A family with one parent earning £101,000 can lose access to working-parent childcare support, while a couple earning £99,000 each can remain eligible. That is almost twice the combined income, with help towards childcare still potentially available. The comparison assumes those figures are adjusted net income and that the families meet the other eligibility conditions, but it illustrates a problem with how the threshold works: the number of adults earning the money can make a substantial difference to the support a family receives.

A recent Financial Times column by Claer Barrett, “High earners are right to wail about childcare costs”, published on 9 October, examines the debate about the £100,000 limit. For Frolo, there is a particular question worth bringing into that discussion. If childcare support is intended to help parents work, how fairly does the system account for a parent who is earning the household income and managing the parenting responsibilities alone?

How does the childcare income threshold work?

Under the current rules for working-parent funded childcare in England, a parent is ineligible if their own or their partner’s expected adjusted net income exceeds £100,000 in the current tax year. Eligible parents can access 30 funded hours a week for 38 weeks a year for children aged nine months to four years. The upper income test applies to each adult individually, rather than to their combined household income.

Tax-Free Childcare has its own eligibility rules, including the same £100,000 upper limit per parent. Adjusted net income is a tax measure, so it should not simply be read as headline salary. Losing the working-parent entitlement also does not mean every form of childcare support disappears: England’s universal 15-hour entitlement for three- and four-year-olds is separate. Childcare arrangements differ across the UK, so the funded-hours discussion here relates specifically to England.

The same earnings limit can produce very different outcomes

Our opening comparison is an illustration of those rules, rather than a claim that every family receives the same package of support. But it raises a reasonable fairness question. If a couple can qualify with much higher combined income than a single parent, what exactly is the earnings limit measuring? It places a ceiling on individual income without necessarily identifying which household has more money available to meet its children’s needs.

This does not mean two-parent families have easy lives, or that every single parent has the same financial circumstances. Housing costs, children’s needs, maintenance arrangements and access to family help all vary. At Frolo, we would like policy to make room for that complexity rather than treating one individual earnings figure as a complete picture of a family’s resources. A single parent’s income has to be understood in the context of the household it supports.

A promotion needs to make sense for the whole family

There is also a practical question about progression at work. A parent considering a promotion needs to know what it will mean once childcare, commuting and working hours are taken into account. A sharp withdrawal of support can complicate a decision that might otherwise feel like a straightforward achievement. For a single parent, there may also be nobody at home who can rearrange their own hours to accommodate the new role.

We should want parents to be able to develop their careers without having to approach every opportunity as a potentially destabilising change to the family budget. That matters beyond the immediate monthly calculation. A job can offer professional satisfaction, future opportunities and greater security, as well as income. A childcare system that helps parents take those steps needs to consider the transition between earnings levels, including how abruptly support is withdrawn.

Fairness for single parents matters at every income level

For someone deciding whether they can afford the supermarket shop, a debate about earnings above £100,000 may understandably feel remote. That is a high income, and we should be clear about that. The families facing the greatest hardship need meaningful help. There is no reason for a discussion about the childcare cliff edge to push their circumstances out of view, or to imply that the biggest problem in childcare is the position of higher earners.

Equally, identifying an inconsistency in the treatment of single-parent households does not require us to rank parents’ difficulties against each other. We can question this threshold while also asking whether childcare is affordable, available and compatible with work for parents on much lower incomes. Any reform should be assessed across the system, including who benefits, how it is funded and whether it creates new disadvantages elsewhere. Simply changing the label to household income would not answer every question.

What would a fairer childcare system recognise?

The Conservatives proposed removing the £100,000 limit earlier this month. That remains a proposal, rather than a change to current eligibility. For Frolo, the wider test for reform is whether childcare support reflects how families actually live. That means considering single-parent households from the start, alongside the practical relationship between childcare, working hours and career progression.

Childcare is part of the infrastructure that makes earning a living possible. A parent cannot be in a workplace and collecting a child at the same time, however capable or committed they are. We would like a system in which single parents can understand the help available, plan ahead and pursue opportunities with greater confidence. The current debate offers a chance to ask whether the rules recognise their circumstances fairly.

Has the cost of childcare affected your working hours, a promotion or a decision to change jobs? Share your experience in the Frolo community. The numbers explain how a threshold operates; parents’ experiences show what it means when you are trying to build a working life around your family.

‍