Confused about 30 hours for 9mth - 2yo

[Mumoftwosweetboys]

I'm a bit confused about some of the details of the new budget announcement and 30 hours free childcare.

I have a 3 year old who benefits from 15 hours free a week. We're not eligible for 30 hours free because one of us earns over £100k.

It's not clear to me whether we will benefit from 15 hours, 30 hours or no hours for our younger child when he starts childcare. The budget document talks about eligibility being the same criteria which makes me think we would not be eligible for 30 hours (due to salary) but it doesn't mention anything about all parents being eligible for the 15 hours. Seems like an oversight! Or maybe more details to follow. Has anyone seen the answer to this.

Also how annoying that it's only being phased in from April next year. What about parents who need that NOW!

My baby is going to be starting nursery in May when he's 11 months old so it's annoying we can't benefit from the new rules from then (if we're even eligible), especially as we'll have two in nursery at the same time!!! Seems like only 2 year olds will benefit from next April.

You cope like everyone has coped for awhile OP especially with the income you have

You or your husband/partner earns over £100K and you're moaning?

It takes time to code the systems for new funding, so get a grip.

Of course. Thanos for the sound advice. But you've missed the point of my post. There's a lack of clarity in the rules.
Just because one of us has a good income means I'm not allowed to question the rules or seek clarity?
Also good income does NOT necessarily mean loads of spare cash. High mortgage living in London plus London childcare v expensive.

The 100k cap is strange as well. Both parents can earn 99k and get 30 hours. One parent can earn 100k and the other 20k but not entitled to 30 hours.

*thanks

The universal offer of 15 hours for three and four year olds is because that is classed as early education. Basically the government is funding education from age 3to 18.
Childcare for babies is not early education so there won't be a universal offer. So those in higher salaries won't be eligible

Just like the current set up, you are only not eligible if BOTH parents earn more than 100K. If one earns 100K and one doesn't you are still eligible.

I think from next year everyone will get the 15 hours, but you wouldn't get the 30 hours bit

Nope. Only one has to earn over 100k to be ineligible.

No that's incorrect.

Ah thank you. That makes sense! Guess I'll just have to forget about this new budget announcement and carry on as normal!

I wondered this OP - I think it’s an interesting question as when my teens were getting their 15 hours 10+ years ago it was very much dressed up as for their benefit by way of early education . It would seem the fashion has changed

Thats what I was hoping but it doesn't say that anywhere (not that I've seen anyway)

Ah sorry then, thought that's what it was.

The 100k cap is strange as well. Both parents can earn 99k and get 30 hours. One parent can earn 100k and the other 20k but not entitled to 30 hours.

This is simply because it makes it easier to administer. It's the same with child benefit. Two parents can be on 49k each with no effect on child benefit if one earns over 52k and the other nothing the child benefit will start to be reduced .
It's because it would extremely difficult, expensive and take time to design a system that completely reflects household income . The system they have now just piggybacks into the current HMRC system

Thanks for explaining. Does all make sense but has some strange outcomes!

My husband earns over 100k but I only earn 20k, does this mean we will be eligible for 15 free hours? I thought we got zero!

For your 3+ year old yes you'll be eligible for 15.

Not sure about 9mth to 2 years...that's what I'm trying to get to bottom of in my post.

You can’t expect complete clarity on a policy that was literally announced yesterday surely?

thank you. That makes sense! Guess I'll just have to forget about this new budget announcement and carry on as normal!
To be honest that is what I assume will.happen but I am pretty certain that all the options and detail will be being worked on now and won't be published until much nearer the time given most of the changes won't be implemented until after the next election.

Well I'd like to think the government has considered that key point in arriving at this policy. Would you not? It's not a minor detail. They'd have had to factor that into their budgeting (which, whilst announced yesterday, would have taken some time to prepare).

It certainly wasn't announced like that so i would assume not. Anything else would be a bonus.

Yes I think that's fair and is my working assumption. Just think they could have been clearer. Sure it'll all be clear in due course.

I'm glad that finally there's more help for those who need it, particularly as the government are keen to get more people back into the workforce

I'm sure you've already done this but have you looked into whether you become better off by sacrificing more income into your or your husband's pension. The 100k is net adjusted so my husband isn't much over the 100k he sacrifices more into his pension so that we become eligible for the 30 hours. It means we are better off because childcare is so so expensive (also from London)

We are wondering this too. We aren't at 100k yet but hoping/likely to be by the time no 2 is one (not even conceived yet lol). and we currently have a one year old. The short answer is there's no answer yet. I'm hoping it'll be the same as for 3/4 year olds that you still get 15 hours. It will be a shame if you lose all 30 hours and the 2k tax free grant all for going £1 over. If that's the case i think i will be encouraging my husband to invest as much as possible into his pension until the kids are 3 as its based on taxable income.

Ignore people like Tiswa giving unhelpful advice. it's a genuine question and 100k isn't such a massive amount when living in London and where childcare is costing £20k a year easily. That's a massive chunk. when you're earning 100k your take home pay (not including any pension or loans etc) is 67k so if you have two kids in nursery that 40k/67k to find. leaving you with 27k. If you have a 400k mortgage your repayments are around 24k a year (and that wouldn't even buy you a 3 bed semi in the area of herts i am in...not even a one bed flat in London) leaving you a total of £3k a year to live off for food and bills. oh and my council tax is £2.5k so erm £500 a year. yay!

Thank you @Bells3032 . Glad there are still some sensible people around. Fingers crossed for the 15 hours. And good luck with baby 2!

People seem to get easily offended on MN even when people ask a genuine question.