 |
By *I Two OP Couple
over a year ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
This can't be true .. surely ..
Workers could be forced to turn down pay rises or risk losing thousands of pounds due to "ridiculous complexities” in Britain’s tax and benefits system.
In the worst case scenario a worker could lose £14,000 by earning as little as £1 more this year, as they are stripped of valuable tax breaks and childcare allowances.
Analysis by stockbroker AJ Bell for The Telegraph showed a worker with three young children on the verge of earning more than £100,000 a year would be better off turning down a small pay rise. These taxpayers would lose thousands of pounds per child once their salary rises over £100,000, it said.
When the parent earns more than £100,000 they lose their entitlement to £2,000 of tax-free childcare for each of the three children – a total of £6,000. The Government’s 30 hours of free term time childcare a week is also reduced to 15 hours, costing a further £7,952, AJ Bell estimated, as parents would also have to pay for additional childcare. This alone would cost a taxpayer £13,952.
Its analysis was based on the hourly childcare rate for outer London, according to the Coram Childcare report. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This can't be true .. surely ..
Workers could be forced to turn down pay rises or risk losing thousands of pounds due to "ridiculous complexities” in Britain’s tax and benefits system.
In the worst case scenario a worker could lose £14,000 by earning as little as £1 more this year, as they are stripped of valuable tax breaks and childcare allowances.
Analysis by stockbroker AJ Bell for The Telegraph showed a worker with three young children on the verge of earning more than £100,000 a year would be better off turning down a small pay rise. These taxpayers would lose thousands of pounds per child once their salary rises over £100,000, it said.
When the parent earns more than £100,000 they lose their entitlement to £2,000 of tax-free childcare for each of the three children – a total of £6,000. The Government’s 30 hours of free term time childcare a week is also reduced to 15 hours, costing a further £7,952, AJ Bell estimated, as parents would also have to pay for additional childcare. This alone would cost a taxpayer £13,952.
Its analysis was based on the hourly childcare rate for outer London, according to the Coram Childcare report."
Sounds about right the problem is its a cliff eadge not a sloop.
It's just as bad at the lower end you on basic wage and topped up with universal credit. If you do over time ad hock it stops you benifit for months till its all worked out. So most just don't want paying for an hour or 2 overtime. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It is the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich ever..... and now it is your turn those who earn these figures, this is where it starts the little things on top of the big things. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It is the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich ever..... and now it is your turn those who earn these figures, this is where it starts the little things on top of the big things. "
I am probably wrong but child benefit was never means tested.
And someone earning 100k is probably paying more in tax then they are getting back.
But it should be a tapper off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
No idea if this is true but the idea that someone on £100k would instantly lose nearly £14k in benefits as a result seems pretty outlandish but also if they are that well paid in the first place surely they can afford childcare in the first place or they should be able to arrange their finances so that they don’t drop off a cliff. Still it’s nice to know that the majority of train drivers, nurses and postal workers won’t have to worry about this  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It is the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich ever..... and now it is your turn those who earn these figures, this is where it starts the little things on top of the big things.
I am probably wrong but child benefit was never means tested.
And someone earning 100k is probably paying more in tax then they are getting back.
But it should be a tapper off."
You are correct ! Child benefit is not means tested |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Just googled
Child Benefit is not means tested in the normal sense. However, if you or your partner have an income of more than £50,000 a year you will be liable to the high income Child Benefit charge. The calculator automatically works out your Child Benefit entitlement on the basis of the number of eligible children you have. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
Why are you all talking about Child Benefit? This thread is about childcare...
“When the parent earns more than £100,000 they lose their entitlement to £2,000 of tax-free childcare for each of the three children – a total of £6,000. The Government’s 30 hours of free term time childcare a week is also reduced to 15 hours, costing a further £7,952, AJ Bell estimated, as parents would also have to pay for additional childcare. This alone would cost a taxpayer £13,952.” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why are you all talking about Child Benefit? This thread is about childcare...
“When the parent earns more than £100,000 they lose their entitlement to £2,000 of tax-free childcare for each of the three children – a total of £6,000. The Government’s 30 hours of free term time childcare a week is also reduced to 15 hours, costing a further £7,952, AJ Bell estimated, as parents would also have to pay for additional childcare. This alone would cost a taxpayer £13,952.”"
First can I apologise for going of track sorry.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
"
So my point is the same realy should it not be taperd of from £50,500 up to £100k rather then hitting to ceiling.and loosing it all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
"
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
So my point is the same realy should it not be taperd of from £50,500 up to £100k rather then hitting to ceiling.and loosing it all."
The tapering of child benefit makes sense but it's too steep.
Someone earning exactly the higher tax threshold in England does overtime and earns £100.
Of that £100, the government takes:
£40 tax
£2 NI
£26 reduction in child benefit
That is £68 gone...Overtime? No thanks!
Same person gets a £1000 pay rise
£400 tax
£20 NI
£260 cut in child benefit
Maybe £100 into pension (assuming 10% contribution)
£780 never to be seen (apart from the £100 pension in many year). £220 a year net or just under £20 a month.
A huge £10k pay rise would equate to £200 a month. It's almost not worth it...unless the whole £10k goes into salary sacrifice pension scheme...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
As per fair taxation thread(s) IMO we should explore removing all in work benefits (not talking about things like disability benefit) and instead raise the tax free threshold and also have more tax bands but with smaller increases to avoid cliff wall. AND there should be no clawbacks (the admin on this almost wipes out the net benefit to exchequer anyway). ie simplified universally applied tax.
The counter argument that *could* be applied to child related benefits would be if the UK had a negative population growth and the Govt wanted to encourage people to have more children. In which case maybe remove the word “benefit” and the connotations it comes with. If the Govt wants to encourage more people to have kids with “allowances” then that should not subsequently be taken away if the parent’s earnings cross some arbitrary threshold. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little? "
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure."
Child tax allowance was in trounced in 1909 so it time to change it.
In my opinion it would be £36 / week per family not £21.80 + £14.45 each additional Child incoriging more children.
If you can't afford it put a thing on it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If you earn over £100k you're generally able to negotiate a little more to cover such inconveniences. Makes sense to reduce childcare costs by sending the kids to boarding school for better value for money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"What kind of people typically get paid more than £100,000 per year? Can't see how this affects most people?"
“43% of adults pay no income tax and to be in the top 1% of all adults (or the top 540,000 people), a pre-tax income of at least £120,000 is required. The top 1% of income tax payers are disproportionately male, middle-aged and London-based.”
“Data on the average annual gross salary percentiles in the United Kingdom in 2022 showed that the bottom ten percent of full-time workers earned an average of 19,403 British pounds a year, with the top ten percent of workers earning around 62,583 pounds a year.“
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure."
What adjusted net income is:
"Adjusted net income is total taxable income before any Personal Allowances and less certain tax reliefs, for example:
trading losses
donations made to charities through Gift Aid - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount
pension contributions paid gross (before tax relief)
pension contributions where your pension provider has already given you tax relief at the basic rate - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount"
That doesn't sound like Net income to me...as in income after all taxes.
Maybe I haven't understood?
The point has been exaggerate but it's relevant. What's next? High earners have to pay their children's education? Healthcare?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure.
