To think that if you have servants you aren't middle class?

[uruculager]

"Tax breaks for hiring a cleaner could save middle class thousands"

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

Is "middle class" now totally meaningless?

Paranoid I agree they're not, but whenever the subject of cleaners comes up on MN, the "servants" thing always comes up (i.e. that it's somehow unacceptable) whereas nannies appear to be completely fine.

For some reason there seems to be a complete mental block about employing someone to do something you want done, despite the fact that this is the premise for employment worldwide.

I can see a lot of elderly using these services if they become more affordable, I'm sure they'd be pleased having someone come in now and again to do things the elderly person now finds difficult, such as gardening or window cleaning.

It would also create jobs, which will help the economy.

My CM and cleaner would just love to be called servants

Is it not "servant" because they are in service to someone

(although I appreciate the term is now not really used and seems perjorative)

I would simply use "staff"

When you call people servants it sounds as if you don't respect them or the work they do, but why would anyone not respect cleaners, window cleaners, gardeners, nannies etc. They're just normal people doing normal jobs?

Some of my family have always had permanent help- cooks, maids and gardeners. They're not British so a bit classless really but all the same, wouldn't say they'd be comfortable upper class here!

As everyone says, cleaners are not servants.

But while we're on the subject, I used to think that I was 'middle class'; nothing especially to aspire to, just a description of a fairly usual upbringing with a spare guest bedroom, riding lessons, the odd family holiday to France, driving lessons for my 17th birthday, calling it a loo not a toilet, not spitting or wearing shell suits... but since discovering Mumsnet I have discovered that Middle Class is a loathsome thing to be and involves servants and hedge funds and raspberry trousers and ginger ear tufts and affairs with the au pair in the skiing lodge.

Devora, no they don't. They have staff. Servants throws up a whole different image of a time when people were born into servitude with very little, if any, life options.

I don't care how posh you are, if you're calling the people that work for you your servants, you're a bit of a dick

CatinHairnet, you are quite right. I stand corrected

This scheme is so good and works brilliantly in Sweden. The point of the tax break is to create jobs and encourage people (especially mums) to stay in work and improve their prospects. It isn't just for domestic help, it also applies to stuff like getting tradesmen to do home improvements, extensions, redecorating etc. Means that it all goes through the system properly rather than cash-in-hand, and encourages people to keep workers in employment when money is tighter than usual as it is for everyone just now.

I think domestic staff that are employed full time to serve one family can be considered servants of sorts (excluding nannies for some reason according to my friend who's head housekeeper/servant for a Duke).

Domestic staff, hired in cleaners, gardeners etc are not servants.

If you employ anyone you're employing them to serve you in some way, so if a cleaner is a servant, then so is anyone else in emplyment.

I think its not worth even getting in a tiz about.

Slavery is a whole different kettle of fish.

Being a servant isn't in any way exploitative or shameful for either the employer or employee.

As for being tax deductable/having tax breaks... I really don't see the issue. DH is self employed and there are certain things that are tax deductable as they are directly related and necessary to his work and come under expenses. My only gripe would be that a self employed person pays more base tax, and so expenses are very important to bring the tax into a more representative and fair tax bracket, PAYE have that built in don't they? I may be wrong.

Does it worry you to think you have servants?

Tell you what, when the gardener calls back I'll ask him how he feels about being my 'servant', shall I? He provides a service I need, I pay him. If I don't pay him enough, or if he can get more from someone else he'll go elsewhere. That's completely different from a servant, who was usually indentured, poor, prospectless and had no choices. Sheeesh!

My FIL was a self-employed gardener for many years (until retiring this year). He had lots of devoted clients, many of whom kept him on even after his back started to go and he couldn't do much of the heavy work any more, because of his amazing wealth of horticultural knowledge and skill.

