New childcare tax break to be announced by the Government today - what do you think?

Maybe they ran it up the flagpole, watched the reaction and realised it wouldn't fly?

Sorry, that should read an my pension contributions as DD2 is 12.

Pension was Labour, it used to be 16
and
Child benefits is the Tories

Given DHs employers do some defence stuff the Liberals hate them.

So basically all the political parties are shit!

Dave and Nick revealed very little in their press conference. The "leaks" to the press were a cheat. Beware of Coalition leaks.

I don't work and have lost my CB and as my youngest DD is 12.

I can't invent a job out of thin air, I refuse to leave a my DDs (even at 15&12) all summer in the middle of nowhere with no transport.

They get on very well, but after a few days they would had enough and I refuse to have DD1 being responsible for trampoline, cycling or climbing frame accidents especially involving the girl next door.

Therefore, the Government can Fuck the Fuck off an do what the hell it likes.

All it's bright ideas make us worse off so I no longer care.

Further to cogitosum's post about CCV when on maternity leave, the rules of any salary sacrifice scheme is that your company must continue to provide you the benefit that you have contracted to sacrifce salary to receive while on maternity leave, in exactly the same way as any other contractual benefit. The rules go further to state that your maternity salary CAN NOT be reduced/sacrificed further by your employee as you have already been on a reduced salary contractually in order to receive this benefit.

The upshot is that when you go off on maternity leave, if you have been part of a salary sacrifice scheme to receive CCV, then your company MUST continue to provide you with the CCV's while on maternity leave but your maternity pay should not be reduced. I discovered this handily a few months before going on mat leave with DC2 and fought hard to get my HR department to understand the legislation (small company, ended up getting their own legal advice) and I won. Made what was a pitiful maternity package (only SMP) slightly more acceptable.

There is quite a bit of wrong information about childcare vouchers and salarty sacrifice on this thread so just to clarify...

Notaqueef's scheme must be a workplace nursery. THese are tax and NI exempt to the total cost. Other employer supported childcare (the most common of which is childcare vouchers) is exempt up to the limits depending on rate of tax. Whether it's offered through felx makes no difffernece to the tax status, just on how your emlpoyer admnisters the scheme.

Annie you also save NI so the savings for a basic rate taxpayer is 30.6% or 32% making up to £933 a year not £588 (although still not £2000! but nearly for two parents)

Concessionsavailable childcare vouchers don't go poof if you leave or go on maternity leave (although your employer may do this). On the whole they don't expire and can be used til 1st september following 15th birthday of your youngest DC (this may depend on the voucher provider). They certainly don't when you go on maternity leave as you can continue to get the vouchers on maternity leave - and an employer who does not allow this or is contrary to the sex discrimination act. In particular the Maternal and Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2002

Hope this helps!

Spot on Deglitter

Actually, I'm seething now. All this bullshit about "working mothers"... It's so fucking patronising. We don't hear about "working fathers" do we? No. Because its assumed that fathers work. These policies do not even use language that reflect the realities of modern life. PARENTS work. We're paying taxes and we're bringing up the next generation of taxpayers and I'm sick of being talked down to whilst this government force through more back-of-a-fagpacket policies that clearly will save no money whatsoever.

Great post DeGlitterBug. Totally agree.

Another massive con. They must think we're totally stupid... Worse than nothing I think, because whilst they're removing child tax credits and child benefit they're offering undisclosed tax breaks that will penalise stay at home parents. It's nonsense.

If they really wanted to help children they'd have state child are for all, just as they do in Denmark / Sweden, where children have high quality child care available so that parents can split work responsibilities as they choose - instead of bogus tax breaks that send yet more money into shoddy private sector nurseries, where the fees will rocket.

Have any of the actual details of this been released yet, or are we still just being told that there will be additional investment in child care to help 'working mothers' ?? Is it Thursday the government are supposedly meeting to firm this up?

And that is per MONTH if unclear!

Currently get £1200 worth of childcare for £1100 due to tax savings made using childcare vouchers. Measly.

NC for the new year etc but a regular poster and lurker.

I'm fed up with the way the government (either, both, all three!) seem to have so many agendas. Yes, I know it's about winning votes, but fgs can't they just agree and get on with the programme of revitalising the economy, upskilling its people and generally rewarding hard work?

Like some of the other posters, I'm fed up with the fact that it's the squeezed middle (and it's anyone really, from 20K-50/60K) that are hurt. Yes, 20K is 3 times less than 60K but those on 50/60K are still not minting it at all. AT ALL. Can't they bloody listen to us for a fricking moment?

We have careers and we want to work. It's such a laugh that we supposedly went to university or have tonnes of experience in the area of work that we do, and yet we end up not having any money left at the end of the month. and No, it's not because we frittered it away in the sale; it's not because we've been shopping extensively at ocado/waitrose (heck they are also replicating the 3 for £10 meat deals); it's not because our children all have designer clothes; it's not because we all drive new cars that cost £30k or more...

my childcare bill costs £800/month (of which £243 is taken out as a voucher); my mortgage is £700+; my elec and gass is £100; my council tax is £150; my afterschool clubs/swim/tennis cost me a significant amount. We don't have grandparents that live nearby (and even if they did, they still work so we can't rely on them for childcare and I wouldn't want to anyway). We are thankful that yes we still have a roof over our heads etcetc, but we've been shopping at Aldi/Lidl (thanks to MN who've shared lots of gems about those places - until recently we only had one of those stores nearby), we've NOT been eating out, we've passed on attending plays/pantos because it's too expensive, and we only have 2 kids.

