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.

And are still left significantly worse off than the 2% of women on 100k and above- and they get on with it.

You're wasting your breath if you expect 98% of the population to listen to your tiny violins.

I don’t think you understand the issue.

Most comments have agreed the policy doesn’t make
sense and should be changed.

🤣if you really think a MN thread full of posters from the 2% of the population that would benefit from this speaks for the country as a whole or indicates it being a vote winner for Kemi you’re seriously deluded.

Tories want to remove the upper income threshold on childcare

Oh they’ve realised that their decision to introduce it is one they don’t actually like.

Now remove the £204 per week cliff edge for carer’s allowance as well, if they’ve decided cliff edge policies are unfair.

I thought the right wanted fewer benefit scroungers not more. Or is it OK to have taxpayer funded benefits if you are rich?

I don't think there should be a cliff edge at £100,000, I'm amazed people earning that much want to be classed as scroungers.
Perhaps if we reduced the limit to around £60,000 we could afford to help those who are actually in need.

People vote for aspirational policies - the same reason they’re against IHT, the 60% tax trap etc.

I don’t think the Tories are going to win the election on this policy, there’s a million and one other issues out there, but I think most people agree that the policy is deeply unfair and is clearly impacting the way people are working.

The tories are trying to appeal to a certain segment of voters, this policy will be of interest to them. £100k isn’t an impossibly unimaginable income nowadays!

Not everything can be about ‘more support for those in need’ though, you do actually need to provide services to the people paying huge amounts of tax.

Like we do with healthcare, schools - countless other public services.

People really don’t. Most people
I've heard discuss it have been livid the Tories would waste £700 million a year on this. It shows their priorities and will be a vote loser for sure.

Absolutely not. Why stop there? Gift them universal credit too. Just because you're working and earning a shit tonne of money, doesn't mean you shouldn't get help with paying your mortgage and buying your expensive clothes and paying for horse riding hobbies etc.

Why on earth would you gift money from a finite pot to anyone other than those who need it most?? You start from the neediest and work up.

And even if they do pay them the child benefit - it just means less money for a different pot!

Such a weird stance that seems to be based on emotional arguments, rather than practical or rational judgement.

They have access to enough public services.

Who are you listening to that’s livid? On FB etc or irl

Labour’s squashing of business and taxing more probably does appeal to many but there may be a point where taxes etc are too high.

It’s a policy based on principle not naked redistribution.

But don't you think a policy that is only of use to a tiny % of society feeds into the narrative that the Tories are only interested in The Rich?
I honestly think the optics are all wrong on this - the Tories need to bring a lot of people over to vote for them and I think this will just alienate people who will go back to thinking they are not the party for them.
It's not a bad policy and I can see the logic in it, absolutely, but a lot of floating voters will just wonder why they should vote for the Conservatives when they are only interested in their rich mates. We know that's not true, but many will take it as confirmation that everything they thought about the Tories is true.

I like it, it sends a good message. Good for productivity, tax take, growth, and really good for women.
I think Kemi is aiming this at voters who may be tempted by the lib dems rather than those tempted by reform.

If they want to give free childcare to the wealthiest then they shouldn't be looking at stripping the poorest and most vulnerable people of the little help they get. Either the country is skint and can't afford benefits or it's not. There is a case for changing the current set up with childcare but it's a poor look to tell disabled, low paid and unemployed people they are spongers and don't deserve support while handing out benefits to people on over £100,000.

Why wouldn’t anyone agree with the Tories on this?

There’s no way to get out of over tax, anti aspiration without changing taxes. Perhaps too many are state dependent already but there needs to be a party setting up the alternative.

But carers and disabled people are nasty scroungers. Won't somebody think of the rich, having to scrape by on their six figure incomes!

I don't think the two positions are incompatible. She's recognising that those who are paying the most tax deserve some encouragement and appreciation whilst also promising to spend what they pay in tax more wisely.

Someone earning £100k pays £31k tax a year, these are exactly the sort of people we want to keep working and to keep having children. We can’t have a society where only the feckless have children.

This is such a weird argument. You know that if people work part time, eg 3 days per week, the other 2 days don’t go empty unless worked by the same person?

You also don’t state how you know that people are working fewer hours to get under £100k, nor that you know there are jobs empty specifically because of this. I’m sure both those things would be really hard to find out.

I’m not saying the £100k cliff edge is fair (it’s not, as 2 parents on £95k each would still get the funding) but your argument for reducing it makes no sense.

Anyone who’s in the fortunate position of being able to afford/choose to work only 3 to 4 days a week, so they can spend time with their DC, is at an advantage, not a disadvantage, as far as I see it.

Because it does not affect most of us. Most of us don't earn that amount. It affects about 2% of women, and the rest of us think 'Suck it up and pay for your own childcare. You are earning shitloads'.

Teachers, nurses, office workers, care workers, social workers, women who work for the council, women who work in retail, cleaners...the list is endless. None of these are earning £100k.

If you are capable of earning such a huge salary (compared to the majority) then you are equally capable of paying for child care. It feels very much like 'Are your diamond shoes too tight?' to complain that you are earning over the maximum income threshold.

30 hours of 'free' childcare was introduced in 2017 by the way, and I speak as someone whose children were all in school by then. There was no free childcare when I raised my children, despite me earning massively below £100k, and so we juggled money and paid for a childminder and I was a SAHM for a while. We didn't assume that the government would or should pay for child care for children we had decided to have.

I am certainly in favour of it for low paid workers. But on your £69k net you can afford to pay care for your own children if you decide to have them. Cut back on the luxuries for a few years like most people with small children have to.

How outrageous that you think the people who pay for public services aren’t entitled to them, you’ve got a huge shock coming over the next few years. Utterly fed up with this ridiculous level of entitlement.

@Hatty65 30 hours of free childcare from 9 months was introduced last year and is worth ~£15,000 to me.

This means that someone earning £70k and claiming it, has the same income as me, at £100k.

This creates some incentives around incomes at this level, to try and claim the hours, because their value is so large.

It is better to put any income over £100k into a pension and still claim the hours (which is what most people seem to do) - so the government actually missed out twice, both losing potential tax revenue but also having to fund the hours anyway.

You say £69k net is huge but my nursery place costs around 40% of that.

I neither earn 100k nor have children young enough to qualify for the free hours, but people who do fall into that category choosing to work and earn less potentially still impacts me. I don't want me or a loved one to wait longer for a specialist health appointment because or experience shorter staffing in A and E because of a cliff edge.