What adjusted net income is:
"Adjusted net income is total taxable income before any Personal Allowances and less certain tax reliefs, for example:
trading losses
donations made to charities through Gift Aid - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount
pension contributions paid gross (before tax relief)
pension contributions where your pension provider has already given you tax relief at the basic rate - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount"
That doesn't sound like Net income to me...as in income after all taxes.
Maybe I haven't understood?
The point has been exaggerate but it's relevant. What's next? High earners have to pay their children's education? Healthcare?
"
I really don't think it's relevant being that's it's been exaggerated.
One parent earning over £100k adjusted net income does not need help to pay for childcare.
We haven't even taken into account the second parent (I appreciate some children don't have a second parent). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure.
What adjusted net income is:
"Adjusted net income is total taxable income before any Personal Allowances and less certain tax reliefs, for example:
trading losses
donations made to charities through Gift Aid - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount
pension contributions paid gross (before tax relief)
pension contributions where your pension provider has already given you tax relief at the basic rate - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount"
That doesn't sound like Net income to me...as in income after all taxes.
Maybe I haven't understood?
The point has been exaggerate but it's relevant. What's next? High earners have to pay their children's education? Healthcare?
I really don't think it's relevant being that's it's been exaggerated.
One parent earning over £100k adjusted net income does not need help to pay for childcare.
We haven't even taken into account the second parent (I appreciate some children don't have a second parent)."
What about someone earning £90k ? Could argue they don't NEED help. How about £60k? That's still a good income.
Should we make them pay for dental care too? They don't need free dental care.
High earners pay more than enough share of tax. As I mentioned, someone earning £100k loses £35k in tax and NI. People in that salary bracket unsually have highly stressful, difficult or responsible jobs.
If you aren't earning that, ask yourself why. Probably because you aren't capable. Why are you wanting those people who are to then suck up everything? Especially when they are probably having kids that will be successful too and spend their lives paying large amounts of tax.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure.
What adjusted net income is:
"Adjusted net income is total taxable income before any Personal Allowances and less certain tax reliefs, for example:
trading losses
donations made to charities through Gift Aid - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount
pension contributions paid gross (before tax relief)
pension contributions where your pension provider has already given you tax relief at the basic rate - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount"
That doesn't sound like Net income to me...as in income after all taxes.
Maybe I haven't understood?
The point has been exaggerate but it's relevant. What's next? High earners have to pay their children's education? Healthcare?
I really don't think it's relevant being that's it's been exaggerated.
One parent earning over £100k adjusted net income does not need help to pay for childcare.
We haven't even taken into account the second parent (I appreciate some children don't have a second parent).
What about someone earning £90k ? Could argue they don't NEED help. How about £60k? That's still a good income.
Should we make them pay for dental care too? They don't need free dental care.
High earners pay more than enough share of tax. As I mentioned, someone earning £100k loses £35k in tax and NI. People in that salary bracket unsually have highly stressful, difficult or responsible jobs.
If you aren't earning that, ask yourself why. Probably because you aren't capable. Why are you wanting those people who are to then suck up everything? Especially when they are probably having kids that will be successful too and spend their lives paying large amounts of tax.
"
What a ridiculous argument. Its not 90k or 60k, its 100k.
Maybe we should just pluck figures out of the air for the sake of argument 
I maintain they do not need Free Childcare, Free Childcare should be for those folk wanting to work but can't afford to pay for childcare.
Why are you banging on about my earnings and whether I'm capable or not? My earnings are just fine, I do well enough to be able to afford those things, not that I have to as my kids are teenagers now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure.
What adjusted net income is:
"Adjusted net income is total taxable income before any Personal Allowances and less certain tax reliefs, for example:
trading losses
donations made to charities through Gift Aid - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount
pension contributions paid gross (before tax relief)
pension contributions where your pension provider has already given you tax relief at the basic rate - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount"
That doesn't sound like Net income to me...as in income after all taxes.
Maybe I haven't understood?
The point has been exaggerate but it's relevant. What's next? High earners have to pay their children's education? Healthcare?
I really don't think it's relevant being that's it's been exaggerated.
One parent earning over £100k adjusted net income does not need help to pay for childcare.
We haven't even taken into account the second parent (I appreciate some children don't have a second parent).
What about someone earning £90k ? Could argue they don't NEED help. How about £60k? That's still a good income.
Should we make them pay for dental care too? They don't need free dental care.
High earners pay more than enough share of tax. As I mentioned, someone earning £100k loses £35k in tax and NI. People in that salary bracket unsually have highly stressful, difficult or responsible jobs.
If you aren't earning that, ask yourself why. Probably because you aren't capable. Why are you wanting those people who are to then suck up everything? Especially when they are probably having kids that will be successful too and spend their lives paying large amounts of tax.
What a ridiculous argument. Its not 90k or 60k, its 100k.
Maybe we should just pluck figures out of the air for the sake of argument
I maintain they do not need Free Childcare, Free Childcare should be for those folk wanting to work but can't afford to pay for childcare.
Why are you banging on about my earnings and whether I'm capable or not? My earnings are just fine, I do well enough to be able to afford those things, not that I have to as my kids are teenagers now."
Just because you don't understand an argument doesn't make it ridiculous.
At what income can someone not afford childcare? I gave some suggestions. Just looking for an answer. Simple question. Should there be a specific figure it stops at or should it be tapered.
As for your income, you strongly come across as someone who is way off the £100k figure. Banging on about?!? 1 reference.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure.
What adjusted net income is:
"Adjusted net income is total taxable income before any Personal Allowances and less certain tax reliefs, for example:
trading losses
donations made to charities through Gift Aid - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount
pension contributions paid gross (before tax relief)
pension contributions where your pension provider has already given you tax relief at the basic rate - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount"
That doesn't sound like Net income to me...as in income after all taxes.
Maybe I haven't understood?
The point has been exaggerate but it's relevant. What's next? High earners have to pay their children's education? Healthcare?
I really don't think it's relevant being that's it's been exaggerated.
One parent earning over £100k adjusted net income does not need help to pay for childcare.
We haven't even taken into account the second parent (I appreciate some children don't have a second parent).
What about someone earning £90k ? Could argue they don't NEED help. How about £60k? That's still a good income.
Should we make them pay for dental care too? They don't need free dental care.
High earners pay more than enough share of tax. As I mentioned, someone earning £100k loses £35k in tax and NI. People in that salary bracket unsually have highly stressful, difficult or responsible jobs.
If you aren't earning that, ask yourself why. Probably because you aren't capable. Why are you wanting those people who are to then suck up everything? Especially when they are probably having kids that will be successful too and spend their lives paying large amounts of tax.
What a ridiculous argument. Its not 90k or 60k, its 100k.
Maybe we should just pluck figures out of the air for the sake of argument
I maintain they do not need Free Childcare, Free Childcare should be for those folk wanting to work but can't afford to pay for childcare.
Why are you banging on about my earnings and whether I'm capable or not? My earnings are just fine, I do well enough to be able to afford those things, not that I have to as my kids are teenagers now.
Just because you don't understand an argument doesn't make it ridiculous.
At what income can someone not afford childcare? I gave some suggestions. Just looking for an answer. Simple question. Should there be a specific figure it stops at or should it be tapered.
