Tories campaigning to remove the childcare maximum income threshold

[FlakyPastries]

Kemi Badenoch has announced that the Tories want to remove the upper income threshold on childcare.

This means all working families will be able to claim it, including those earning over £100k.

Do you agree with this policy?

My baby’s nursery charges £30,000 and the free hours and tax free childcare is worth around £15,000 - so this is quite a significant benefit for those currently unable to claim.

So unreliable then.

Arguably more reliable with being from more than one source, so a broader spread of data. Nothing worse than data from a single source that may be intentionally or unintentionally biased.

A factual source is reliable. AI sources could come from anywhere.

The ones who have left probably weren't paying much tax in the uk anyway. They are leaving because it's now more difficult to avoid.

No @walrushurricane - the Guardian were talking about the wealth of billionaires who were UK residents which means they would have paid tax here. They left because of a new bonkers inheritance tax policy where your entire worldwide wealth is subject to a UK inheritance tax and it follows you around for many years, after leaving. They call it the inheritance tax tail.
When Labour propose this kind of thing, then the accountants email their rich clients repetitively with stark warnings so then plenty leave and half the wealth gone in 2 years is pretty extreme! Any normal person would say that is a clear red flag to chain course.
If your main business is in eg India and you are an industrial giant there and happened to be living in London for the lifestyle and your kids schooling, you may be happy to pay the applicable taxes whilst you live there. But not for many many years after you leave and especially not if you are the type to have created a huge industry in another country for many generations to come and you have a big legacy. Why would you want your family to have to sell up 40% control or whatever it might be over your assets, to please the UK Government. You may actually be happy to contribute and have a legacy but more towards your country of origin.

So when they overstep, they have to bear the consequences of the overstepping.

that's why people are pushing for the 'wealth tax' to be on UK assets not work

So they’d tax non-UK doms and non-UK residents - ie people not living in the UK or from the UK on their UK assets? And you’d still expect people to invest in the UK in the future?

I agree, and it's what a lot of lefties just don't get.

I liken it to the London Olympics where the Treasury/HMRC had to give special indemnities to non resident athletes that they wouldn't be taxed in the UK during their time in the UK, otherwise several had threatened to boycott the games, including, it was reported, Mo Farah.

Quite frankly, sometimes the UK needs the person (or business) more than it needs their tax revenue!

if billionaires (who are non-UK doms or residents) decide that they want to sell their UK assets because they don't want to pay a tax on them, then I'm sure that someone else will buy them

This! They do this all the time.

When’s the election?! I’ll be voting for her with this policy. It’s insane we pay so much and others don’t.

Because:
One salary of 60k has net income of £3779 per month
Net income of half of that -30k -is £2093, so net income/take home pay isn't double the take home of average income.
You can have 2 salaries of 59 k each and have joint net monthly income of £7462 and still receive it.

You can be a millionaire pensioner and will still get winter fuel allowance and, if you wanted, could get a free bus pass.

Raising DC is expensive and frankly hardwork, it benefits society and therefore raising DC should be supported by the government by giving child benefit and child tax credits.

You pay a lot of tax earning 60k or more but you may well be still be struggling with mortgage and childcare costs. If you are paying such a lot into the system its only fair you can benefit from it too.

Why did the conservatives introduce this policy in the first place?

To make a short term again. It will have made money in the short term, then people will have got themselves under the £100k and then the policy would have been damaging to the economy. Successful in the short term, damaging in the long term.

So if you were a non resident non dom would you build a factory in the UK knowing that you could face a wealth tax on that factory in the future? Of course not! You’d run for the hills!

To avoid being called "Nasty party" who protect rich.

If you look at their period in power, ironically it was Tory who hit higher earners really badly, taxed lower and middle earners much lower than comparable countries, and grew welfare and PIP spending. They were much more compassionate to poor and vulnerable than Labour with their WFA etc.

Yes, you're sure...
Based on what? someone will buy their assets, but if this someone is not a UK resident then we'll see big fat zero of taxes here.

Just one of many examples. UK business owned by foreigners for decades.
Billionaire Weston family to buy Boots in $8.9bn deal

Boots was already owned by a US company.

exactly. The same the same as thousands of other great historically British businesses.

You were trying to imply that the Labour policy has made companies leave the UK but linked to the buy out of a company that wasn't owned by the uk in the first place.

"but if this someone is not a UK resident then we'll see big fat zero of taxes here"

that's why I am saying they should be taxed on their UK assets - I don't really understand your point?

I can't fathom why others are happy to have multi millionaires and billionaires owning UK assets (which drives up the prices for everyone else), earning millions from passive income and thinking they shouldn't be taxed on them as they might leave the country?

Depends what you’re including as assets though. If they are business assets, then an overseas owner creating jobs here is almost universally a good thing.

If higher taxes were introduced on the number of overseas owners of e.g. flats in London, that would be interesting. As UK residential property has shown to rise in value over time (historically) lots of overseas investors have over recent years bought flats for the rise in value while leaving them empty as they don’t want the hassle of renting them out. Higher taxes or even bans on overseas property ownership would be good for everyone - with the exception of those currently owning flats.

so you'd choose not to build your own wealth for fear of being taxed when your fortune reaches a high level?

say 2% when your assets are above £10M = £200,000
or 2% of £50M is £1M

you'd run for the hills from these figures?

Lib Dem coalition!

have you ever tried to understand why there is no wealth tax in developed countries? Netherlands debated this recently and decided not to go for it.

At a rate of 2% pa your entire wealth will be taken from you in about 60 years, so likely to be in your lifetime.

This is also unrealised gain, so imagine you hold shares which are worth 1m today. You pay 20k wealth tax. Next week shares drop to 500k - will you get 10k refund?

So to answer your question - I would absolutely not build any wealth in a country which might introduce wealth tax. I'd emigrate and build my wealth elsewhere.