found this in telegraph.
figures come from oecd.
The OECD, which brings together the governments of the world?s advanced economies, studied the taxes on wages in its 32 member countries. It studied the four typical household groups ? single people earning the average wage, a single parent with two children earning two thirds of the average, a one-earner couple with two children on the average wage and a two-earner couple with two children.
The report compared tax take today with figures from 2009 and 2000.
In Britain, the single parent had seen the biggest fall in tax from 15 per cent of their earnings in 2000 to 8.4 per cent, largely because of the tax credit system. The single person?s tax rate fell from 32.6 per cent to 32.3 per cent.
The two-earner couple?s tax rate fell from 28.3 per cent to 28 per cent now.
However, the single-earner couple?s tax rate rose from 27.8 per cent in 2000 to 27.9 per cent. They have also seen a large rise in taxes since 2009 ? far outstripping the increase for the other groups. This is because of the reduction in child benefit and changes to tax credits.
Traditional British families pay an average of 1.7 percentage points more tax than the international average ? equivalent to £170 additional tax annually for every £10,000 they earn.
In America, a family earning twice the average wage pays only 25.6 per cent in tax ? 13 percentage points less than in this country. Even wealthy traditional family units in Germany fare better.
The study prompted renewed calls from Conservative MPs for the Coalition to do more to support stay-at-home mothers. Several ministers, including Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, are becoming increasingly exasperated at the failure to introduce the tax break for married couples.
Nick de Bois, the Conservative MP for Enfield North, said: ?The instincts of the Conservatives is to support families, including through the tax system. These figures show that we need to do more to recognise those families in future Budgets. A good start would be transferable tax allowances.? Campaigners have pointed out that Britain is one of the few countries in the world not to
recognise marriage in the tax system
Last week, the Coalition angered stay-at-home mothers by changing its system of support for child care to exclude those not returning to work.
A stay-at-home mother, Laura Perrins, who confronted Mr Clegg on the issue, said on Tuesday night: ?It is wrong for the Government to be stacking the economic incentive against a mum who may want to stay at home and look after her children. They are incentivising mums to go out to work. Whether she decides to go to work full time or part time is a private decision. Stay-at-home mothers have a contribution to society that you are not able to measure on GDP figures.?
Last week, speaking to The Daily Telegraph, Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, defended the child care plans, saying it was economically beneficial for mothers to return to the workplace.
On Tuesday night, a Downing Street spokesman appeared to play down the importance of mothers staying at home by saying the system was designed to help those who want to ?work hard and get on?. He added: ?The UK?s system of individual taxation provides stronger work incentives than the tax systems of many other OECD countries.?
Most sahm mums worked and paid tax prior to leave.
Some higher earner single incomes pay more tax than 2basic rate tax payers.
2basic rate tax payers can get more in befenefits due to their low earnings that tax paid so their contribution tax is negative one if state has to pay 70%of their childcare to allow then to go work in nmw job for huge company , they get cheap labour and state subsidises low earners.
I would much rather have seen child benefit capped at 2kids and I have 3.
Even if more affluent families husbands can be abusive an controlling.
Im a sahm mum not through choice if I had capability of highre earnings and family nearby I would have stayed as working mum.
The new changes dont benefit or incentivise middle income mum to go out find work because
both incomes need to be over 10k I know a lot of part time working mums and pro rata or min wage they be under than threshold.
But because their partner is deemed to earn too much they possibly got child benefit taken away, wont be eligible for new 1200 per child as under 10k but wont be eligible for tax credits once again because their partner earns too much.
worked out on old salary of 20k under new system childcare for 3 i be £1600 worse off by working and thats not even including commuting costs.That was just gross income -gross childcare.
I think people need to stop judging each other.
not every sahm is lazy and being subsidized by the state.
That most time its number crunching so if dads lower paid then sometimes he choses to stay at home.
They need to take a good look at childcare provision across the country as its very uneven.
I was shocked to discover that 3hour session at my local preschool is less than 4quid same amont time in south east essex, lomdon, kent is 14-16quid!
Not every state school has breckfast club or after school club.
Not every area has aqdequate provision on holiday cover and state school holidays 14weeks a year plus inset days not even adding in sickness , bad weather days then thats alot for working parent to coveras most get 6weeks a year so have great sympathy for single working parents.
It smacks to me of stupidy they want all the gains without the investment or checking out the provision.
Lower the rations of childcare wont bring down the costs or increase he quality.
Its bit like the bedroom tax which in principle I agree with but disagree with execution.
If theres no smaller social homes for them to downsize to then what choices do they have?
They not having mass building of social housing like they need to be.
Feel the whole childcares similar analogy of the provisions not there.
Or the costs prohibitive.
then what choice does the sahm have.
I hate the way working parents and sahm parents been pitted against each other.
we all crunch the numbers look at provison and the jobs incomes we have and make choice accordingly who am I to judge those at work but who are they to judge me.
I think in employment when went back fultime after maternity i felt discriminated against.
I cant do my old role part time.
I cant afford to retrain
so at moment im stuck at home trying to be self employed and full time carer to 2 under 4s.
I love them have good days and bad.
I have enabled husband to move companies and possibly inline for promotion his salary has increased but so has cost of living and we lost £40 a month tax credits last april.
I dont think its the financial stuff that sahm are most peeved about although the wealthy getting more is unfair its the negative use of language.
the whole we support those who want to work hard and get on and when questioned about sahm mums they have no answer.
Britain?s genius policy excludes 1.2 million stay-at-home parents. And to make matters worse, the PM had some very choice words for SAH mums and dads. Good ole? Cameron?s official spokesman (who will probably be unemployed after all of this ? just sayin?!) responded to a comment by press asking if the Prime Minister was concerned that the vouchers penalized SAHMs. And the official spokesman responded on behalf of the PM that the measures were ?very important as part of supporting those who want to work hard and to get on.? Uh, sorry ? but can you explain again how SAHM or SAHD?s are not working hard? And not getting on? ?Cause to be honest, I?m a little confused.
But here?s the real kicker ? the press continued with questions, asking whether or not Mr. Cameron ?believed that stay-at-home parents were less in need of state help than working parents.? The spokesman, who officially dug his own grave with this response, said that the Prime Minister wanted to support ?aspiration.? AGAIN ? SO CONFUSED. How are SAH parents not aspiring?
Never fear! The insults just kept on comin?. The spokesman (can this guy stop talking already?!) added, ?The announcement is very specifically focusing on helping those who want to work hard and face the very high child care costs.? He then said that the Prime Minister stressed that the Coalition wants to direct its help at parents ?who want to go out to work.?
I mean do they not have half a brain to consider a sahm mums reaction to this?
Dont know % of sahm thse days guess we dwindlining numbers and not as powerful as greay bote but guess what being at home I can easily go polling station and vote them out thats if dident hate labour so much.
Rock and hard place springs to mind.
Im so dissaapointed in them I dont think
we all in this together
The word big society long forgotton volunatry work is worthless I guess as doesnt pay the tax man!
Maybe im living in fairy land but would love to see all parents working or sahm campaign for fairness in tax system and greater support towards working parents.
Lot of these changes are unfair and we should fight them.
Im happy to stand up and be counted say thsi childcare change is
unfair to working mums and student mums and im neither of those groups.
Im also happy to say it disadvantes lower earners and my husbands a middle earner.
I dont just care about my old self interest.
At end of day its not about money at stake its our children in their botched policies will affect kids.
I dont see why wealthy oaps cant ease some of burden.