As for your income, you strongly come across as someone who is way off the £100k figure. Banging on about?!? 1 reference.
"
Not commenting on anything else but are you saying Feisty’s income level is indicated by the way they speak? I think that is a silly thing to say sorry! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The issue is the cliff edge. The who tax and benefits system is so peice meal it always no sense.
But as someone alluded to we need to decide what child benefit is there for.
Is it an investment on our future ?
A way of allowing anyone to have kids (eg not the privalage of the rich)
A protection policy to prevent poverty if one does have kids they can't afford?
Or something else?
The answer to the why leads to different answers to what we pay and when. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure.
What adjusted net income is:
"Adjusted net income is total taxable income before any Personal Allowances and less certain tax reliefs, for example:
trading losses
donations made to charities through Gift Aid - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount
pension contributions paid gross (before tax relief)
pension contributions where your pension provider has already given you tax relief at the basic rate - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount"
That doesn't sound like Net income to me...as in income after all taxes.
Maybe I haven't understood?
The point has been exaggerate but it's relevant. What's next? High earners have to pay their children's education? Healthcare?
I really don't think it's relevant being that's it's been exaggerated.
One parent earning over £100k adjusted net income does not need help to pay for childcare.
We haven't even taken into account the second parent (I appreciate some children don't have a second parent).
What about someone earning £90k ? Could argue they don't NEED help. How about £60k? That's still a good income.
Should we make them pay for dental care too? They don't need free dental care.
High earners pay more than enough share of tax. As I mentioned, someone earning £100k loses £35k in tax and NI. People in that salary bracket unsually have highly stressful, difficult or responsible jobs.
If you aren't earning that, ask yourself why. Probably because you aren't capable. Why are you wanting those people who are to then suck up everything? Especially when they are probably having kids that will be successful too and spend their lives paying large amounts of tax.
What a ridiculous argument. Its not 90k or 60k, its 100k.
Maybe we should just pluck figures out of the air for the sake of argument
I maintain they do not need Free Childcare, Free Childcare should be for those folk wanting to work but can't afford to pay for childcare.
Why are you banging on about my earnings and whether I'm capable or not? My earnings are just fine, I do well enough to be able to afford those things, not that I have to as my kids are teenagers now.
Just because you don't understand an argument doesn't make it ridiculous.
At what income can someone not afford childcare? I gave some suggestions. Just looking for an answer. Simple question. Should there be a specific figure it stops at or should it be tapered.
As for your income, you strongly come across as someone who is way off the £100k figure. Banging on about?!? 1 reference.
Not commenting on anything else but are you saying Feisty’s income level is indicated by the way they speak? I think that is a silly thing to say sorry!"
Their comments ooze jealousy. Sorry. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The issue is the cliff edge. The who tax and benefits system is so peice meal it always no sense.
But as someone alluded to we need to decide what child benefit is there for.
Is it an investment on our future ?
A way of allowing anyone to have kids (eg not the privalage of the rich)
A protection policy to prevent poverty if one does have kids they can't afford?
Or something else?
The answer to the why leads to different answers to what we pay and when. "
Well said. It's an investment.
We need to encourage those who are career minded / successful to have kids. Not screw them. Long term, what would happen to the NHS if the doctors weren't encouraged to have kids?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure.
What adjusted net income is:
"Adjusted net income is total taxable income before any Personal Allowances and less certain tax reliefs, for example:
trading losses
donations made to charities through Gift Aid - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount
pension contributions paid gross (before tax relief)
pension contributions where your pension provider has already given you tax relief at the basic rate - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount"
That doesn't sound like Net income to me...as in income after all taxes.
Maybe I haven't understood?
The point has been exaggerate but it's relevant. What's next? High earners have to pay their children's education? Healthcare?
I really don't think it's relevant being that's it's been exaggerated.
One parent earning over £100k adjusted net income does not need help to pay for childcare.
We haven't even taken into account the second parent (I appreciate some children don't have a second parent).
What about someone earning £90k ? Could argue they don't NEED help. How about £60k? That's still a good income.
Should we make them pay for dental care too? They don't need free dental care.
High earners pay more than enough share of tax. As I mentioned, someone earning £100k loses £35k in tax and NI. People in that salary bracket unsually have highly stressful, difficult or responsible jobs.
If you aren't earning that, ask yourself why. Probably because you aren't capable. Why are you wanting those people who are to then suck up everything? Especially when they are probably having kids that will be successful too and spend their lives paying large amounts of tax.
What a ridiculous argument. Its not 90k or 60k, its 100k.
Maybe we should just pluck figures out of the air for the sake of argument
I maintain they do not need Free Childcare, Free Childcare should be for those folk wanting to work but can't afford to pay for childcare.
Why are you banging on about my earnings and whether I'm capable or not? My earnings are just fine, I do well enough to be able to afford those things, not that I have to as my kids are teenagers now.
Just because you don't understand an argument doesn't make it ridiculous.
At what income can someone not afford childcare? I gave some suggestions. Just looking for an answer. Simple question. Should there be a specific figure it stops at or should it be tapered.
As for your income, you strongly come across as someone who is way off the £100k figure. Banging on about?!? 1 reference.
Not commenting on anything else but are you saying Feisty’s income level is indicated by the way they speak? I think that is a silly thing to say sorry!
Their comments ooze jealousy. Sorry. "
That is a different point though (not sure that comes across to me but perhaps subjective) but your example/reference was language.
Anyhow, that’s between you guys, I just found that an odd thing to highlight. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure.
What adjusted net income is:
"Adjusted net income is total taxable income before any Personal Allowances and less certain tax reliefs, for example:
trading losses
donations made to charities through Gift Aid - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount
pension contributions paid gross (before tax relief)
pension contributions where your pension provider has already given you tax relief at the basic rate - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount"
That doesn't sound like Net income to me...as in income after all taxes.
Maybe I haven't understood?
The point has been exaggerate but it's relevant. What's next? High earners have to pay their children's education? Healthcare?
I really don't think it's relevant being that's it's been exaggerated.
One parent earning over £100k adjusted net income does not need help to pay for childcare.
We haven't even taken into account the second parent (I appreciate some children don't have a second parent).
What about someone earning £90k ? Could argue they don't NEED help. How about £60k? That's still a good income.
Should we make them pay for dental care too? They don't need free dental care.
High earners pay more than enough share of tax. As I mentioned, someone earning £100k loses £35k in tax and NI. People in that salary bracket unsually have highly stressful, difficult or responsible jobs.
If you aren't earning that, ask yourself why. Probably because you aren't capable. Why are you wanting those people who are to then suck up everything? Especially when they are probably having kids that will be successful too and spend their lives paying large amounts of tax.
What a ridiculous argument. Its not 90k or 60k, its 100k.
Maybe we should just pluck figures out of the air for the sake of argument
I maintain they do not need Free Childcare, Free Childcare should be for those folk wanting to work but can't afford to pay for childcare.
Why are you banging on about my earnings and whether I'm capable or not? My earnings are just fine, I do well enough to be able to afford those things, not that I have to as my kids are teenagers now.
Just because you don't understand an argument doesn't make it ridiculous.
