Women miss out on NI allowance

[Ravenheart1]

Never done this before, but am incensed.....

In 2014 the Chancellor announced that every employer (business and charity) would receive 2000 GBP NI allowance to help create jobs. This was extended this year to those who care for the elderly or disabled or who cannot look after their own children due to disability. The only group who cannot benefit from this allowance is employers of nannies (and gardeners or housekeepers for domestic purposes). Basically, working women.
But employing a nanny is not the same as employing somebody to tend to your herbaceous borders on your country estate. Most women employ a nanny to return to work - and do so because they have a long working pattern or commute or have and several children or want to do a nanny-share. Logistically nannies are often the only route by which women can get decent childcare and return to work.. And this creates 2 jobs- it allows a woman to return to work and creates a new nanny job- thus helping the economy.

The mother (and it is generally the mother) must pay the nanny NI, (both employee and employer) and income tax out of her own net income (or shared if she has a willing partner).
If you employ a nanny you have exactly the same legal obligations as any other employer but the government refuses to give you the NI allowance that every other employer receives in the UK. Why?
This policy is discriminatory since 99% of nannies are female and over 75% of employers of nannies are women.
This policy penalises women in my view.
No decent reasons have been put forward by HMRC for this exclusion.

I'd be keen to hear Mumsnet views as am considering starting a petition.

[QforCucumber]

Hmm, most women employ nannies? That's a tad far fetched, I know no one who employs a nanny, instead childminders and nursery's are they way people head.

[GreenBoatRedBoat]

I don't see how you can possibly come to this from a women only point of view. If I went back to work (I'm a sahm) and chose to use a nanny then the money would be coming from a joint account and would be a joint cost. I agree that if you are employing a nanny (whichever sex you are) it seems unfair that you have to pay NI when other employers do not. It's not a sex thing IMO.

[Ravenheart1]

In UK society, statistics show that women in general bear responsibility for childcare. This argument is frequently used in discrimination claims - ie when showing how a policy which seems neutral actually ends up having a detrimental effect on a particular group and is indirectly discriminatory. So for example, an employer's policy that allows only full time employees ends up creating a disadvantage for female applicants as women often juggle parenting responsibilities. This argument is successfully used in the employment law area.

I have spoken to a major nanny payroll provider of 3,500 nannies on their books, only 5 are men. And 80% of the named employers are women, the mothers. So it seems a fair point to make that women are likely to be more affected by this than men. But I agree that parents often share costs so am happy to broaden this argument out to both parents.

Lots of parents do use nannies. Seems there is a perception that this option is for the rich? But the cost of nursery/ childminder can very high if you have more than one child, close in age, or twins, or with special needs, and need pick ups etc of other child. And lots of people have a shared nanny. Or need to be at work at 8am and face long journeys on public transport.

If big business gets the relief, I don't see why individual parents who employ a nanny don't. I think 2,000 quid could make a big difference to working parents' lives and help boost the economy too.

[overthemill]

OP is saying that just like indirect discrimination in other areas, this rule indirectly discriminates against women. I bet that most nannies' employers are the mothers in a couple, not the dad. She's not saying most women employ nannies, she's saying of those who employ nannies, most will be female.

[WorriedMutha]

I think it is a flimsy distinction. It is a household expense incurred by the family just like rent or a mortgage. The groups you mention in your opening who do receive the allowance may also be disproportionately women. I just don't see this as a discrimination issue.

[overthemill]

It may be a household expense - I see it as such - but the reality is that one person is the employer of the nanny. And 9/10 that will be the woman. Therefore it is indirect discrimination. Like saying that there is a new rule that employees cannot take time off in school holidays - it will mainly impact on women who bear the brunt of childcare most of the time. Or an employer saying that all employees have to work full time, more women than men have caring responsibilities. So where an employer says Heads of departments have to be full time and cannot job share, that discriminates indirectly.