she continued to earn the 80k she would be paying 7 times more tax than a FT minimum wage worker.

It is economic suicide to create a system where higher earners are pretty much forced to give up work due to childcare costs.

Indeed.

Ultimately the people paid over £100k will still end up paying for the child care for themselves and everyone else anyway - it's just a matter of whether they pay directly or pay through taxation. Paying through taxation means they don't get stuck with the ridiculous cliff edge which Stunts their career and income.

I've read most of the thread and, as a disinterested pensioner, understand the set up a bit more. My twopennorth is....we need to encourage high earners to continue to climb the ladder (and pay more taxes) and to have children (who will follow their parents by working hard and paying taxes) and the current £100k cliff-edge limit does seem counter-productive to both of these aims. I am not an economist or tax expert so cannot suggest any solutions but would be interested to know whether nursery places have become exponentially more expensive since 'free' places became available? Some figures sound ridiculously high (like care home fees) - I know their responsibilities are huge .....

The rest of us?

no - the people earning 100k are paying for these services through the huge amounts of tax they pay. Paying for services they don’t get to use.

Won’t somebody think of the poor £100,000 earners…..

What I find notable about this thread (not surprising, as it's such a right wing site) is that on Mumsnet there is a LOT of criticism for anyone who admits to relying on benefits - the message being that you should do all you can to get off benefits as soon as possible - yet it is deemed completely acceptable for already rich people, to demand more benefits from the state.

There is also a lot of disapproval expressed of anyone poor who admits to looking for any kind of loophole strategy to retain or increase their benefits - yet rich people can come on here and cheerfully admit to this!

While children are growing up in poverty and education and the NHS are horrifically under funded, the rich being denied free childcare is not an issue I find it possible to get exercised about....

I don’t think you understand. In that scenario she’d be getting her tax payment back in childcare so the benefit to society would be zero.

That doesn’t make sense @Ilovelurchers, people getting benefits aren’t paying tax, they get them for free net of tax, they are taking. Only about 30% of people on UC are working, and that includes part time.

People earning 100k are almost certainly in skilled and demanding roles, going to work every day, paying for everything themselves, no safety net (unless they’ve built one up) if it goes wrong. They are also paying 35k tax so taking home 65k.

There is a point at which people will say that enough is enough, paying all that tax to not even get decent everyday services. I do not blame people one bit for maximising their income, paying the tax due but no more. I’ve decided not to do anymore that minimum part time work, I don’t need to and am not prepared to have all the costs and responsibilities of working to have a lot of it go in tax.

I think the thing that a lot of people living in less expensive areas of the uk struggle to understand is that £100k with 2 kids in nursery does not = rich. The costs of basic living is a real struggle - even in £100k - if you have 2 children in nursery with no free hours.