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.

That's not quite right. It's due to be phased in from April 2024.

It's probably clearer if you're used to the wording nuances of the funding system. It's for 'working parents' rather 'all children'.

We’re expecting no2 in July and I think that we will benefit from that when he/she is 2, but not 1.

We can never say never but it’s quite unusual for a government to backpedal on a popular policy - so I’m not sure at all labour wouldn’t keep it, although it may change or be tweaked if they get in.

Yeah it really is

Thanks @F1nit0. I don't think it's grabby either to want to know your financial situation in light of the recent announcement.

On reflection I do appreciate it can't happen overnight. Would have been nice to have some help when both my children are at nursery at the same time! Appreciate others are in much greater need of help but we're certainly not rich in this household! Nursery is £75 a day for each child. Glad we get the 15 hours for the older one though but as I'm sure everyone is aware it's not as simple as nursery just giving 15 hours completely free, it's more complicated than that but not complaining as it's of course helpful!

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.

Yes. This inconsistency pissed me off about child benefit too, where the same bonkers rule applied.

I'm definitely not familiar with the wording nuances and I doubt the majority of the population are but what you say does make sense.

If your partner is not on too much more than 100k could they up pension contributions to take earnings below 100k? That would give you the 30 hours for the current 3 year old, and for the younger when the time comes?

@Looneytune253 lets not ruin a helpful thread. Maybe just trust I know and understand far more about my / our finances than you do.

One big thing about MN is that women are heartily scolded and criticised for not being financially savvy. Yet high earners often - not always - need to be prudent and aware about money, because it is easy for money to be frittered and wasted.

Asking for advice about finances - whether you earn 10k or 100 - is not goady and should never be criticised: it is sensible.

Absolutely and I think this is why getting it out there and talked about is a priority.

Parents should also be educated to know how massively underfunded the hours are by the government. By their own consultation, it costs around £7+ ph to provide the current childcare, they pay approx £4.70 currently.

Ratios for younger children are even smaller and so you'd think the rate would be even higher but I doubt it. I'm actually quite scared!

No but if you're genuinely complaining that you have to pay off the childcare bill and moaning that you pay it and he earns so much more, you can surely see why that makes no sense at all. Of course you shouldn't be entitled to it with a household income of over £130k when people are genuinely managing (and paying childcare) on 20/30/40k

I have great sympathy for you OP and it is confusing. I’m in the same position as you with a high earning OH I would love to do more hours but childcare prohibits it for me. Yes OH earns well but I do not and I’m not going back to work if it doesn’t actually make it worth it.

And I get where people go on about don’t just take it out of your earnings but at the moment we don’t pay childcare and if I work then we are worse off or very little better off but homelife becomes stressful and chaotic for very little reward. If we both earned 99k each we would get the help it’s so frustrating

@Looneytune253 I’m not complaining, I’m explaining! Come on, stop it. It’s not helping anyone, is it?

Like a lot of posters on here, DH just goes over the 100k mark if he gets his full bonus, whereas if we were both on 80k, we’d have the funding plus more money. I think we will probably end up paying a bit into his pension, as like @Bells3032 (who was the one I originally replied to) DHS pension isn’t great, whereas mine is pretty good: swings and roundabouts. Let’s draw a line, as I’m feeling guilty for inadvertently steering the thread off course.

@Yolanda524 yes - if it is worked out on a household income basis then it doesn’t matter whether it’s shared or not.

In other words, if your combined monthly income with two of you working is (say) £5000 and nursery fees are £1200 that leaves you with £3800. If your combined income with one of you working is £4000 then not paying nursery fees has ‘saved’ £200, regardless of who actually pays them.

Very true @Moonandshootingstars. People get flamed on here for everything. Earn a "high" salary...flamed. On benefits...flamed. Apparently only the right kind of person who fills all MN criteria is allowed to ask a question!

The thing is the whole thing is meant to get women back to work and stop them taking the hit to their careers that the cost of childcare brings. Women are usually the lower earners to start with. With one child in nursery you need to be earning about 30k to break even and for 2 then it's over 60k. Anything under that and women feel that they're just effectively paying to work so they don't and that's irrelevant to what their partners earn.

We're in tm exactly the same
Position, OP. I assume it means DC will get 15 free hours from next sept, assuming it still kicks in the term after rather than when they change age. So that would mean we'd have the free hours kick in a year earlier than they would've done if still from age 3, so that's something. Fingers crossed. Wouldn't surprise me if it's only from parents on <£100k to start with though.

www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2023/03/chancellor-boosts-funded-childcare-places-for-one-and-two-year-o/

You need to wait for the details to be published fully and go through parliament to get the full story (could be further amendments). Never trust headlines!

I don’t think the early years free hours for babies come on line before 2024 so if a child is already born they won’t get them.

@AutumnVibes www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-unveils-a-budget-for-growth

😂😂😂😂😂😂

All of which is because women allow society to consider childcare to be women’s work.

The cost of childcare should be split. It should never be determined whether a woman can work by considering the cost of childcare against her salary alone.

The reason none of the details are available yet is because the free childcare the government is promising is never likely to happen.

It's a great promise to get people to vote for them in the next GE. Even if they do win the next GE will they follow through and deliver it? Highly unlikely. As people have already spotted, there are no details about how this will work and who is eligible.

Nurseries can't afford to offer the free spaces allowed now due to the gross underfunding from the government so unless something really drastic happens they won't be able to afford to offer even more free places.

It's all a disgrace. And from where I'm sitting it's just a sly way to force mothers back to work when their babies are 9 months old.

Thanks @nannynick and @olderthanyouthink