Mumsnet Talk

surely not?

what planet is he on??

Nice to know he cares- not.

I know I really thought it must be April Fools day when I saw the papers yesterday but no he means it folks. This country is a f up I can't see any way back while they are in charge.

How about tax breaks for childcare. Or disabled people who have to pay for their own help, or families with disabled children who have to pay for care/equipment?
Or travel costs to work.
you know, actual useful needed stuff.

Is there a link? This seems strange.

Unless "nannies" means childcare generally?

Well, it works here in France - any domestic help (nanny, cleaner, gardener) has to be declared as a salaried employee (i.e. no cash in hand jobs, like in the UK), which means that as the employer you pay NI contributions etc, but get a 50% tax deduction in return.

In exchange, it means that the employee is now no longer officially unemployed, has sick/maternity cover, pension contributions etc.

Win/win, IMO!

Or raise the minimum wage so people don't have to do cash in hand work to feed their families.

I believe Camerons proposals specifically exclude using to pay for fulltime childcare.

I think it has been over-reported, it doesn't sound like he meant it as a serious policy but more to compliment others present at this meeting thingy.

If he wants to change our system to one like sweden it is more than a couple of tax breaks, they run everything quite differently.

I think it's a fantastic idea and a good way of increasing revenues by wiping out the "cash in hand" element of household help.

increasing revenues my arse, how much cash in hand cleaning or babysitting jobs are there?

get the Phillip Green tax dodgers to pay their tax and that would bring in the same amount as a trillion cleaners would pay in tax

There are plenty of people who work in domestic settings who do that because they are under the radar and can continue to claim maximum benefits while earning £10 ph tax free on top of that.

While you bitch about Philip Green and Vodaphone consider how much money their companies bring in to the economy.

I would far rather pay for my cleaner/ gardener without a tax break and focus spending on the most vulnerable in society.

Well if you got your tax break you could do what you wanted with the cash, you could help your family, save for your future or donate to your chosen charities.

At the moment it all gets suckered into HMRC and Westminster so you could be contributing to all sorts of schemes that you may disapprove of or see no no value to.

This way, you get to choose how your money is spent, surely you know better than the government how to spend your own money?

If the money is there , this may be a good idea. But if money is so limited that we are making cuts that affect children, the elderly and disabled, why is there money for this?The priorities for this government again seem to be to help those that have, whilst hurting those that don't.

I want a government that recognises that that we need to make the vulnerable a priority, not a government that relies on the rich to throw a few pennies at the poor to make themselves feel good.

If you are so busy that you are in need of domestic help then you should pay for it yourself. It is not a necessity like food heating etc it is just one more way the richer in society are being supported in their choices and those without have no choices at all! This is to get figures for those in work down by keeping track of low earners and making life easier for those who lets face it already have it quite easy. If you aren't paid enough to have a cleaner then you will have to do it yourself like the bloody rest of us.

A family quite often needs to "buy in" help. Whether it be childcare, housekeeping, gardening or personal care. Why shouldn't that be addressed through the tax system? After all you are employing someone, just not through the medium of a company.

With a huge ageing population and fewer sahm parents these are vital services and there are people who would be better at them and find them more fulfilling to do than be NMW slaves for a multi national corporation.

Hours and duties are more likely to be reciprocally flexible which is certainly more attractive to lots of people than being chained to rigid working practices and hours.

It could work very well.

Childcare is speficially excluded from his comments and that is the thing that would really make a difference.

I still dont see why buying in help should gain you a tax break. Unless its for a vital service like personal care because you are incapable. I'd love a cleaner/gardener/servants but I wouldnt expect any tax help or anyone to subsidise what are frankly luxuries.
Childcare however, for working parents, isnt a luxury.

I can see an argument for childcare, we have had to have a huge gap between our children so we could afford childcare. But should I be able to offset my cleaner? I don't think that should be a priority. I have nothing against people who have cleaners or gardeners, I have both, but they are a luxury. I think if people are working so hard that they cannot clean their house or mow the lawn we need to look at the hours we are working. Perhaps if we all agreed not to work instant hours we could create new jobs which woud help the economy.

If it encourages those with enough money to pay another person that would otherwise have no work, I think it has potential
A cleaner working 20 plus hours a week cash in hand and not declaring it is wrong IMO
Agree French system is better

Affordable childcare for all income levels, that's what families really need. It would incentivise work amongst single parents whose only option would be a minimum wage job. It would also encourage more stay at home parents with prospects of a fairly decent wage to go out and work and therefore be paying tax. Win win. Shame they actually cutting childcare help from tax credits.

I think it's a brilliant idea, as a tax practitioner

See, the majority of domestic employees are paid cash in hand. So by giving the employers a tax break, it costs the government virtually nothing. Nada. However, what happens is that the employees are traceable and taxable, and the government raises money by getting tax it otherwise would not have got.

Unfortunately, although it would be nice to extend this to childcare, this would actually cost the government big time, because nannies mostly declare tax, and so do nurseries and childminders.

So I can see the tax logic in this.

what KalSkirata said
Dscam really is a idiot

What's wrong with having a tax break that helps those who work with the support structures they need to do that work? I work 11 hour days 5 days a week, by choice and for a very good salary. Yes I can afford my support (childcare and cleaner), but they enable me to work and pay in a large chunk of tax and NI for me and for my nanny, and my cleaner pays her own tax and NI. I'd happily sacrifice child benefit - it should be means tested - and I don't begrudge paying tax (if well spent) but if I dropped out of the money earning economy there would be 2 people out of work and one earning less, which is ultimately not good for anyone. Why shouldn't that be recognised by the state?