At what income can someone not afford childcare? I gave some suggestions. Just looking for an answer. Simple question. Should there be a specific figure it stops at or should it be tapered.
As for your income, you strongly come across as someone who is way off the £100k figure. Banging on about?!? 1 reference.
Not commenting on anything else but are you saying Feisty’s income level is indicated by the way they speak? I think that is a silly thing to say sorry!
Their comments ooze jealousy. Sorry. "
How does me saying I can afford not to get FREE childcare ooze jealousy?
You're argument is ridiculous because you're making up figures to try exaggerate your point, it doesn't work like that.
Should it be tapered? Maybe, but the point remains that anyone who earns over 100k doesn't need help to pay for childcare for 2 years max. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure.
What adjusted net income is:
"Adjusted net income is total taxable income before any Personal Allowances and less certain tax reliefs, for example:
trading losses
donations made to charities through Gift Aid - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount
pension contributions paid gross (before tax relief)
pension contributions where your pension provider has already given you tax relief at the basic rate - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount"
That doesn't sound like Net income to me...as in income after all taxes.
Maybe I haven't understood?
The point has been exaggerate but it's relevant. What's next? High earners have to pay their children's education? Healthcare?
I really don't think it's relevant being that's it's been exaggerated.
One parent earning over £100k adjusted net income does not need help to pay for childcare.
We haven't even taken into account the second parent (I appreciate some children don't have a second parent).
What about someone earning £90k ? Could argue they don't NEED help. How about £60k? That's still a good income.
Should we make them pay for dental care too? They don't need free dental care.
High earners pay more than enough share of tax. As I mentioned, someone earning £100k loses £35k in tax and NI. People in that salary bracket unsually have highly stressful, difficult or responsible jobs.
If you aren't earning that, ask yourself why. Probably because you aren't capable. Why are you wanting those people who are to then suck up everything? Especially when they are probably having kids that will be successful too and spend their lives paying large amounts of tax.
What a ridiculous argument. Its not 90k or 60k, its 100k.
Maybe we should just pluck figures out of the air for the sake of argument
I maintain they do not need Free Childcare, Free Childcare should be for those folk wanting to work but can't afford to pay for childcare.
Why are you banging on about my earnings and whether I'm capable or not? My earnings are just fine, I do well enough to be able to afford those things, not that I have to as my kids are teenagers now.
Just because you don't understand an argument doesn't make it ridiculous.
At what income can someone not afford childcare? I gave some suggestions. Just looking for an answer. Simple question. Should there be a specific figure it stops at or should it be tapered.
As for your income, you strongly come across as someone who is way off the £100k figure. Banging on about?!? 1 reference.
Not commenting on anything else but are you saying Feisty’s income level is indicated by the way they speak? I think that is a silly thing to say sorry!
Their comments ooze jealousy. Sorry.
How does me saying I can afford not to get FREE childcare ooze jealousy?
You're argument is ridiculous because you're making up figures to try exaggerate your point, it doesn't work like that.
Should it be tapered? Maybe, but the point remains that anyone who earns over 100k doesn't need help to pay for childcare for 2 years max."
Do they NEED help? No. Should they get it? Why not?! They contribute massively in taxes.
Free childcare encourages people to go into paid work or, if they do already work, increase their hours.
It doesn't matter if that person is on a low income or a higher income, working more hours is good for the economy. It increase tax receipts.
Encouraging people to use childcare means more childcare places which in turn means more jobs in the childcare sector. These typically are lower paid and help to move people off the benefits system into jobs and careers.
Remember, many mothers (including high earners) delay returning to work full time until their children start school. Give them a reason to return to work a couple of years earlier and they may just do that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure.
What adjusted net income is:
"Adjusted net income is total taxable income before any Personal Allowances and less certain tax reliefs, for example:
trading losses
donations made to charities through Gift Aid - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount
pension contributions paid gross (before tax relief)
pension contributions where your pension provider has already given you tax relief at the basic rate - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount"
That doesn't sound like Net income to me...as in income after all taxes.
Maybe I haven't understood?
The point has been exaggerate but it's relevant. What's next? High earners have to pay their children's education? Healthcare?
I really don't think it's relevant being that's it's been exaggerated.
One parent earning over £100k adjusted net income does not need help to pay for childcare.
We haven't even taken into account the second parent (I appreciate some children don't have a second parent).
What about someone earning £90k ? Could argue they don't NEED help. How about £60k? That's still a good income.
Should we make them pay for dental care too? They don't need free dental care.
High earners pay more than enough share of tax. As I mentioned, someone earning £100k loses £35k in tax and NI. People in that salary bracket unsually have highly stressful, difficult or responsible jobs.
If you aren't earning that, ask yourself why. Probably because you aren't capable. Why are you wanting those people who are to then suck up everything? Especially when they are probably having kids that will be successful too and spend their lives paying large amounts of tax.
What a ridiculous argument. Its not 90k or 60k, its 100k.
Maybe we should just pluck figures out of the air for the sake of argument
I maintain they do not need Free Childcare, Free Childcare should be for those folk wanting to work but can't afford to pay for childcare.
Why are you banging on about my earnings and whether I'm capable or not? My earnings are just fine, I do well enough to be able to afford those things, not that I have to as my kids are teenagers now.
Just because you don't understand an argument doesn't make it ridiculous.
At what income can someone not afford childcare? I gave some suggestions. Just looking for an answer. Simple question. Should there be a specific figure it stops at or should it be tapered.
As for your income, you strongly come across as someone who is way off the £100k figure. Banging on about?!? 1 reference.
Not commenting on anything else but are you saying Feisty’s income level is indicated by the way they speak? I think that is a silly thing to say sorry!
Their comments ooze jealousy. Sorry.
How does me saying I can afford not to get FREE childcare ooze jealousy?
You're argument is ridiculous because you're making up figures to try exaggerate your point, it doesn't work like that.
Should it be tapered? Maybe, but the point remains that anyone who earns over 100k doesn't need help to pay for childcare for 2 years max.
Do they NEED help? No. Should they get it? Why not?! They contribute massively in taxes.
Free childcare encourages people to go into paid work or, if they do already work, increase their hours.
It doesn't matter if that person is on a low income or a higher income, working more hours is good for the economy. It increase tax receipts.
Encouraging people to use childcare means more childcare places which in turn means more jobs in the childcare sector. These typically are lower paid and help to move people off the benefits system into jobs and careers.
Remember, many mothers (including high earners) delay returning to work full time until their children start school. Give them a reason to return to work a couple of years earlier and they may just do that. "
Working more hours increases tax receipts? Does it really? Possibly if those hours are payable. Most people earning over 100k would be salary based. Maybe overtime if payable.
Let's remember this is about people in work, we know they're in work because they're earning big figures. So I'm not quite sure where your point about mothers returning to work comes from. Those said mothers wouldn't be earning at all.
Do you honestly believe that if someone who was out of work was offered 100k to start a new job, they wouldn't because of childcare costs?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure.
What adjusted net income is:
"Adjusted net income is total taxable income before any Personal Allowances and less certain tax reliefs, for example:
trading losses
donations made to charities through Gift Aid - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount
pension contributions paid gross (before tax relief)
pension contributions where your pension provider has already given you tax relief at the basic rate - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount"
That doesn't sound like Net income to me...as in income after all taxes.
