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????

Surely the real problem then is across the self-employed sector as a whole then and this is not going to address it at all.

All of the gardeners I know are certainly already in the system. I mean, how many cash-in-hand cleaners are we talking here? It's not going to be great shakes surely.

No one is saying the majority are but you cannot deny that cash in hand is still rife among people who are not paid through a paye system. For every cleaner you happen to know who works for an agency there are plenty who work for themselves and won't accept cheques or bacs payments because it is traceable. There are plenty of people who don't want an agency cleaner because they don't want the majority of the money going to the agency rather than the cleaner.

This actually solves a few problems, however I can't see it being brought in mainly because if the chippy attitudes that some British people seem to have about home help staff.

Why are people thinking the majority of cleaners etc are cash in hand benefits claiments. Produce some evidence for this. All cleaners I know work for agencies. They are already paying tax.
Giving tax breaks to rich people wont affect them nor make them on NMW employ cleaners. And given ppl on MN claim that they are skint while earning 45K, 90% of the population still wont be able to afford a cleaner tax breaks or not.
Its a daft idea. Like I said, tax breaks on childcare would benefit poor and rich workers alike.

Alouise I agree with that.

'Actually making childcare tax deductible is such a middle-class preoccupation. Would the gal serving at WH Smith benefit from tax deductible childcare? Unlikely, I reckon. If she's serving at WH Smith on a minimum wage, the chances are she either hasn't got any children or if she has, she's benefiting from free childcare.'

Many mininum wage people struggle with childcare. DH could work longer hours if childcare was affordable. Working longer hours = more money = paying more tax. In other families the second parent could work if childcare was cheaper. Again, in work = paying more tax. Most people I know are on under 20K. The SAHP cant earn enough to pay for childcare so is at home.

Sorry, that was a bit long and ranty

The childcare issue is far more complicated. The government appears to want to use pre school childcare as some kind of parental substitute. A social experiment to get all children in the system by giving a few hours of free care per week. I think it was introduced when my dc were in nursery years ago. That tells me that they don't really give a toss about the children of working families. It's an exercise in getting the children out of the sub standard homes to keep an eye on them before they actually start school. Working families, as a rule, tend to provide for their children, socialise them and prepare them for school life and beyond.

Like all government initiatives it was hijacked by the "middle classes" for want of a better phrase. These directives are always aimed at the people with the most need but the people who actually run with them and get the most out them are the wider community. Examples as diverse as 5 a Day or Sure start or even Sesame Streeet in America back in the 70's.

Personally I am all for tax breaks whether it be for childcare/travel to work/ home help ... I also think it would be more effective than the quantitate easing which is hurting people in the process of buying annuities and taking money away from new pensioners.

It has to be a real tax break though, so that you can only reclaim money that has been paid in tax.

I find it fascinating that anyone would fundamentally approve of subsidised gardeners and cleaners, and fundamentally disapprove of subsidised childcare.

It's really interesting how people separate things out in their minds. I see no "it's not fair some people don't have gardens, or don't mind about keeping them tidy, or like to do them themselves, or have had them all paved over".

Funny

I am not saying we should make childcare tax deductible, I acknowledge that the economy is in a mess. I am saying that if this scheme was about enabling people to go out to work it would include childcare costs.

When I was on a low wage and needing childcare, I received 70% of my childcare, not 100%.

There are plenty of people who have chosen not to have children or who are unable to have children. Why should they have to subsidise other people's children any more than they already do? Why should people who ony have one or two children subsidise those with 4 or 5?

Nonsense Molly

I have not seen any costings for making childcare tax deductible, but it must run to billions, without any exaggeration. The economy is in a mess. How on earth can it be affordable to make childcare tax deductible? What would you like to cut to make way for what would benefit you? Would you like to scrap the NHS entirely? Or maybe the state pension. Perhaps that should go.

Actually making childcare tax deductible is such a middle-class preoccupation. Would the gal serving at WH Smith benefit from tax deductible childcare? Unlikely, I reckon. If she's serving at WH Smith on a minimum wage, the chances are she either hasn't got any children or if she has, she's benefiting from free childcare.

It just all sits very uncomfortably with me. Basically Cameron is saying to the poorest in society. it doesn't matter that the economy is fucked and there are no real jobs. it doesn't matter that I am cutting your benefits, cutting public services because now I can hire you to scrub my shitty toilet, at not great cost to me.

I acknowledge that is an overly emotional reaction but I suspect it is one shared by many. It suggests that either the Tory government is completely out of touch or they just don't give a shit.

If this was genuinlely about job creation and enabling people to work, this would have included child care.

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

Why are people assuming that cleaners and gardeners are all on the fiddle?

They are all self-employed, no reason to think they are any more dishonest than any other group of self employed people.

The gardeners I know don't claim any benefits

They all have oodles of money and vans and what-not.

Don't know so much about people working as cleaners. The ones who work for agencies I imagine it's all kosher? The cleaners I have met have all been young eastern european type people, do they claim benefits? I don't know how that works. I thought you had to put in before you could take out or something.

Cleaners will continue to claim benefits though VitC
most only do 1 or 2 jobs a week - £40?

surely it means that people who can afford cleaners will pay less tax.
so that means less tax paid.
so less money in the pot

I don't understand who it benefits and how
I also don't understand how there can be benefits but seemingly no costs to anyone at all

What the devil are the mechanics of this, nobod has explained it so I can understand it!

No, EFA, because as said cleaner is now officially in work, they won't be claiming benefits, except sick, maternity etc where appropriate.

It works in plenty of other countries!

Essential thinking about your post

Most cleaners and gardeners are self employed. Changing it so that all people who have cleaners have to be proper employers with contracts and tax and NI and holidays and everything is unlikely, surely?

If they stay self employed then up to about £5K a year they pay no NI, over that it's a nominal amount. The people who use their services pay them directly and it is up to the self employed person to declare for tax purposes etc. The people employing them do not pay any NI for them.

If they are going to change it so that all cleaners and gardeners etc have to be employees of each person they work for, rather than self employed, it would be fiendishly complicated and I suspect a lot of people would rather do the work themselves rather than take on all that paperwork and responsibility.

So really, how is this supposed to work? I don't see it making any extra revenue for the govt at all.

How will it create more jobs when it is "cash neutral" for employers?

I suspect a lot of people earning under 26K do not have time to take on an extra cleaning job. When I was working in a shop 7 days a week on minimum wage, often working long days, I would have attacked you with my mop bucket if you had suggested that I could have solved my problems by taking on an extra cleaning job.

"How will this benefit the 50% of families earning below 26K"

It benefits those families because it potentially creates more jobs. At the moment, with incomes being squeezed from all angles, 'nice to haves' like cleaners and gardeners are often the first thing that goes. Which isn't good for the people doing those jobs.

VitaminC it isn't cash neutral then is it?

Government receives less tax from the employer's own income tax payable but then gets it back by the employer paying NI to the govt. What you have missed out is that the govt then have to pay out mat leave and sick ben not previously payable. So it will cost the govt more.

Also surely employers won't be incentivised to use this scheme if it doesn't benefit them and is really cash neutral.

What does a 'tax break' actually mean? Is it 'I pay a cleaner £50 so dont pay tax pn that £50 of my salary'? Thus saving £10 off my tax bill each week?

You'd still have to find £40 you didnt have in the first place surely.

And tax breaks shouldnt be for luxuries They should be for necessities like childcare, personal care for disabled people, communting costs (which really should be in the form of cheap frequent public transport).

How will this benefit the 50% of families earning below 26K who can barely afford heating and fod while working every possible hour?