tell me I've dreamt this - DC proposing to give tax breaks to the middle classes (who can already afford this) to help them pay for their cleaners/nannies/gardeners????

claig, I agree that our taxes needn't help us all personally, but the examples you give fail to make your point. We subsidise the arts because they are deemed to improve the cultural life of the nation ie a public good. Your cultural taste may be different but you cannot disagree with the principle. Likewise, we subsidise training and support for the unemployed because they are needy.

What we do not do is use taxpayer's money to subsidise frivolous luxuries for the rich, that only benefit them personally. The subsidised opera ticket is available to all. The professionally cleaned house belongs to its owner only and i am not allowed to benefit from its cleanliness (unless I want to be done for breaking and entering).

As I said, as taxpayers we subsidise the public good, not individuals' private good.

The tax neutral argument is false

No it isn't.

It has already been cogently explained to you. I can say no more.

Other than perhaps you are having an emotional reaction to a fiscal policy. It makes total total sense to me in tax terms. Entirely logical.

What I am reading on this thread is not a logical rebuttal. It's an argument that entirely consists of 'it benefits the rich therefore I am agin it. Robbing bastards. They all have bonuses and what have you. Have to be propped up with taxpayers money'.

And that is so far from accurate that it is impossible to argue against. You cannot defeat emotion with reason.

'No-one ever got promoted into anything meaningful or had a 'career' as a cleaner, any more than any country ever got rich by virtue of being professionally cleaned.'

What about people that started on their own and now own cleaning companies that employ others? What about teh contestant on The Apprentice a few years ago who ran her own cleaning business?

'If the economy is really in as dire a state as the Tories claim, such that cuts to essential public services etc are unavoidable, then subsidizing the rich in this way is clearly a luxury we cannot afford.'

That's why many Tories argue that spending billions on foreign aid is strange, particularly when an Indian minister recently said we don't need your "peanuts". Tax money is being spent all over the place on things that many consider wasteful. But at least if it creates jobs in this country then it is not as wasteful.

If I was unemployed, I'd much rather the Tories were subsidizing education say, to ensure i could be trained to have a meaningful career, than subsidizing the rich so that I could be their servant/skivvy. And anyone who says otherwise - tell me in all honesty that you would jump at the chance to be a cleaner over other jobs. Oh, and tell me that with a straight face, and tell me that you have experience of working as a cleaner, as I have.

If you've cleaned up other people's wee, you'll know it is not in any way desirable. Frankly, the rich can clean their own loos or pay for it themselves if they're too lazy.

If they want to subsidize an industry - which I'm not averse to at all in theory - then I'd recommend housing. Lots of unemployed people in the construction industry, and a huge shortage of homes nationally. Plus it's skilled work. Now that is a policy I would support.

Economically I can see this plan could make sense. In so far as it would be an incentive to employ someone which lets face it in the current climate can only be a good thing.

Politically however it's a complete non-starter. If Labour had proposed it then I think the reaction would be different.

Anyway, from what I've read it sounds like something DC has mentioned in passing along with other things and hardly sounds like it'll even get made an official proposal, let alone any chance of becoming reality.

OTheHugeManatee - the tax neutral argument is false, or at best unproven.

There is no evidence for the claim that 'the vast majority of cleaning work is currently cash in hand' that you make.

But even were it to be true, most cleaners earn so little that the tax they pay, if any, is negligible, even if they declare all their earnings as required to do. However, those paying for the cleaners who would receive the tax rebate would, in the vast majority of cases, be higher rate tax payers. So we would be gaining virtually no tax from the cleaners in return for lots of 40% tax lost from their employers - not neutral at all.

Moreover, the cleaners - assuming again, which i strongly dispute, that most cleaners are currently failing to declare their earnings - would not gain in pension terms, as the changes to pensions mean that they will not in future be dependent on having paid in; a flat rate is planned. And any cleaner who tried to claim sick pay would pretty soon find themselves unemployed, as cleaners do not exactly have skills that are unusual or hard to replace. So no advantage to the cleaner at all.

Far better to subsidize jobs that have the potential for growth, both in the role for the benefit of the employee, and in the company/industry for the benefit of the economy/country as a whole.

No-one ever got promoted into anything meaningful or had a 'career' as a cleaner, any more than any country ever got rich by virtue of being professionally cleaned.

If the economy is really in as dire a state as the Tories claim, such that cuts to essential public services etc are unavoidable, then subsidizing the rich in this way is clearly a luxury we cannot afford.

This is not the only thing the governemnt is doing or suggesting to stimulate demand and increase employment. It is a straw man to suggest that they think this is the government's "economic competitive strategy".

This is just one small measure that helps to encourage employment, particularly for people who are relatively unskilled and haven't got a string of educational qualifications to get a job. It is meant to help some people find employment and to encourage and help those who can afford these services to employ people. Just because it doesn't help every taxpayer is irrelevant.

We all pay taxes that subsiidise art galleries and operas and yet the majority never go to any of these, but they still have to pay. Just as government gives employers incentives to train and take on young people, which doesn't help every taxpayer, so they also are helping people who can afford to hire cleaners to take on cleaners and create employment.

Most of our taxes probably don't help us individually, but they do help other members of society.

