to like this UKIP idea of a tax break of £13,000 to help stay at home mums?

[Belladonna666]

I know it probably won't go down well on Mumsnet, but I actually think this is a good idea being suggested by UKIP.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/9949657/Ukip-courts-Tories-with-13000-tax-break-for-stay-home-mothers.html

I notice from the link that laura perrins, the woman who took issue over this with cameron, was a barrister before becoming a SAHM. I suspect she was quite happy to be taxed as an individual rather than as an appendage to her husband then. We never heard any of these career-women-turned- SAHM begging to be taxed jointly when they were working!

( and this is NOT a SAHM bashing thread. I support any family's right to do what they feel is best for them. )

I love the sound of it being a sahm but I don't expect anyone other than dp to financially support me. I know this will get me flamed but ukip do have some good policies especially their energy policies- make far more sense to me then the big threes ideas.

And how will UKIP fund this oh yes by kicking out all those pesky foreigners

That is their only policy and the Tories will never deal with Nigel Farage thankfully

A) you would also have to swallow UKIPs other policies

B) why the heck should anyone else in the country by subsidizing SAHP?

I say that as a SAHM.

*be

I am a real leftie and a welfare state supported but I do not like this idea at all.

Shame their racist and disablist policies take the shine off it eh.

Anyone with half a brain cell doesn't take UKIP seriously anyway.

They are creeping into places where the tories once reigned Lunatics

I would rather transferable tax allowance for those in marriage or civil partnership.

I have been a SAHP and a working parent (part and full time).
I wouldn't expect anyone else to cough up for my lifestyle choices.

I suppose if you are a SAHP you would like it! Where on earth the money would come to fund this is another matter, a recent thread has just closed adn got quite heated regarding this type of thing. Some were claiming that if taxed more pensioners then all those SAHP's could stay at home...

Some also claim that their partners are paying their tax on their behalf anyway.

If the Tories continue to alienate their traditional supporters, then it stands to reason that other parties will creep into the space left, to sweep up those votes.

maisie, if a single hrt payer with a sahp pays more tax than dual earners on the same income, then they kind of are. It's actively costing them more money to have a sah partner than for both to take lower paid jobs which generate the same gross salary.

I return to my original question: were Laura Perrins ( and other supporters of this proposal) begging to be taxed as just one entity with their husband while they were still in their pre- children careers?

Thought not.

Quite apart from the distasteful UKIP association, its the hypocrisy which gets me- people who suddenly want a change of policy when it suits their particular choice at a given moment in time

But janey, with the sudden change in cb rules, surely people are entitled to change where they stand wrt taxation.

The thing is - we are either inviduals or not. We cannot claim to be tax payers (because their DP's are) and then complain when they lose THEIR child benefit.

Someone on a previous thread claimed to be a tax payer and a SAHM's - the thread got to 1000 and was closed so I never did get an answer. I guess the only thing she could have meant is that she paid VAT on anything she brought.

Well anyone is entitled to change their mind. But CB was always exactly that- a benefit. Not earnings, or tax linked to earnings but a benefit, which no one has an automatic entitlement to

The Tories change their minds all the time. I think that if you break a pledge made in your pre election manifesto, that should count as breach of contract and a new election should be called.

Well, once upon a time every individual, working or not had a personal allowance they could transfer to their spouse when they weren't working or didn't earn enough to claim the full allowance.

20% of 10K (as the PA will be next tax year) is £2K.

It's hardly a revolutionary idea, more like rehashing the past.

I doubt any politician has an original idea.

I suppose that CB had to be on overall household income, not right or wrong but just the only way tbh. Otherwise a SAHP with a high income partner would always get it...

I have lost CB, both of us are over the limit. My single parent colleague on £55k has also lost it. Some are complaining that they have lost it on less despite the fact that one person can afford to stay at home.

I suppose it depends what your outgoings are. We are all different. I have a large mortgage (not that large for the SE!). In some parts of the UK it would be a shocking amount.

Sorry, I have said that wrong about overall household income!

CB was effectively a tax break (Family Allowance) in recognition of the fact that raising children is both expensive and valuable to society as a whole. Once the name changed it was easier for the govt to remove it or lump it in with income related benefits.

And people did have an automatic entitlement to it - that was the point of it. Everyone felt invested in the idea that they paid tax and got abit back if they were doing something that society valued (having dc)

I have lost it though and my colleague really misses it.

It's never going to happen. No government (even Crazy Balls) would let it go through. The UK is broke and can't afford it. UKIP are trying to find a way of recovering from the In or Out drum the banged for years before the Coalition pee'd on their party drum a couple months back...

The reason cb was universal was to help abused women who often have no access to any money at all (making it very difficult to leave).