Spring Budget 2023
- Thread starter doodah
- Start date
Because they cost a fortune to run.
There is a legal limit on the ratio of staff / children + building rates, costs, insurances, equipment, cost of employment yadda yadda. That ratio equates to less than the cost of employment in most cases.
Essentially the gov't funded free places do not cover basic costs of operating in most cases. So the more 'free' hours nursaries take on the more money they lose as they have to increase staffing accordingly.
For this reason hours outside of the free gov't funding hours have to be billed at higher in a bid to recoup some of the gap between the funding and the actual cost.
However 90%+ of parents take only the free hours and not 1 hour more, so therefore many nursaries are operating at an effective operating loss
My wife has just been made redundant in November from a nursary that closed for this exact reason.
Lol.
Labour to reverse 'tax cut for the rich' pension reform if it wins the next election
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced he will also increase the pensions annual tax-free allowance under measures designed to increase the workforce by removing disincentives to being employed for longer. But Labour says it only benefits a wealthy few and will push for a vote on Tuesday.news.sky.com
Standard Labour really. Reeves was all for slagging this decision off but couldn't say whether Labour supported a rise in alcohol duty. Pretty weak of them really. The amount of people close to the LTA this year will be retiring in their droves now. If Labour really cared about low to middle earners they'd be going bananas over the freezing or reduction in thresholds. That's what is really hurting the vast majority of people. Not the £1bn removal of the LTA which lets face it, is pocket change to the government coffers.
Whilst I'm not entirely in agreement of removing the LTA, it should have at least been raised. Hopefully Labour won't reverse the increase in the annual allowance as well. Only rich people have large pensions is rubbish. The amount of public sector workers on relatively modest incomes will have calculated pension pots already very close to what was the current LTA. Considering inflation over the next 15/20 years a £1m pension pot will probably see you comfortable in retirement but won't see you receiving a huge annual income.
Last edited:
Love his content - I used to be one of his clients then he decided to commit full time to youtube and packed his job in. So great to see him doing well with it
Universal benefits should be universal.
Having 50k/100k hard cut offs for everything is just boneheadedly stupid.
It is literally only there for ‘yeh but the rich’ reasons rather than actual sensible policy making.
It’s just adds a huge amount of needless complexity to the tax and benefits system (see child benefit and personal allowance removal) that doesn’t need to be there.
If you want to raise more money from people earning £100k or more then just add a £100k tax band and set it at the level you need to raise the cash and leave all the benefits as universal!!!
You then also only have one threshold to maintain instead of 6 which are all subject to fiscal drag, catching more and more people…
/rant.
Edit: no I don’t earn anything close to £100k, you don’t need to be ‘rich’ to call out stupid systems which should be universal.
Having 50k/100k hard cut offs for everything is just boneheadedly stupid.
It is literally only there for ‘yeh but the rich’ reasons rather than actual sensible policy making.
It’s just adds a huge amount of needless complexity to the tax and benefits system (see child benefit and personal allowance removal) that doesn’t need to be there.
If you want to raise more money from people earning £100k or more then just add a £100k tax band and set it at the level you need to raise the cash and leave all the benefits as universal!!!
You then also only have one threshold to maintain instead of 6 which are all subject to fiscal drag, catching more and more people…
/rant.
Edit: no I don’t earn anything close to £100k, you don’t need to be ‘rich’ to call out stupid systems which should be universal.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,723
- Location
- Welling, London
What annoys me is that if you look into their comments, Labour want to scrap this for everyone except doctors.
Now while I appreciate the importance of doctors, it seems unfair to discriminate based on your job. It’s like others are being punished for their career choices.
It's a small dilapidated 3 bed terraced shed in a northern mill town. Been here 5 years (5 years too long!), if we left today it would be back up for £550-600 looking at what's going locally today. It was necessary at first, now we want to buy but the market is slow & expensive for our budget so just we're putting up with it while we can. We do feel blessed to not sweat the rising costs going on, we're debt free and relatively frugal so while these childcare changes would be great, we can live without, they're not really aimed at us. We do want to find a nice 3/4 bed semi with a garden to enjoy though, would improve life so much.
No I didn't - you're the one making incorrect definitive statements - I said 'unlikely to want' to use cheap nurseries.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
You still made assumptions.
Why don't these nurseries get a bit of better business acumen though? I mean it isn't a stretch to charge a top-up.
With a 4 to 1 ratio as well that is still £17.76 an hour - and the staff are often young/NMW for their age group...?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
Have you forgotten when I told you yesterday direct top ups are prohibited?
You have supernumerary staff, then depending on the size of the nursery you have managers, admin, cleaners etc. Plus obviously all the other normal overheads.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,283
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
It does suck. Myself and the missus have been working opposite shifts for the past 3 years and our son is now 3. We only see each other on Holidays basically so 20 odd times a year and a few hours in the evening. Our eldest will be 17 in 18 month and when she can drive that will help no end as we can pay her to take and pick up our son from school and I can go back to full time Mon-Fri.
I am not paying for childcare as there is always someone at home but I sacrifice earning potential of around 15 grand P.A because I only work 3.5 days a week and sending him to Nursery so I could work full time would just be working for free.
We are financially stable however and put away every month but it comes at a sacrifice at the spouse level. Maybe that is why we have lasted so long as we never get at each others throats!
How does a high earner think? Is there a change once they hit £100k?
Oh is Hunt a 'leftie' now? Pretty sure you're just trolling again.
Because most parents placing their kids in care either cant afford to pay anything more or dont want to. As I said, the vast majority of kids are only there because of the free hours.
Without them, they wouldn't be there and the parents wouldnt be at work.
Also do you know how much it costs to employ? Its much more than what staff are paid. Min wage employment costs before operating costs are upwards of £15 per hour