Maybe I haven't understood?
The point has been exaggerate but it's relevant. What's next? High earners have to pay their children's education? Healthcare?
I really don't think it's relevant being that's it's been exaggerated.
One parent earning over £100k adjusted net income does not need help to pay for childcare.
We haven't even taken into account the second parent (I appreciate some children don't have a second parent).
What about someone earning £90k ? Could argue they don't NEED help. How about £60k? That's still a good income.
Should we make them pay for dental care too? They don't need free dental care.
High earners pay more than enough share of tax. As I mentioned, someone earning £100k loses £35k in tax and NI. People in that salary bracket unsually have highly stressful, difficult or responsible jobs.
If you aren't earning that, ask yourself why. Probably because you aren't capable. Why are you wanting those people who are to then suck up everything? Especially when they are probably having kids that will be successful too and spend their lives paying large amounts of tax.
What a ridiculous argument. Its not 90k or 60k, its 100k.
Maybe we should just pluck figures out of the air for the sake of argument
I maintain they do not need Free Childcare, Free Childcare should be for those folk wanting to work but can't afford to pay for childcare.
Why are you banging on about my earnings and whether I'm capable or not? My earnings are just fine, I do well enough to be able to afford those things, not that I have to as my kids are teenagers now.
Just because you don't understand an argument doesn't make it ridiculous.
At what income can someone not afford childcare? I gave some suggestions. Just looking for an answer. Simple question. Should there be a specific figure it stops at or should it be tapered.
As for your income, you strongly come across as someone who is way off the £100k figure. Banging on about?!? 1 reference.
Not commenting on anything else but are you saying Feisty’s income level is indicated by the way they speak? I think that is a silly thing to say sorry!
Their comments ooze jealousy. Sorry.
How does me saying I can afford not to get FREE childcare ooze jealousy?
You're argument is ridiculous because you're making up figures to try exaggerate your point, it doesn't work like that.
Should it be tapered? Maybe, but the point remains that anyone who earns over 100k doesn't need help to pay for childcare for 2 years max.
Do they NEED help? No. Should they get it? Why not?! They contribute massively in taxes.
Free childcare encourages people to go into paid work or, if they do already work, increase their hours.
It doesn't matter if that person is on a low income or a higher income, working more hours is good for the economy. It increase tax receipts.
Encouraging people to use childcare means more childcare places which in turn means more jobs in the childcare sector. These typically are lower paid and help to move people off the benefits system into jobs and careers.
Remember, many mothers (including high earners) delay returning to work full time until their children start school. Give them a reason to return to work a couple of years earlier and they may just do that.
Working more hours increases tax receipts? Does it really? Possibly if those hours are payable. Most people earning over 100k would be salary based. Maybe overtime if payable.
Let's remember this is about people in work, we know they're in work because they're earning big figures. So I'm not quite sure where your point about mothers returning to work comes from. Those said mothers wouldn't be earning at all.
Do you honestly believe that if someone who was out of work was offered 100k to start a new job, they wouldn't because of childcare costs?
"
Returning to work after having children. Thought that was clear. Free childcare means they more likely to return to work full time earlier. Someone on a £100k salary working PT (£50k) more likely to return to FT earlier which means they pay more tax.
No idea your point in first paragraph.
As for you last paragraph. Talk about ridiculous...wtf? Where have I suggested that?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure.
What adjusted net income is:
"Adjusted net income is total taxable income before any Personal Allowances and less certain tax reliefs, for example:
trading losses
donations made to charities through Gift Aid - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount
pension contributions paid gross (before tax relief)
pension contributions where your pension provider has already given you tax relief at the basic rate - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount"
That doesn't sound like Net income to me...as in income after all taxes.
Maybe I haven't understood?
The point has been exaggerate but it's relevant. What's next? High earners have to pay their children's education? Healthcare?
I really don't think it's relevant being that's it's been exaggerated.
One parent earning over £100k adjusted net income does not need help to pay for childcare.
We haven't even taken into account the second parent (I appreciate some children don't have a second parent).
What about someone earning £90k ? Could argue they don't NEED help. How about £60k? That's still a good income.
Should we make them pay for dental care too? They don't need free dental care.
High earners pay more than enough share of tax. As I mentioned, someone earning £100k loses £35k in tax and NI. People in that salary bracket unsually have highly stressful, difficult or responsible jobs.
If you aren't earning that, ask yourself why. Probably because you aren't capable. Why are you wanting those people who are to then suck up everything? Especially when they are probably having kids that will be successful too and spend their lives paying large amounts of tax.
What a ridiculous argument. Its not 90k or 60k, its 100k.
Maybe we should just pluck figures out of the air for the sake of argument
I maintain they do not need Free Childcare, Free Childcare should be for those folk wanting to work but can't afford to pay for childcare.
Why are you banging on about my earnings and whether I'm capable or not? My earnings are just fine, I do well enough to be able to afford those things, not that I have to as my kids are teenagers now.
Just because you don't understand an argument doesn't make it ridiculous.
At what income can someone not afford childcare? I gave some suggestions. Just looking for an answer. Simple question. Should there be a specific figure it stops at or should it be tapered.
As for your income, you strongly come across as someone who is way off the £100k figure. Banging on about?!? 1 reference.
Not commenting on anything else but are you saying Feisty’s income level is indicated by the way they speak? I think that is a silly thing to say sorry!
Their comments ooze jealousy. Sorry.
How does me saying I can afford not to get FREE childcare ooze jealousy?
You're argument is ridiculous because you're making up figures to try exaggerate your point, it doesn't work like that.
Should it be tapered? Maybe, but the point remains that anyone who earns over 100k doesn't need help to pay for childcare for 2 years max.
Do they NEED help? No. Should they get it? Why not?! They contribute massively in taxes.
Free childcare encourages people to go into paid work or, if they do already work, increase their hours.
It doesn't matter if that person is on a low income or a higher income, working more hours is good for the economy. It increase tax receipts.
Encouraging people to use childcare means more childcare places which in turn means more jobs in the childcare sector. These typically are lower paid and help to move people off the benefits system into jobs and careers.
Remember, many mothers (including high earners) delay returning to work full time until their children start school. Give them a reason to return to work a couple of years earlier and they may just do that.
Working more hours increases tax receipts? Does it really? Possibly if those hours are payable. Most people earning over 100k would be salary based. Maybe overtime if payable.
Let's remember this is about people in work, we know they're in work because they're earning big figures. So I'm not quite sure where your point about mothers returning to work comes from. Those said mothers wouldn't be earning at all.
Do you honestly believe that if someone who was out of work was offered 100k to start a new job, they wouldn't because of childcare costs?
Returning to work after having children. Thought that was clear. Free childcare means they more likely to return to work full time earlier. Someone on a £100k salary working PT (£50k) more likely to return to FT earlier which means they pay more tax.
No idea your point in first paragraph.
As for you last paragraph. Talk about ridiculous...wtf? Where have I suggested that?
"
Going round in circles here.
I maintain someone who earns 100k doesn't need 'help' to pay for childcare.
Free Childcare should be for those who cannot otherwise afford it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure.
