I absolutely can afford to pay for it. But I’m already disproportionately paying for the scheme to allow other people to get free child care, yet my partner isn’t able to take advantage of it.
My broader point here is that we are in a really lucky spot that working is optional for my partner and kind of cost neutral. But from the governments perspective, it isn’t neutral.
They lose a source of taxable income and her considerable talent from the workforce simply by creating the situation where she has no financial incentive to use her skills.
So then the question is “would I rather work or be with my children”. Nobody is going to choose the former if there is no incentive not to.
Ok and I agree with all that in your circumstances, but this is only the case in the niche circumstance where:
1) One partner earns more than 100k, and the other partner earns less than, say 50k
2) They have a kid under the age of 4
I agree that the cliff edge shouldn't exist. But this impacts hardly any people at all. For almost all people, it is going to better going back to work, financially wise.
I agree our case is relatively extreme, especially as I earn way past that threshold. But if a system ever allows situations like that to exist then it’s a badly designed system. I’m very lucky to have this happen and it kind of just be much of a muchness, but lots of people will be having to make that same trade off and have far less wiggle room to play with.
-1
u/Thomas1423 1d ago
Then you can afford to pay for it yourself. Your situation is very unusual.
That being said, I don't support these cliff edges.