Tories campaigning to remove the childcare maximum income threshold

[FlakyPastries]

Kemi Badenoch has announced that the Tories want to remove the upper income threshold on childcare.

This means all working families will be able to claim it, including those earning over £100k.

Do you agree with this policy?

My baby’s nursery charges £30,000 and the free hours and tax free childcare is worth around £15,000 - so this is quite a significant benefit for those currently unable to claim.

Not if more women stay in high paying jobs after having dc.

"If others want the jobs - education can help them achieve highly too!"

That isn't how it is though, there are only a set amount of high income jobs. We now have a higher proportion of people educated to degree or postgraduate degree level, it doesn't mean there are suddenly lots more in well-paid jobs. Pay doesn't always equate to how well-educated you are, and pay certainly does not equate to how hard you work.

It’s not just women in high paying jobs either - it’s the partners of people with high paying jobs.

That’s only 1-2% of women. The same women happily paying for private school fees. Many of those women will be well over £100k so really won’t be impacted by the cliff edge. So you’re talking about a tiny number of ( very wealthy) women who can pay for their own childcare.

Great keep them in work. They add to the workplace in a positive way. There’s no point in just having men in top paying jobs.

Another of the sticking points for me is that, anecdotally, I know several high earning women with small children, the thing stopping them working full-time and / or taking promotions is not in any of their cases the cost of childcare - it’s wanting to be home with their small children. Is there real concrete, evidence this will drive growth? Enough growth for it to be worth spending £700 million on?

The Conservatives really have got to prove to the country (and the markets, for that matter) that they can be trusted on the economy again, because people don’t take that for granted anymore. To do that, they need pragmatic, evidence backed policies - and personally, I’m not at all convinced this is that.

If they want to be in work, they will be.

I'd like to see the back of this policy, I ended up just not bothering going back to work after dc2 because DH's income disqualifies us and I was basically going to work for a loss once we'd paid for 2 x nursery and my commute. I know a lot of women in the same position. We're completely fine and I'm happy at home with the kids, but fundamentally going to work should always pay for everyone, and the fact that it didn't for me (even in a relatively well paid job) seemed counterproductive.

We’d have benefitted from this and I still don’t support the idea. It’s not wrong that subsidised childcare should be means tested, in my opinion. A household income of £100k is sufficient to pay for nursery with the 15 universal hours. I know because we did it.

The part that’s wrong is that it’s per person rather than per household. That a couple can each earn £98k and get the childcare while a couple on combined £120k (our situation) don’t. Couples I know earning almost the £100k limit each paid were spending £350-400 less per month than we did for the same 3 days of care. That’s definitely wrong.

To be clear- I don’t think any of them should get it! There are much better things it could be spent on.

Of course works pays. If your husband earns over £100k and you have a high a high salary too you could have more than afforded to pay for childcare during the short period of time it’s needed. You didn’t return to work because you didn’t want to. Be honest.The 98% of mothers not earning above £100k return to work on a huge amount less even with help for childcare.

Yes, this. 😂 It’s silly. We are high earners. We don’t qualify for any childcare funding. I’m fine with that. I think the government has better things to spend money on, like the NHS, than to pay for childcare for people like me who have plenty of money.

What so I have more play money to spend on my horse trainer or more foreign travel? I mean, that’s a genuine question, because if I had extra money, I’d be spending it on my horse and more travelling. Those things are luxuries. If I can afford a horse, I can afford to pay for childcare for my children.

I’d much rather see early years education better funded, more money for nursery and preschool settings, than it expanded to people like me who are already comfortable. 🙄

It would be better to sort out the personal allowance and tax rates cliffs for people in this income bracket as they really disincentivise the small group of people who could be net contributors from working and earning more.

Free childcare over the universal EY entitlement and child benefit probably should be means tested but both should be tapered and based on household income. This is only fair if the whole system gets an overhaul to cut down dependency though.

I think you misunderstand the numbers actually.

Say you earn £180k (top 1%). You take home £8k a month after tax.

Two places at my child’s nursery would be £5k a month. The private schools are similar.

So >60% of your income goes on nursery costs, even as a ‘1%’ earner.

That is exorbitant. A few posters said they didn’t mind paying it, I wonder if that’s what their numbers were.

How much are you losing in childcare help?

I lose £15,000 for one child! If I have another, I will be losing £30,000 in childcare help for a year or two.

These are huge amounts (net), and you hit the 60% tax trap at the same time.

And that’s just the cost of the loss of childcare - it actually costs £30,000 for one nursery place for a year. So £2,500 a month.

I struggle to believe you are just accepting of this as fine and acceptable.

So don’t have another one or wait until the first starts school.

It literally cost more than my salary to pay for nursery. Could we have found it? Yes obviously. Were we better of if I just stopped working? Also yes.
Going to work did not pay. I don't think anyone, at any point, should be put in that position regardless of what their significant other earns is my point. I wasn't claiming poverty.

Oh for goodness sake it’s not for long and women on a lot less have to and do work.

So higher earners should only have one child because the cost of childcare in a HCOL area without funding is ruinous… but families living in cheaper parts of the country should be highly subsidised to have multiple children in childcare?

And the higher earners are the ones funding this policy.

Why?

Perhaps the pp is on much more as a household. But as you say your hit is very high.

You say ‘it’s not for long’ but £2.5k a month for four years is £120,000.

No you can suck up the expense of an extra child you chose to have for the limited time it costs as in the same way the other 98% of the population do.

And they get tax free childcare and funded hours to do so, meaning they aren't going to work for free or a loss.

Well those in that bracket happily pay private school fees! Maybe switch jobs with somebody on NMW and see how peachy it really is for everybody else.

The other 98% population aren’t ’sucking up the cost’ though are they, as we established they are being given £15k of free childcare each year that the higher earner has to fund privately.

While also paying very high taxes to… fund other people getting access to this childcare help.

So why should 98% of people get £15k a year per child of help (that’s probably £35-40k of gross earnings over £100k), and 2% get absolutely nothing?