What adjusted net income is:
"Adjusted net income is total taxable income before any Personal Allowances and less certain tax reliefs, for example:
trading losses
donations made to charities through Gift Aid - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount
pension contributions paid gross (before tax relief)
pension contributions where your pension provider has already given you tax relief at the basic rate - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount"
That doesn't sound like Net income to me...as in income after all taxes.
Maybe I haven't understood?
The point has been exaggerate but it's relevant. What's next? High earners have to pay their children's education? Healthcare?
I really don't think it's relevant being that's it's been exaggerated.
One parent earning over £100k adjusted net income does not need help to pay for childcare.
We haven't even taken into account the second parent (I appreciate some children don't have a second parent).
What about someone earning £90k ? Could argue they don't NEED help. How about £60k? That's still a good income.
Should we make them pay for dental care too? They don't need free dental care.
High earners pay more than enough share of tax. As I mentioned, someone earning £100k loses £35k in tax and NI. People in that salary bracket unsually have highly stressful, difficult or responsible jobs.
If you aren't earning that, ask yourself why. Probably because you aren't capable. Why are you wanting those people who are to then suck up everything? Especially when they are probably having kids that will be successful too and spend their lives paying large amounts of tax.
What a ridiculous argument. Its not 90k or 60k, its 100k.
Maybe we should just pluck figures out of the air for the sake of argument
I maintain they do not need Free Childcare, Free Childcare should be for those folk wanting to work but can't afford to pay for childcare.
Why are you banging on about my earnings and whether I'm capable or not? My earnings are just fine, I do well enough to be able to afford those things, not that I have to as my kids are teenagers now.
Just because you don't understand an argument doesn't make it ridiculous.
At what income can someone not afford childcare? I gave some suggestions. Just looking for an answer. Simple question. Should there be a specific figure it stops at or should it be tapered.
As for your income, you strongly come across as someone who is way off the £100k figure. Banging on about?!? 1 reference.
Not commenting on anything else but are you saying Feisty’s income level is indicated by the way they speak? I think that is a silly thing to say sorry!
Their comments ooze jealousy. Sorry.
How does me saying I can afford not to get FREE childcare ooze jealousy?
You're argument is ridiculous because you're making up figures to try exaggerate your point, it doesn't work like that.
Should it be tapered? Maybe, but the point remains that anyone who earns over 100k doesn't need help to pay for childcare for 2 years max.
Do they NEED help? No. Should they get it? Why not?! They contribute massively in taxes.
Free childcare encourages people to go into paid work or, if they do already work, increase their hours.
It doesn't matter if that person is on a low income or a higher income, working more hours is good for the economy. It increase tax receipts.
Encouraging people to use childcare means more childcare places which in turn means more jobs in the childcare sector. These typically are lower paid and help to move people off the benefits system into jobs and careers.
Remember, many mothers (including high earners) delay returning to work full time until their children start school. Give them a reason to return to work a couple of years earlier and they may just do that.
Working more hours increases tax receipts? Does it really? Possibly if those hours are payable. Most people earning over 100k would be salary based. Maybe overtime if payable.
Let's remember this is about people in work, we know they're in work because they're earning big figures. So I'm not quite sure where your point about mothers returning to work comes from. Those said mothers wouldn't be earning at all.
Do you honestly believe that if someone who was out of work was offered 100k to start a new job, they wouldn't because of childcare costs?
Returning to work after having children. Thought that was clear. Free childcare means they more likely to return to work full time earlier. Someone on a £100k salary working PT (£50k) more likely to return to FT earlier which means they pay more tax.
No idea your point in first paragraph.
As for you last paragraph. Talk about ridiculous...wtf? Where have I suggested that?
Going round in circles here.
I maintain someone who earns 100k doesn't need 'help' to pay for childcare.
Free Childcare should be for those who cannot otherwise afford it."
I would argue that should be achieved through having a higher tax free allowance and more smaller tax bands rather than through any form of benefit - for the very reasons being debated here. Removing something from someone is punitive and arbitrary. Just don’t give it in the first place and instead make tax more straightforward and fair. That would also make tax less expensive to administer by the Govt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure.
What adjusted net income is:
"Adjusted net income is total taxable income before any Personal Allowances and less certain tax reliefs, for example:
trading losses
donations made to charities through Gift Aid - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount
pension contributions paid gross (before tax relief)
pension contributions where your pension provider has already given you tax relief at the basic rate - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount"
That doesn't sound like Net income to me...as in income after all taxes.
Maybe I haven't understood?
The point has been exaggerate but it's relevant. What's next? High earners have to pay their children's education? Healthcare?
I really don't think it's relevant being that's it's been exaggerated.
One parent earning over £100k adjusted net income does not need help to pay for childcare.
We haven't even taken into account the second parent (I appreciate some children don't have a second parent).
What about someone earning £90k ? Could argue they don't NEED help. How about £60k? That's still a good income.
Should we make them pay for dental care too? They don't need free dental care.
High earners pay more than enough share of tax. As I mentioned, someone earning £100k loses £35k in tax and NI. People in that salary bracket unsually have highly stressful, difficult or responsible jobs.
If you aren't earning that, ask yourself why. Probably because you aren't capable. Why are you wanting those people who are to then suck up everything? Especially when they are probably having kids that will be successful too and spend their lives paying large amounts of tax.
What a ridiculous argument. Its not 90k or 60k, its 100k.
Maybe we should just pluck figures out of the air for the sake of argument
I maintain they do not need Free Childcare, Free Childcare should be for those folk wanting to work but can't afford to pay for childcare.
Why are you banging on about my earnings and whether I'm capable or not? My earnings are just fine, I do well enough to be able to afford those things, not that I have to as my kids are teenagers now.
Just because you don't understand an argument doesn't make it ridiculous.
At what income can someone not afford childcare? I gave some suggestions. Just looking for an answer. Simple question. Should there be a specific figure it stops at or should it be tapered.
As for your income, you strongly come across as someone who is way off the £100k figure. Banging on about?!? 1 reference.
Not commenting on anything else but are you saying Feisty’s income level is indicated by the way they speak? I think that is a silly thing to say sorry!
Their comments ooze jealousy. Sorry.
How does me saying I can afford not to get FREE childcare ooze jealousy?
You're argument is ridiculous because you're making up figures to try exaggerate your point, it doesn't work like that.
Should it be tapered? Maybe, but the point remains that anyone who earns over 100k doesn't need help to pay for childcare for 2 years max.
Do they NEED help? No. Should they get it? Why not?! They contribute massively in taxes.
Free childcare encourages people to go into paid work or, if they do already work, increase their hours.
It doesn't matter if that person is on a low income or a higher income, working more hours is good for the economy. It increase tax receipts.
Encouraging people to use childcare means more childcare places which in turn means more jobs in the childcare sector. These typically are lower paid and help to move people off the benefits system into jobs and careers.
Remember, many mothers (including high earners) delay returning to work full time until their children start school. Give them a reason to return to work a couple of years earlier and they may just do that.
Working more hours increases tax receipts? Does it really? Possibly if those hours are payable. Most people earning over 100k would be salary based. Maybe overtime if payable.
