To think this misses the point about costs of childcare?

[adsy]

"Critics have complained that homes where one parent stays at home to look after children will not benefit."

This is in response to the new scheme where parents will get 20% of childcare costs paid for by the government.
I'm a CM and all for subsidies of any sort to help out parents, but other than the odd day when you might need to go for an interview etc. I can't see why a stay at home parent needs to get childcare subsidies or am I missing a major point here?!

I know, it has a jam jar lid and everything

Trouble is DH is so impressed with it he has decided that all our our glasses are going to be jam jars!!!!! [shocked]

How am I supposed to explain that one to guests

Don't explain Rufus just serve drinks from the flower pot decanter without blinking. Very Shoreditch (?) I trust you are using junk mail coasters?

Do not put ideas into his head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As another said a little way up there is just as much a moral case to support those looking after elderly relatives as young children. My suggestion above of a low tax no reliefs fiscally neutral system is one alternative - everyone pays less tax but there is no state sponsored help for particular kinds of people the state chooses to support whether that be parents or any other group. Obviously that low tax, no reliefs mentality is not going to be very popular on a website for mothers but women at home might think it is fairer so I might get some supporters from those quarters particularly from those of us who h ave lost all our child benefit as my brother, sister and I have for all the cousins this tax year despite all bringing all those children up on one wage. it removes your faith in the state - the removal of the universal benefit.

The other change being suggested in today's papers is paying national insurance as long as you work even if you've done your 35 years to get the state pension. At present you stop paying the 12% when you reach state retirement age - 67 in my case. So you work all these years on the basis of one promise from the state that once you've paid your dues you get your contributory (ha ha) state pension and then they change the rules mid way. The more they do this kind of thing the less people will trust the state and play ball.

Green grow, congratulations on being part of such a successful family.

How do you figure that everyone, including a low earners, paying 33% tax is lowering taxes? How do you expect low income families to house and feed themselves?

I think you'd find that many people complaining about losing their CB would be a lot worse off paying 33%.

I'm not sure what the relevance of the rest of your post is to this thread TBH.

Yes I think if you earn 10k, are a single parent for example and you get taxed 33% that leaves you £128 a week to live off

Impossible

Also if you lost all CB you would be effectively on 60k plus, so if you base that on the 33% rule you would be fine on a lovely 750+ per week

Not quite the same

I also lost all CB, but I'm not blind enough to reality to know I'm very very lucky

I also lost all CB, but I'm not blind enough to reality to know I'm very very lucky

Yes, indeed.

A flat rate of tax with no relief for particular groups would benefit me personally, but I cannot think of a less desirable way of organising our fiscal system.

Isn't that exactly what UKIP are proposing?

A quick link for those that where struggling with why two people working was better for the economy. Remember two people working means more transactions as a result of the additional wage without the need for additional "credit". Those transactions drive the economy hence the government wanting people to work!

m.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0

And please don't just think about buying and bags remember when you work you are selling a service which your employer is buying!

peapod

Constantly (incessantly) saying that posters who disagree with you are "struggling" to understand things is just making you sound supercilious and unpleasant.

Could you just clear one point up please?

Is it your position that there is an unlimited supply of jobs in the UK and every adult could have one if they so desired?

If so, could you please give us your take on the recent sharp increase in self-employment and the concomitant sharp drop in average self-employed earnings?

I think the last few posts illustrate clearly why we all need to step outside our own individual circumstances and accept that policy should be based on what is good for the country as a whole. Of course there will be individual winners and losers... But as iamusuallybeingunreasonable points out, one would hope that most people can see that if they've lost CB, they are, compared to the majority of people, in a very fortunate position... 60k is a very good income

A flat rate of tax with no relief for particular groups would benefit me personally, but I cannot think of a less desirable way of organising our fiscal system.

Yes. Completely agree Snapes.

The flat 33%, no benefits, no reliefs suggestion would lead to mass evictions quite quickly.

But as iamusuallybeingunreasonable points out, one would hope that most people can see that if they've lost CB, they are, compared to the majority of people, in a very fortunate position... 60k is a very good income

YY

But if you're going to talk about a decrease in self-employee people you also have to talk about an increase in employee people. Up 167,000 in the second quarter of 2014.

The labour market does expand as people seek jobs and employment. Otherwise why would there be so many immigrants, particularly from Eastern Europe, successfully finding jobs in the Uk.

I never said anything about jobs in the uk ecconomy. Just clarifying the questions raised further up about why it's more beneficial to the ecconomy to have two people working. Hence the reason why WOHP should get support with child care.

I used the above video a while ago to help my 17 year old niece get her head round how the ecconomy works.

LittleBear

There has been a sharp increase in the number of people who are self employed, but averaged out, self-employment earnings are down markedly.

This suggests people are entering SE out of desperation (i.e. despite limited potential for profit) because of a shortage of suitable jobs.

I don't think looking at quarter by quarter unemployment figures is very helpful in terms of overall trends.

I never said anything about jobs in the uk ecconomy.

peapod

The thread is ABOUT a UK tax policy and the UK economy

Did people not realise that the lowest rate of tax/NI in the UK is already 33% so how can that be a reduction in tax when it is what people pay! Most people don't use their tax relief for pension contributions anyway so would not miss that.

Yes it is but tax policy is affected by hiw healthy the ecconomy is at that point in time. The video may be by an American but it's a simple way of demonstrating the basics of how economies work regardless of territory.

Arsenic you are clearly bright so you know exactly what that video is saying.

I shall leave you all with that. Off for a lovely walk with DD. It's gorgeous and sunny out there today.

Absolutely, the low tax,simple tax advocates including me all know that this is the way to help the economy grow so that people want to live and work here who make wealth. Instead this Government and Labour was just as bad introduce masses of complex new tax breaks all the time from Patent Box to film finance and complicate the system so much it is not as attractive for employers to be based here.

My point as regards women at home many of whom on here have lost their child benefit is that they probably agree with me - that tax breaks for childcare which stay at home mothers don't mostly need could be money better spent reducing their husband's tax rates (and of course mine into the bargain) which the incentivises people to work harder. When the state confiscates half of what you earn you don't bother to get out of bed on a Sunday particularly given the half you are left with is then confiscated in VAT, stamp duty and all the other taxes.

Peapod I haven't watched the video (link keeps failing). I can surmise roughly what it is saying from your introduction and the fact you have been saying much the same for several pages now.

What I am taking issue with is;

a) whether any of it matters when we don't have full employment (i.e. there is a limited amount of work to share round)

b) the way the importance of spending (in its own right) in stimulating the economy is being ignored by certain posters

c) the moralistic tone being taken by some on this thread as though paid work is the key indicator of a person's worth

And d) (a linked point) the notion that we should be running our society with the sole goal of maximum economic growth at all times, be using only fiscal measures to tell us if our country is a good one, we are doing well etc etc. There are measures just as important as GDP. There are things that are vital to a healthy society that are difficult to measure at all. I find this obsession with individual tax take quite obscene, particularly when it is dictating key decisions about the lives of our children.

What I am saying is really not so opaque.

Greengrow you're talking shite. Low earners do not pay 33% tax/NI.

There is a reason that the policy makers are not listening to you. You have clearly got zero comprehension of how 90% of the UK population live.

greengrow

I understand what you are saying and I agree that a felt rate may bring more money, it's an argument I've seen many times

I think there should still be benefits though

arsenic

Aahh you're bright, beg you're chuffed with that