Childcare costs with no gov support

[Oopsadandelion]

I know this may get some hate and seem like a first world problem, but I need to vent into the void a bit. I have a good job that pays me about 90k now, pre-tax obvs. I'm very grateful for it. I also receive some shares each year that, although I can't sell them or do ANYTHING with them until they vest bit-by-bit in the following years, HMRC considers taxable income when they're given to me. So despite not having over 100k in my pocket (and not really able to pour money into a pension or whatever), I'm not eligible for tax free childcare or funded hours. Currently looking for a new nursery and it hurts to see that I'd be paying 9k+ a year MORE than someone with funded hours (for a 1 year old), and that's without even taking tax free childcare into account too. So more like £11k+ more than someone who earns a 99k total salary.

I am the main breadwinner by a long way, so most of the bills, mortgage etc are on me. We live in a modest 3 bed (well, 2 plus box room) semi in the South East and not exactly flush with cash.
I find it very frustrating that 2 people on 60k each, for example, are SO much better off a year than I am - feels like I'm being punished for trying to have a senior role and daring to have children! Anyone else in a similar boat?

I think it’s unfair & the hours should be universal.

Can you pay more into your pension?

No hate here but a thank you as you’ll contribute more to the public purse than I even earn
it’s a disgrace that your penalised for it

Well, stop getting the shares and/ or make extra pension payments to get you under the ridiculous 100k cliff edge

It wasn’t that long ago that no one got help with childcare, my childcare bills were 2/3rds of my take home pay, you have a good job you are very lucky and your fees would be a small percentage of your pay.

I think YABU re the shares, as otherwise people would just put their money in shares or similar to avoid tax on childcare.

I don't think YABU to be pissed off re being penalised when two people earning 60k a year each aren't. It's a shite rule.

You will get the benefit of the shares, and getting over £10k in shares a year for free is pretty substantial. Why can’t you put extra in your pension? That will be a huge benefit to you.

There was another thread yesterday where someone was getting a UC top up on a 67k salary making it at least 80k a year. Madness that 100k means you lose all childcare help and pay 60% tax to give that money to someone earning barely less than you

Thanks everyone for the different perspectives.

Re the pension payments - because it's not money in my pocket right now (and I'll only get 25% of the shares per year when they do vest), and I'll be paying over £16000 a year in nursery fees (which seems insane), I really can't afford to put 10k+ more into my pension each year.

😭Wow that's nuts. OK so the moral of the story is that mid level jobs are the best!

Look... I get that its shit we are paying 5k net pm on childcare.

You can put the money into the pension.
And the argument you cant doesn't hold. The childcare is worth WAY more than 10k gross (which when taxed is only £5.5k.)

the RSUs will likely vest over 4 years...and they only become taxable upon vesting.
You can sell your shares upon vest so no cgt and put them in the pension or rebuy in ISA or use for childcare because you dont want to put it in your pension

I think its unfair.
I think it disencetivises work.

I agree that any means-tested benefits for children (including free childcare) should be based on both parents' income.

Spouses should also be allowed to file joint tax returns - including sharing the tax-free allowance - as is the case in most of the rest of the world.

If the chikdcare is 9k more

And you need to put 10k in your pension to get that 9k for free? Im not sure you really cant afford 1k a year difference for those years. It feels like that would be a small sacrifice for a massive pension, over spending 9k on childcare and the money is gone for ever.

I still think the system is stupid. But I would revisit your sums.

I'd love to know how when our joint income of 50k with 2 kids means we're not entitled to a top up. We're mortgaged though so don't have the housing element, maybe that's the difference

Unfortunately it's not the case that I'd receive 10k a year, for example. I'd get 25% of that per year, minus tax - so more like £1500! It's great for the future, but not great when I need money for nursery fees in the present.

Yes that also seems really unfair. I get that a house is an asset, but that doesn't really help you with day to day expenses.

You earn £90k. £90k. Before shares income. A quick google suggests about 6% of the population earn this amount or more.

Definitely a first world problem as you say.