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????

KalSkirata sorry had to lol at the idea that this government would help the low paid.

Giving people tax breaks to pay for cleaners will make more people hire cleaners.

It's an excellent idea.

"look at the Scandanavian countries for models of how the welfare state"

:o

Sweden is the model for this suggestion!

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.

all the cleaners I know (and i used to be one) are working legally. Not 'cash in hand'. I imagine the cash in hand types will continue the same .

Tax breaks for childcare would be better, benefitting the low paid too

It's not inverted snobbery to be concerned at the class system we have in this country where there is so much inequality. A proper welfare state should work for all it's citizens, not just the ones that are better off and more likely to vote for DC- look at the Scandanavian countries for models of how the welfare state should work. They have it better sorted than we do, because everyone is valued and equal, and it doesn't depend on how much money you have or which school you went to. They also have subsidised childcare.

Here you can also use the cheques for things like an ironing service - it's not necessary that someone comes to your house.

If Cameron doesn't introduce a scheme like this the political reason will be that he doesn't want to be accused of pandering to 'nobs'. The 'titres services' system works well in Belgium and it sounds as though the French have something similar. But we won't get it because too many voters, egged on by the popular press, are inverted snobs

Good point Derbys - this will help anyone who needs or chooses to use these kinds of services.

It will also provide an incentive to use such services, thereby potentially creating jobs.

But sure, whinge and gripe about policies that work well all over Europe.

It's not even likely Cameron will introduce something like this, it doesn't fit with the self-defeating austerity he and Osborne are enjoying inflicting on the country.

Employers of cleaners pay less tax (but they pay NI contributions instead - probably roughly the same amount)
Cleaners only pay tax once they reach the threshold
Cleaners no longer receive benefits, as now earning a salary
Cleaners also now have proper sick pay, maternity pay, pension rights etc.

So the state is taking in a similar amount (but as NI instead of tax), unless the cleaner is earning pots of money (in which case they shouldn't have been on benefits anyway, whilst earning all that cash-in-hand!) = cash neutral for the state

Employer pays roughly the same in total as before = cash neutral for employer

Cleaner now has decent social protection, whilst in most cases still not taxable = cash neutral for cleaner

With the bonus that no-one is working illegally, the poorest workers now have the same rights as other workers (sick, maternity, unemployment...) and the official unemployment figures no longer include those claiming benefits whilst actually working! Those only working a few hours a week may still be entitled to certain benefits, but it's a good way to get people back into the workforce!

from Quottrocento earlier in this thread:

"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."

How is this cash neutral for tax payers? Surely it means that employers of cleaners pay less tax?

Sardinequeen has been spot on
Not much add

Buy the point is that this cost neutral for taxpayers. And actually protects people doing low paid work. It takes nothing away from anyone else.

You're a bit hard of finking to surmise that

i bet they won't be the ones to get a tax break

I'm confused as why it is a middle class issue - does the proposal say the tax break will only be given to employers earning more than a certain amount? Will it make typical cash-in-hand jobs more expensive or complicated to hire?

I ask because the only people I know who use "domestic staff" (cleaner/window cleaner/a one off with a gardener to make the garden minimal upkeep friendly) are very working class, low income/on benefits, or state reliant pensioners. They all have disabilities that make housework difficult to impossible so use their money to maintain their homes.

Well the 'griping' is that the better off will be better off while the rest of us are struggling to buy food and take pay cuts.

quite, teatimesthree. I am not bloody middle class, but I work ft and have a cleaner. My cleaner is excellent. She is much better at cleaning than i am. The system means she is fully protected and gets all her "stamp" paid, so her pension etc etc. That is much better surely than me handing over a couple of notes?

My point was that it is very easy for everyone to point the figure at one/two individuals and corporations and insist that they are tax evaders. However, as a result of the so-called shadow economy, hmrc loses approx £70bn per year. Everyone who enables a deal so that the VAT isn't paid (eg builders), or employs someone but doesnt pay do paye or who comes through Customs but doesn't declare goods is contributing to the growth in the shadow economy.

The point of this idea isn't to give a tax break at all, it is just to dress it up as such as the real point is to try and claw back some of that £70bn.

I do understand people's reservations about seemingly giving to the middle class, but this is the way the welfare state always works. The middle class get the most out of the NHS, education, culture etc.

What I mean to say is that cash-in-hand workers have no rights and are actually in a very precarious position. I would support a measure that gives them more legal protection and e.g. the right to a pension or SSP if they are unable to work.

Surely if there is a net gain to the exchequer, and it brings cleaners etc. who currently do not have NI contributions, right to sick leave, or insurance, into the system, that is a good thing for all concerned? Particularly if it creates more work?

Is the argument here really that cash-in-hand unregulated employment is good and that a move that will incentivise people to use services that pay tax is a bad thing?

Otherwise I'm not really getting the "cash is legal tender" crankiness.

Exactly.

It is up to the receiver of the cash to declare it.