I'm sick of hearing that free childcare places will be offered to 2 year olds from poorer families (that's a good thing but how about the rest of us? What's poor? I don't have sky tv!)...

They should first create jobs, make the UK an attractive place to set up shop (doesn't matter what sort of shop - industries, universities, retail etc) that will bring more job opportunities. With that, we the people in jobs can then spend more money that we've earned on stuff (not just food), and so on..

argh. I've just paid one credit card bill yesterday; I now have to wait a couple of weeks before I can pay the other one. And no, it's NOT just christmas shopping that's made the bills higher; it's EVERY MONTH...

There is already a problem with people putting off having kids or not having them due to not being able to get on the property ladder. If the huge cost of childcare is not better subsidised for working parents, then more people will choose to have less or no children. Then we will have a birth rate crisis and not enough young people to fund care for old people (and everything else)

I can't afford a second child due to cost of childcare. My dd is nearly 8. Childcare for her so I can work full time plus a day nursery place for a baby would cost me over £2000 per MONTH

Xenia I have to say I don't really buy the wealth will flow if tax is low argument... but irrespective of that, a country would no redistributive system doesn't seem possible to me. It would mean that those with the highest needs would need to earn sufficiently high wages to cover their immediate costs - or the children of cleaners and nursery workers would starve. It would be good news for cleaners though, as their wages would have to rise to £30k - and once their children were grown they could live so comfortably... but bad news for me, as I would no longer be able to afford a cleaner

I don't tbh, see what's wrong with 90% of parents claiming a benefit. What does it matter? Surely it is fair and just - that during the heavily resource intensive period of raising children - that society should chip in and help parents out - as children (raised well) are a benefit to all society?

And the alternative, as described above, is to ensure that everyone earns sufficient to meet their immediate needs - and that is unworkable.

People forget that we are all dependent on collective services (like universities, health service, schools, police, fire service) - and that is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I actually think it's more sinister than that merry. It's about the Tories pursuing a policy of welfare reform which involves withdrawing state subsidy for anything other than the basics - pensions, health, education, and a basic safety net of out-of-work benefits.

The only reason they haven't completely withdrawn tax credits completely is that the system subsidises business and the low-paid service industry, allowing employers to cut wage costs to the minimum.

It's the same with housing benefit which is a subsidy to landlords, rather than impoverished families.

As far as the Tories are concerned, there should be no subsidy or benefits for anything at all above the bare minimum. When they talk about "scroungers", they don't just mean "career claimants". They mean all claimants of any benefits other than pensions. This reflects the view of the Tory hardliners, their core vote, who believe that everyone should be completely self-sufficient.

It boils down to having the lifestyle you can afford without any state help - and as far as they are concerned, having children is a lifestyle choice.

merrymouse "tax doesn't have to be taxing" ... It's not confusing if you're a big US company and you choose how little much to pay starbucks

Xenia IDS can't get his sums right channel 4 news blog here with full figures. Please don't hold him out as someone sensible in the "welfare debate".

This new announcement smacks of emperor's new clothes... £2k sounds great until you realise that actually it's likely to be less than the voucher benefit, and is likely to mean that parents of kids aged 5-15 will lose out compared to the current system.

Mumsnetters as MP's sounds an excellent idea though! Surely we'd be better at running the country than the current lot!

There seems to be a general misunderstanding of the amount saved under the current childcare voucher scheme. Even if both parents claim, the tax and NI saved is less than £2000 (although if one or both is higher rate and starting claiming before the reduced monthly limit came in, it comes to just over £2000). This policy is up to £2000 per child.

Stripey, the principle behind my suggestion is that if you get the country moving agaqin and good business people flocking here because we harmonise tax/NI and capital gains tax at 20% is that then business takes right off and there is loads of money for the poor. It is not a philosphy designed to ensure I pay less tax particularly at all. Every time tax rates are lowered the tax take goes up and the country thrives.

Iain Duncan Smith was very good on Today on Radio 4 around 8.11am this morning - an item very much worth listening to with lots of statistics and in particular the programme made the point that Labour made benefits claimants of 90% of the population who have children through tax credits which made people very dependent on the state.

Do we definitely know it will be capped at 5?? Or are we all getting worked up unnecessarily? (I agree if that is the case, I'll be out there protesting with everyone else. But I've not seen anything stating this do far?)

These changes - if they happen as described - WILL price me out of the job market. £2000 is less than I currently receive under the voucher scheme and will cause us serious financial difficulty, if I wish to remain in my job. How foolish of me to waste so much time and money on my education and attempting to remain in my profession after having my one (and only) child.

Xenia wrote
""I would much rather abolish all child benefit and tax credits for simplicity and have a very low flat tax.""

I can see how on the surface this would suit a high earner with little need for public services
However, I'm not sure how it would work for most families, as most people's needs far out-strip their capacity to earn in their child rearing years. So, you would either need to ensure a living wage, where even lowly paid workers could support their children from their earnings (not likely) or accept that a good number of children in our society would grow up in absolute poverty (not nice).

As someone who is so comfortably off, do you really want to live in a country where children go hungry? Are you sure you'd feel safe and happy in a country like that?

What a mess this all is! Clearly what we need is a proper integration across taxation and benefits systems.

It has to be said - tax relief would possibly be fairer than vouchers, as only those with employers who bought into the scheme were eligible before.