I think if you told him he'd been a 'servant' all that time he'd probably lamp you

I have a cleaner-I may be just edging into middle class as a retired teacher but I grew up in a council house in a pit village where my mum also had a cleaner.My dad was disabled and mum worked long hours the cleaner kept the house tidy and gave my dad lunch 2 days a week.She was a friend not a servant.My cleaner is my next door neighbour-identical house but she needs a bit of extra cash-she is not my servant.

Also, In MN land why is a full time cleaner/housekeeper "a servant" but a full time nanny not?

I think because a nanny is typically employed to look after children when the parents are at work - so not doing work they could be doing themselves. Whereas most of find a full time cleaner is not required and we manage that work ourselves after work. As it happens I have a nanny and a cleaner 2 hours a week and I don't view them as servants because I am either working at work or working at home (childcare, meals, cleaning etc). I can't be doing childcare and working at my office at the same time. Ditto cleaning the bath while I am preparing/cleaning up after dinner.

And with regard to the original article, this is all taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut (or perhaps just getting publicity for something that's never going to be a runner anyway because it's too expensive but makes it look like they care about this issue). If childcare was tax deductible (like chauffeurs are ) we'd be encouraging working families without having to faff about with schemes from Sweden . It's v simple but will never happen due to cost.

I thought I was the servant around here. Do I get a tax break?

When did cleaners turn into "servants"?

Servants, and I realise I am revealing more about my origins than I would usually, are the sort of staff employed by my great-grandparents. Them having a cook, a parlourmaid and someone who, rather mysteriously "did the rough". Even back in those days my relatives were middle-class. Because actually, the middle-classes did have servants.

i know lots of people who have cleaners, nannies and other paid help but they are not servants and not treated that way

my family in sri lanka have servants, they are treated like servants its horrible :( you do not need to by wealthy there to have servants

One of my clients who, I would say, is a very rich but very working class (i.e 'rough diamond' type) has:

Gardener
Assistant gardener
Housekeeper / cook
Nanny
Chauffeur / 'heavy' (i.e.bodyguard)
House secretary

and he refers to them as 'servants'

(Come to think of it it may be he refers to anyone who works for him as servants).

Middle class have always had "help" haven't they? Or some of them have.

My friend's employer, The Duke, doesn't refer to his domestic staff as servants, but serving staff/domestic staff, though traditionally in the household anyone but the Nanny was considered a servant. Margoandjerry I don't know why the Nanny was included, perhaps it was down to the very close relationship emotionally to the family as a whole?

Don't have an answer for OP but this whole concept makes me really effing angry. Having a fecking cleaner isn't going to encourage me to go back to work, childcare that didn't cancel out my earnings would. Yes it's a success in Scandanavia, because childcare is subsidised. If i had cheap childcare, enabling me to work, I'd get a tax relief cleaner too, why not.
Also, why should we encourage all women to go back to work anyway, there should be a choice. And since when did a filthy house stop anyone getting a job?

People seem to be getting wrapped up in the semantics of the word "servant".

Basically, it is just someone who works for you looking after your domestic affairs. That could be a chauffeur, nanny, gardener, cleaner, painter and decorator. The more dual income households there are the more likely people who are cash rich but time poor will employ someone to help out.

I do think it should be tax deductable if you have childcarer/nanny or use a nursery because having that cover allows you to work. Not allowing it to be tax deductible while on the other hand providing Govt subsidised childcare places is double speak and nonsense.

It's only really in the 20th century with the arrival of labour-saving gadgets that the middle classes stopped having 'help' as a matter of course.

I used to employ a nanny. She was most definitely not my servant.

I agree with MoreBeta that childcare should be tax deductible, not subsidised. Not sure about cleaners etc. I would certainly be more inclined to employ a cleaner if it was cheaper, and I guess this would help to create much-needed employment. However, while having a cleaner would make my busy life less hectic, I'm not at all convinced that reducing tax for the relatively well off is the best use of limited government resources - not when they are simultaneously cutting support for the disabled and for the poorest in our society. :(