Should families get a tax allowance for dependant children

[Clariee45]

Just a thought from another thread about there being no help for the squeezed middle who feel they are hardly better off than those on universal credit. Wouldn’t it just be fairer if those families not entitled to universal credit were given an extra tax allowance equivalent to the adult personal allowance for each child.
Why are adults given a tax allowance that acknowledges the basic costs of needing to eat and have a roof over there head etc and yet parents are expected to provide all this (plus 80% childcare costs) for their children completely out of their taxed income

@Clariee45 to be honest what you should really campaign for is more social housing at a sensible rent level so families can have somewhere safe, secure, permanent and affordable to live in.
Private renting needs to much more strict with long term tenancies and affordable rents.
Schools need to stop insisting on over priced and unaffordable uniforms and equipment.
All children should be entitled to go their local school which should be a Local Authority school - no "faith" schools, pick and choosy Academies etc - because at the moment the so called "parental choice"* means children frequently have to travel miles to get to school often at parents cost (bus pass, paying for a car).
*often not the parents choice at all.
These changes would make a massive financial difference to many families.

Nannies provide a service for other people
Looking after your own children just benefits the individual family.

*People don't want to take accountability many women know they are struggling with 1 DC and go on to have the 2nd and the 3rdg

ah yes, children are the sole responsibility of their mothers….

So, if all the at-home parents swapped around their kids and made it chargeable, then that would be a benefit to society but if all the kids remain in their own home it's a loss to society?

I’m a working tax paying parent and chose to work even when I paid my entire salary (and more) on childcare costs as I love my job but I would sure as hell hate to live in your dystopian world. There have been other times when I have been a SAHM as that was best for my children, my job and my mental health. Unless of course you would wanted me to be doing your IV medications on 2 hours sleep! Before you insist DH should have stepped in, should he have just AWOL’d from his highly specialised job that benefited us all. Should I have just told teenagers to pull themselves together when they needed me? We weren’t entitled to any benefits during this time, we just had to take the hit and are still paying off the debts from both being a SAHM and paying childcare. I’m not even asking for anyone else’s money, just they we could just keep a little more of our own while raising children.

Methinks Economics should be a compulsory subject.

Clearly it would have to be a generic tax on the working age population who are not earning a specified level from employment or self-employment or claiming out of work benefits or in full time education for a period of 3 months of longer. The specified level would be low enough that substantial part time work would be enough to qualify and exemptions would be made for those who have already paid enough NI to qualify for a full state pension (with the required numbers of years increased to 40).
It’s not about taking choices away but rather acknowledging that having an adult stay at home has financial benefits for the family and that such financial benefits should be taxed in the same way that conventional income would be.

"Child Benifit"

Depending on your definition of "Squeezed" middle.

OR if thats not evening thing up with the more empoverished beneath you, maybe substitute some benifits for food parcels so theres a more comfortable differential 🙄

@Desecratedcoconut the problem with being a SAHM it's easy to expand your family because you are at home anyway and you are the free childcare. However how many people can afford it? Many alledge they can on MN..... but in reality I don't see how it's viable in this economy. Those days ended when I was growing up in the 90s.

I’m not even asking for anyone else’s money, just they we could just keep a little more of our own while raising children.

But that’s how everyone sees it, as wanting to keep a little more of their own.

Sounds like you and DH both have good jobs. What are you finding unaffordable? It it putting food on the table? Bills?

No, because that isn't the same as a qualified professional providing a service.

Yep. Keynesian economics at its best.

🤣 okay.

Is it me or did they monetize and decide to tax babysitting?

@Uggtrending Of course there are cut offs as they should be but I think it's ok to have one benefit for families that is universal.

Well have children requires compromise and sacrifice. surely you thought about that impact it would have on your finances. If you wanted to keep more of your money then don't have so many children that it takes up all your money to raise them. Or get a job that pays more. Pretty simple.

So, if all the at-home parents swapped around their kids and made it chargeable, then that would be a benefit to society but if all the kids remain in their own home it's a loss to society?

Well yes, because the first one would have all of those people now earning money and therefore contributing to broader society via tax and NI, rather than just benefiting their own family by being economically inactive

Right, so if we just make being a sahm chargeable, then it becomes a benefit to society?

No one has kids for “the good of society”. No one.

Fuck that , I subsidise other people’s kids enough through my taxes as it is

I can't afford my second but you make it work

Just asking that our children as recognised as people with the same rights and needs as any other people, we fully accept earning the money to pay for them on their behalf but why is that money 100% taxed. It’s 2.5k a year, no parent is going to have some unfair advantage by this over non parents by having children

Why do you keep saying 2.5k? You want full adult personal tax allowance, 2.5k is a fraction of that

i became a SAHM after dc2, childcare plus travel to work was more than I would earn a month and dh earned too much for us to get help. We were better off as a family with one parent at home, working would have been the luxury. Either way we had to arrange our finances to just live off DHs wage. if I worked, less than just DHs wage.

I rejoined the workforce when dc2 was at school. But the state missed out on 4+ years of me paying tax and when I went back to work, it was earning less than I’d left on.

this is still normal, that the lower earner is bringing in less than the childcare and travel costs.

family childcare plugs a lot of gaps in this. Other countries manage cheap childcare, cheap public transport and tax systems that reward working after having dcs.

At £2500 per child it would cost £32billion a year in lost taxes the equivalent of the cost running the NHS for over 2 months which is clearly not a sustainable loss to the public budget and would largely have to be recouped elsewhere.