Let's remember this is about people in work, we know they're in work because they're earning big figures. So I'm not quite sure where your point about mothers returning to work comes from. Those said mothers wouldn't be earning at all.
Do you honestly believe that if someone who was out of work was offered 100k to start a new job, they wouldn't because of childcare costs?
Returning to work after having children. Thought that was clear. Free childcare means they more likely to return to work full time earlier. Someone on a £100k salary working PT (£50k) more likely to return to FT earlier which means they pay more tax.
No idea your point in first paragraph.
As for you last paragraph. Talk about ridiculous...wtf? Where have I suggested that?
Going round in circles here.
I maintain someone who earns 100k doesn't need 'help' to pay for childcare.
Free Childcare should be for those who cannot otherwise afford it.
I would argue that should be achieved through having a higher tax free allowance and more smaller tax bands rather than through any form of benefit - for the very reasons being debated here. Removing something from someone is punitive and arbitrary. Just don’t give it in the first place and instead make tax more straightforward and fair. That would also make tax less expensive to administer by the Govt."
I don't disagree that a higher tax free allowance and simpler tax reforms would be very welcome.
Not sure that would necessarily help someone on 20k/year pay for childcare though. It's obviously not that straightforward. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure.
What adjusted net income is:
"Adjusted net income is total taxable income before any Personal Allowances and less certain tax reliefs, for example:
trading losses
donations made to charities through Gift Aid - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount
pension contributions paid gross (before tax relief)
pension contributions where your pension provider has already given you tax relief at the basic rate - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount"
That doesn't sound like Net income to me...as in income after all taxes.
Maybe I haven't understood?
The point has been exaggerate but it's relevant. What's next? High earners have to pay their children's education? Healthcare?
I really don't think it's relevant being that's it's been exaggerated.
One parent earning over £100k adjusted net income does not need help to pay for childcare.
We haven't even taken into account the second parent (I appreciate some children don't have a second parent).
What about someone earning £90k ? Could argue they don't NEED help. How about £60k? That's still a good income.
Should we make them pay for dental care too? They don't need free dental care.
High earners pay more than enough share of tax. As I mentioned, someone earning £100k loses £35k in tax and NI. People in that salary bracket unsually have highly stressful, difficult or responsible jobs.
If you aren't earning that, ask yourself why. Probably because you aren't capable. Why are you wanting those people who are to then suck up everything? Especially when they are probably having kids that will be successful too and spend their lives paying large amounts of tax.
What a ridiculous argument. Its not 90k or 60k, its 100k.
Maybe we should just pluck figures out of the air for the sake of argument
I maintain they do not need Free Childcare, Free Childcare should be for those folk wanting to work but can't afford to pay for childcare.
Why are you banging on about my earnings and whether I'm capable or not? My earnings are just fine, I do well enough to be able to afford those things, not that I have to as my kids are teenagers now.
Just because you don't understand an argument doesn't make it ridiculous.
At what income can someone not afford childcare? I gave some suggestions. Just looking for an answer. Simple question. Should there be a specific figure it stops at or should it be tapered.
As for your income, you strongly come across as someone who is way off the £100k figure. Banging on about?!? 1 reference.
Not commenting on anything else but are you saying Feisty’s income level is indicated by the way they speak? I think that is a silly thing to say sorry!
Their comments ooze jealousy. Sorry.
How does me saying I can afford not to get FREE childcare ooze jealousy?
You're argument is ridiculous because you're making up figures to try exaggerate your point, it doesn't work like that.
Should it be tapered? Maybe, but the point remains that anyone who earns over 100k doesn't need help to pay for childcare for 2 years max.
Do they NEED help? No. Should they get it? Why not?! They contribute massively in taxes.
Free childcare encourages people to go into paid work or, if they do already work, increase their hours.
It doesn't matter if that person is on a low income or a higher income, working more hours is good for the economy. It increase tax receipts.
Encouraging people to use childcare means more childcare places which in turn means more jobs in the childcare sector. These typically are lower paid and help to move people off the benefits system into jobs and careers.
Remember, many mothers (including high earners) delay returning to work full time until their children start school. Give them a reason to return to work a couple of years earlier and they may just do that.
Working more hours increases tax receipts? Does it really? Possibly if those hours are payable. Most people earning over 100k would be salary based. Maybe overtime if payable.
Let's remember this is about people in work, we know they're in work because they're earning big figures. So I'm not quite sure where your point about mothers returning to work comes from. Those said mothers wouldn't be earning at all.
Do you honestly believe that if someone who was out of work was offered 100k to start a new job, they wouldn't because of childcare costs?
Returning to work after having children. Thought that was clear. Free childcare means they more likely to return to work full time earlier. Someone on a £100k salary working PT (£50k) more likely to return to FT earlier which means they pay more tax.
No idea your point in first paragraph.
As for you last paragraph. Talk about ridiculous...wtf? Where have I suggested that?
Going round in circles here.
I maintain someone who earns 100k doesn't need 'help' to pay for childcare.
Free Childcare should be for those who cannot otherwise afford it."
You seem to have no response to my thoughts on how providing free childcare to all benefits the economy.
And I maintain that free childcare should be provided to all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure.
What adjusted net income is:
"Adjusted net income is total taxable income before any Personal Allowances and less certain tax reliefs, for example:
trading losses
donations made to charities through Gift Aid - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount
pension contributions paid gross (before tax relief)
pension contributions where your pension provider has already given you tax relief at the basic rate - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount"
That doesn't sound like Net income to me...as in income after all taxes.
Maybe I haven't understood?
The point has been exaggerate but it's relevant. What's next? High earners have to pay their children's education? Healthcare?
I really don't think it's relevant being that's it's been exaggerated.
One parent earning over £100k adjusted net income does not need help to pay for childcare.
We haven't even taken into account the second parent (I appreciate some children don't have a second parent).
What about someone earning £90k ? Could argue they don't NEED help. How about £60k? That's still a good income.
Should we make them pay for dental care too? They don't need free dental care.
High earners pay more than enough share of tax. As I mentioned, someone earning £100k loses £35k in tax and NI. People in that salary bracket unsually have highly stressful, difficult or responsible jobs.
If you aren't earning that, ask yourself why. Probably because you aren't capable. Why are you wanting those people who are to then suck up everything? Especially when they are probably having kids that will be successful too and spend their lives paying large amounts of tax.
What a ridiculous argument. Its not 90k or 60k, its 100k.
Maybe we should just pluck figures out of the air for the sake of argument
I maintain they do not need Free Childcare, Free Childcare should be for those folk wanting to work but can't afford to pay for childcare.
Why are you banging on about my earnings and whether I'm capable or not? My earnings are just fine, I do well enough to be able to afford those things, not that I have to as my kids are teenagers now.
Just because you don't understand an argument doesn't make it ridiculous.
At what income can someone not afford childcare? I gave some suggestions. Just looking for an answer. Simple question. Should there be a specific figure it stops at or should it be tapered.
As for your income, you strongly come across as someone who is way off the £100k figure. Banging on about?!? 1 reference.
Not commenting on anything else but are you saying Feisty’s income level is indicated by the way they speak? I think that is a silly thing to say sorry!
Their comments ooze jealousy. Sorry.
How does me saying I can afford not to get FREE childcare ooze jealousy?