Cogito - "And, in the absence of adequate skilled manufacturing you're arguing that people should stay home and do nothing just because cleaning or similar doesn't offer a measure of power? Work is work. There's no such thing as dirty money and there's no point sitting back waiting while the world turns to match your aspirations."

No not at all, I think this policy could be useful, to get some money flowing.... But it's limited as a job creation strategy and going nowhere as an economic competitiveness strategy.

For governments there is no option to 'sit back waiting while the world turns to match your aspirations' we cannot clean our way out of economic stagnation.

"If you follow this through logically, if David Cameron wishes to eat at expensive restaurants i should subsidise him, because I will be giving jobs to needy restaurant staff..."

I think you need to take another look at your Introduction to Logic textbooks.

I dont know if this is over complicating things ... But If you gave everyone the right to buy a certain number of subsidised cheques per year, and they were tradable then people who still couldn't afford/didn't want any kind of personal services even if subsidised could sell their cheques and make some money from richer people who use more the average amount of cleaning, nannying etc...

...wages for housework and all that.

breadandbutterfly - Pretty early on in this debate a tax professional pointed out that you wouldn't be paying for it, because the vast majority i cleaning work is currently cash in hand. So if it's tax dodging then and becomes tax exempt in effect nothing changes. Except that if this scheme did come in the cleaner would get their NI paid, meaning a better pension and more security in the event of sickness etc, and there would in all likelihood be more cleaning jobs available thanks to the incentive.

I fail to see how this is a bad idea: it creates more security for cleaners, incentivises the creation of cleaning jobs, thereby creating more net contributors to tax revenue, and costs the government very little in lost revenue.

Yep if you can afford a cleaner thats fab, but what about the rest of the WORKING class who cant even heat there homes !!!!

If you follow this through logically, if David Cameron wishes to eat at expensive restaurants i should subsidise him, because I will be giving jobs to needy restaurant staff...

Oh come on...

I think the difference between public sector workers being paid for by the state and private cleaners being paid for by the state should be kind of obvious, cogito - the clue is in the name.

We as taxpayers pay for public sector workers such as teachers, nurses, binmen etc because they are working for the public ie all of us.

I can see no reason why my taxes should go towards enabling someone richer than me to enjoy the services of a cleaner. This is not a public good, it is a private good. It is not an essential need, like care for the disabled, say, which i don't begrudge paying for of course.

No, if a well-off person, or a poor one comes to hat, wants to employ a cleaner that is entirely their own affair, but I can't see why i should be paying for it.

cogito - which assumption that I made was incorrect and pompous? That you have never worked as a cleaner? That you secretly fantasise about an Upstairs Downstairs kind of world? That a world in which we are both paid by the state to do each others' cleaning - but not our own! - would indeed be ludicrous, and impact negatively rather than positively on our economy (although I'm not against recognising the ecenomic impact of domestic work, per se, from a feminist perspective, though I'd like to be paid for cleaning my own house thank you, not yours)?

Which of these were you referring to?

Kal, the cheques here are not just for cleaners - I know a few students who go shopping/run errands a couple of hours a week for elderly people living alone and get paid ?10/hour using these cheques.
The students get to earn a bit of money and the lonely old folk get a bit of company and help, so it works out well for everyone!

My mother cared for my grandad for several years until his death. My dad was still working full-time, so they had an income, but it was very limiting for mum, as GD had Alzheimers and couldn't be left alone. Dad had to take time off work if ever mum had an appointment at the dentist or whatever. With the cheque scheme, you pay by the hour, so for a few quid she could have paid someone to "grandadsit" for a lot less than it cost my dad in lost earnings!

the majority of Carers and elderly people would not be able to afford a cleaner even if was subsidised by 90%. Its an unobtainable luxury as far out of reach as a yatch (yacht?)

Which is why i think the French system works - because it's open to anyone!

And the subsidised childcare vouchers are specific to families with a child (or several) under 6, with the subsidy level dependent on the family's income bracket and family size.

Agree about carers and in fact just older people full stop, and people who find it hard to manage the cleaning for whatever reason.

That's heading it in the direction of a benefit I guess, though.

Registering as an employer to hire cleaners and things in the UK would be a very big change to the system.

I think that if they are going to do this then they need to think properly about how it will work before announcing it. Otherwise there will just be another child ben style shambles.

Don't know about Belgium, Sardine, but here in France you have to register as an employer with the NI people when you order the cheque book, so they know your family situation (as they can see how much child benefit you receive, for example)!

I don't know how it could be limited to families, though - what is the difference between a household and a family? Unless it's specific to people with children under a certain age.

It would make sense for carers with elderly dependents to receive them, though, too!

Porto how do you check that the cheques are only being bought by families though? DC does not want to bring this in across the board but just for families, and that is where the complications come in from what I can see.

Your assumption is both pompous and incorrect breadandbutterfly.

All the time I hear how it's a mistake to sack public sector workers (paid for with taxes of course) because their wages get spent in the economy, they pay tax into the exchequer, and this all means the financial wheels go around. So if the suggestion is to give tax-payers a little tax back to employ cleaners or gardeners, I think that's the same argument.

Thanks vitamin and Porto :)

Actually, i suspect the unwritten implications of your post cogito is that some of us are more equal than others and that therefore we as a society should subsidize cleaners for the 'important' people, so they can get on with their 'important' jobs, while the rest of us proles should be jolly happy to be allowed to clean up the crumbs from their tables.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that is the impression you give.