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????

Why would a feminist, in particular welcome this. I don't see housework as women's work. Our cleaner helps our family, not me in particular.

I would get a cleaner if it were cheaper for me, but wouldn't be tempted to join a gym.

"People aren't going to hire cleaners because of 20% off though are they?

The restaurants, haircuts, gym thing - yes I see that.

But cleaners? Gardeners?"

So 20% off will encourage people to take up yoga, but not to hire a cleaner?

Your thinking behind this latest piece of illogic is...?

Given how many women are killing themselves doing all the housework as well as working full time because they are stuck with lazy, entitled shitbags, I would have thought feminists would welcome this.

A tax break for "women's work"?

Yes please.

If it means more women can outsource the drudge work they are expected to do for free, I'm all for it.

Not any more there's a tax on that

I think I can Flyyyyyyyyyy

I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People aren't going to hire cleaners because of 20% off though are they?

The restaurants, haircuts, gym thing - yes I see that.

But cleaners? Gardeners?

Now that is a good idea kal

SQ - I think the main way this works is that it gives people a tax break they have to spend locally.

Traditionally Tories would argue that you give people a tax break and they will go out and spend, creating more jobs. But if (1) people are too nervous about the future and/or (2) the country has no manufacturing sector to speak of this won't work because every £1 tax break you give people they might save 20p and spend 40p on imported goods.

I think the grey economy bit and more women working bit are marginal to this primary effect.

You could get the same effect by giving people a tax break for spending on restaurants, haircuts, gym membership or yoga.

Legalise drugs and tax them. That'll bring in a bit

Athing

How do you think it will work to generate additional income for the country? The positives suggested have been increased tax take, increased employment, reduced benefits bill, moving people out of the "shadow economy" and so on.

There has been a very interesting conversation discussing these points and I can't see that it adds up. The more I think about it, the more I think it is a load of old nonsense.

Maybe you can change my mind by explaining (in light of the points raised on the thread) exactly why this will be a positive step for the UK. I can't see that any of your previous posts have added much to the general understanding of the topic.

Thanks

When I first read this I did think WTF?

Having read the thread I do see how this might work as a job creation measure - basically encouraging people to spend more on local domestic services out of untaxed income rather than more on imported goods out of taxed income. I guess it's the kind of tax break you can give people where you can guarantee it will be spent in the local economy.... It's a bit similar to thinking behind local currency schemes (LETS) which come out of the left/knit-your-own lentils rather than the right/upstairs downstairs side of the political spectrum.

But it's not much of a vision of a balanced economy though is it? A few % of people earning massive salaries in financial services, no manufacturing to speak of, massive rationing of the public sector and the rest getting trickle down benefits in the mcjobs and domestic service sector?

On the other hand the vision from the left seems to be the same thing but with a bigger public sector and more generous benefits for those who have lost out from the death of british manufacturing. As we have seen, that vision didn't turn out too well either.

Is it pie-in-the-sky to think we might build an internationally competitive sector that makes something other than financial products? Or is the future of mass employment really cutting each other's hair, cleaning each other's houses and digging each other's gardens?

Telegrap h article is

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9073334/Tax-breaks-for-hiring-a-cleaner-could-save-middle-class-thousands.html

'This thread makes me ashamed to be a lefty.

Reactionary, envious bollocksology used to whine about a proposal that is used in social democracies all over Europe just because it is proposed (disigenuously) by a Tory.'

The reference to bollocksology immediately brought to mind the question "what is Labour's position on this?"

This is from an article in the Telegraph

'Last night, Labour said of the latest proposal: ?This demonstrates how out of touch David Cameron is about the pressures facing women in this country. He is suggesting tax breaks for people who can afford domestic workers at the same time as he is cutting tax credits for working parents and removing child benefit from squeezed families.

?Is this what he means when he says we are all in it together??'

It is amazing that people who would never vote for the Tories under any circumstances are so surprised that the Tories would consider proposals that might help some of the people who did actually vote for them.

Sardine

"The more I think about it the more it becomes clear that this idea is a load of old nonsense."

You should really get in touch with the finance ministers of all the European countries that implement this and let them in on your astounding insight :o

SardineQueen, I agree that its not thought through. I am not defending it but more explaning what's probably behind the idea. If it sounds great to their target voters and it reduces the £70bn, reduces the official jobless/benefits number then it will look like a win win for the Tories . Tbh hmrc have had more success doing amnesties for different trades. 'Fess up now and we will be lenient on you. Last I heard there was an amnesty for dentists.

I wold love to afford a cleaner! Not mch sympathy for these people ...

Why do domestic services deserve a tax break?

Well, I don't think it has anything to do with entitlement, but it is a way for the government to influence behaviour.

They can encourage people to provide jobs for others through a tax incentive. The bonus is that it discourages the grey economy.

How many of these jobs are currently cash in hand? I would suggest most of them.

I don't think Mr Cameron was serious about this initiative, but rather was just being polite to his Swedish hosts. However, if it did happen here, I think I would be encouraged to employ a cleaner. Right now, I can't afford it, but a tax break would make it feasible for me.

Iirc it was just a sound bite not an official announcement, just pre budget posturing.

Although I don't expect anything amazing from the budget. Just the implementation of the doom and gloom policies from last year.

Someone start a thread with some ideas for Budget Day - give Osborne a few ideas.

How does the OP know what the middle classes can afford?

Remember, they are already paying far more tax.

I would welcome an initiative to address people evading tax across the board.

And I would welcome a look at whether additional things including childcare should be claimable.

This is piecemeal and not thought through (hmm sounds familiar).

novice I don't see how this initiative will have much of an impact on that TBH.

If there is a problem with self employment / cash in hand in general then that needs addressing.

TBH it's not gardeners or cleaners who I have noticed have a propensity for cash, but builders, decorators, those sorts of trades.

I just don't think that pursuing a bunch of cleaners on min wage many of whom are prob not earning over the tax threshold anyway is the correct way to go about it.

This smacks more of trying to appeal to a certain type of voter, than seriously trying to address the shadow economy.

That's very interesting Novice. Just think of the tax breaks we could ALL have if people participating in the shadow economy contributed properly.

I posted this on a similar thread but think its worth repeating. Iirc hmrc/Treasury do an annual report to Parliment and estimate that the shadow economy (that's mostly cash in hand where people don't declare income and pay the appropriate tax) costs the Exchequer £70bn per year. To put in context, the annual nhs budget is £100bn per year. Everyone thinks that people can't be doing it, but people are, and it all adds up.

I think that the self employed sector as a whole is probably a big headache to the treasury. The massive investment in electronic money movement is addressing some of that.

In my little local area there are still a few shops which only take cash or cheques. A couple of hairdressers, a large butchers shop and several take away outlets. VaT won't be accurately returned because of this but what doesn't help is that the banks all charge to accept cash from businesses. So I'm sure that the small business owner has little incentive to bank more than the bare minimum of his cash which ensures the continued supply of untaxed money.