You're argument is ridiculous because you're making up figures to try exaggerate your point, it doesn't work like that.
Should it be tapered? Maybe, but the point remains that anyone who earns over 100k doesn't need help to pay for childcare for 2 years max.
Do they NEED help? No. Should they get it? Why not?! They contribute massively in taxes.
Free childcare encourages people to go into paid work or, if they do already work, increase their hours.
It doesn't matter if that person is on a low income or a higher income, working more hours is good for the economy. It increase tax receipts.
Encouraging people to use childcare means more childcare places which in turn means more jobs in the childcare sector. These typically are lower paid and help to move people off the benefits system into jobs and careers.
Remember, many mothers (including high earners) delay returning to work full time until their children start school. Give them a reason to return to work a couple of years earlier and they may just do that.
Working more hours increases tax receipts? Does it really? Possibly if those hours are payable. Most people earning over 100k would be salary based. Maybe overtime if payable.
Let's remember this is about people in work, we know they're in work because they're earning big figures. So I'm not quite sure where your point about mothers returning to work comes from. Those said mothers wouldn't be earning at all.
Do you honestly believe that if someone who was out of work was offered 100k to start a new job, they wouldn't because of childcare costs?
Returning to work after having children. Thought that was clear. Free childcare means they more likely to return to work full time earlier. Someone on a £100k salary working PT (£50k) more likely to return to FT earlier which means they pay more tax.
No idea your point in first paragraph.
As for you last paragraph. Talk about ridiculous...wtf? Where have I suggested that?
Going round in circles here.
I maintain someone who earns 100k doesn't need 'help' to pay for childcare.
Free Childcare should be for those who cannot otherwise afford it.
You seem to have no response to my thoughts on how providing free childcare to all benefits the economy.
And I maintain that free childcare should be provided to all."
I don't have thoughts because you keep moving the goalposts. It started at 100k, then 60k, 90k and now 50k part timer.
And that's the end of that for me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The figure is £100k adjusted net income.
No one needs free childcare if they are earning that much. Free childcare should be for those who want to work but can't afford to.
Not sure you understand. If you have a 3 year old they are entitled to x hours of childcare and this can be in a state school nursery. Are you saying that a child shouldn't be allowed to attend a state nursery if their parents have money?
Someone earning £100k has a net wage of 65k. If they have 3 kids in FT childcare that could be costing £30k. Do you think that high earners should be left with little?
What don't I understand?
It's 100k adjusted net. Not £100k gross. And that's for 1 parent.
The children would still be entitled to attend a nursery but does it need to be free? I don't believe it does.
How many people are likely to have 3 children all of the 3-4 age bracket? Yes it's possible but the only reason they use '3 children' is to exaggerate the figure.
What adjusted net income is:
"Adjusted net income is total taxable income before any Personal Allowances and less certain tax reliefs, for example:
trading losses
donations made to charities through Gift Aid - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount
pension contributions paid gross (before tax relief)
pension contributions where your pension provider has already given you tax relief at the basic rate - take off the ‘grossed-up’ amount"
That doesn't sound like Net income to me...as in income after all taxes.
Maybe I haven't understood?
The point has been exaggerate but it's relevant. What's next? High earners have to pay their children's education? Healthcare?
I really don't think it's relevant being that's it's been exaggerated.
One parent earning over £100k adjusted net income does not need help to pay for childcare.
We haven't even taken into account the second parent (I appreciate some children don't have a second parent).
What about someone earning £90k ? Could argue they don't NEED help. How about £60k? That's still a good income.
Should we make them pay for dental care too? They don't need free dental care.
High earners pay more than enough share of tax. As I mentioned, someone earning £100k loses £35k in tax and NI. People in that salary bracket unsually have highly stressful, difficult or responsible jobs.
If you aren't earning that, ask yourself why. Probably because you aren't capable. Why are you wanting those people who are to then suck up everything? Especially when they are probably having kids that will be successful too and spend their lives paying large amounts of tax.
What a ridiculous argument. Its not 90k or 60k, its 100k.
Maybe we should just pluck figures out of the air for the sake of argument
I maintain they do not need Free Childcare, Free Childcare should be for those folk wanting to work but can't afford to pay for childcare.
Why are you banging on about my earnings and whether I'm capable or not? My earnings are just fine, I do well enough to be able to afford those things, not that I have to as my kids are teenagers now.
Just because you don't understand an argument doesn't make it ridiculous.
At what income can someone not afford childcare? I gave some suggestions. Just looking for an answer. Simple question. Should there be a specific figure it stops at or should it be tapered.
As for your income, you strongly come across as someone who is way off the £100k figure. Banging on about?!? 1 reference.
Not commenting on anything else but are you saying Feisty’s income level is indicated by the way they speak? I think that is a silly thing to say sorry!
Their comments ooze jealousy. Sorry.
How does me saying I can afford not to get FREE childcare ooze jealousy?
You're argument is ridiculous because you're making up figures to try exaggerate your point, it doesn't work like that.
Should it be tapered? Maybe, but the point remains that anyone who earns over 100k doesn't need help to pay for childcare for 2 years max.
Do they NEED help? No. Should they get it? Why not?! They contribute massively in taxes.
Free childcare encourages people to go into paid work or, if they do already work, increase their hours.
It doesn't matter if that person is on a low income or a higher income, working more hours is good for the economy. It increase tax receipts.
Encouraging people to use childcare means more childcare places which in turn means more jobs in the childcare sector. These typically are lower paid and help to move people off the benefits system into jobs and careers.
Remember, many mothers (including high earners) delay returning to work full time until their children start school. Give them a reason to return to work a couple of years earlier and they may just do that.
Working more hours increases tax receipts? Does it really? Possibly if those hours are payable. Most people earning over 100k would be salary based. Maybe overtime if payable.
Let's remember this is about people in work, we know they're in work because they're earning big figures. So I'm not quite sure where your point about mothers returning to work comes from. Those said mothers wouldn't be earning at all.
Do you honestly believe that if someone who was out of work was offered 100k to start a new job, they wouldn't because of childcare costs?
Returning to work after having children. Thought that was clear. Free childcare means they more likely to return to work full time earlier. Someone on a £100k salary working PT (£50k) more likely to return to FT earlier which means they pay more tax.
No idea your point in first paragraph.
As for you last paragraph. Talk about ridiculous...wtf? Where have I suggested that?
Going round in circles here.
I maintain someone who earns 100k doesn't need 'help' to pay for childcare.
Free Childcare should be for those who cannot otherwise afford it.
You seem to have no response to my thoughts on how providing free childcare to all benefits the economy.
And I maintain that free childcare should be provided to all.
I don't have thoughts because you keep moving the goalposts. It started at 100k, then 60k, 90k and now 50k part timer.
And that's the end of that for me."
I asked you if someone who earned 60k needed help with childcare..90k.... Trying to ascertain YOUR cut off point...
Then I tried to explain the importance to the economy of getting as many people working / increasing their hours.
You didn't seem to want to share an opinion on that. The 50k part time was part of the point I then made.
If you think I am moving goalposts you clearly have failed to understand my points. You certainly failed to comment and just reiterated "someone earning £100k doesn't need free childcare"...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
