Tax breaks for hiring a cleaner!

[MayaAngelCool]

Well, it's a proposal...

I would love to have a cleaner, but until I can start earning from my freelance career I find it hard to justify the expense. Yet I would be a hell of a lot less stressed out and exhausted, and would also have more time to work on my freelance career, if I did have a career.

I also think it's a Good Thing to create more work for people such as cleaners.

Can't imagine hiring someone to cook our food, though...maybe if it was Jamie Oliver I might consider it . I'm perhaps a bit too controlling in the kitchen department to invite a stranger to take over there.

The big question is, would it make me vote Conservative? Maybe...if I was lobotomised at the same time.

(Note: I've linked to Charlie Brooker's article instead of the original because it's so much more entertaining!)

'The effect I have seen is that people who needed one off jobs doing in their homes or regular support have finally been able to afford it. Which in turn has opened up employment opportunities that did not previously exisit.'

How? Someone on 12K a year or a pensioner on £110 per week (one pays little tax, the othernone) still wont be able to afford employeying anyone. I desperately need my living room painted. Its going to cost £200 qiud. I'm too disabled to do it myself. I dont pay tax now. No tax break is going to magic up £200.

Chocolate, I mentioned class in my post because the article wrote about it. And you can't possibly speak for "every" economist! I think JM Keynes and his present-day followers would have a thing to say about that!

Wrt people on very low incomes, and of course those who don't pay tax, they should, as I mentioned in my last post, be offered allowances to enable them to finance home help.

Interesting to see that how the scheme works France and Sweden, that makes a lot more sense than the Torygraph's write-up.

As a matter of interest - how much does a cleaner get as an hourly rate?

I think it's worth getting away from arguments about class and comparative pay here and asking what the benefits to society and the economy might be.

Women doing less unpaid housework and having a better work-life balance?
Increased equality for women at work and at home?
New jobs opening up for people good at cleaning and repair work?
Better employment conditions for cleaners and repair people?
People being able to set up small businesses? (This is what my - male - cleaner has done, and he seems to employ his entire family).
A greater standard of professionalism in the sector?
Increased GDP?

FWIW I would really like to see this trialled for a year or two to see what the effect on the economy was. The cash benefit is likely to be less than what people were getting for trading in old cars to buy new ones, after all. And it might stimulate the economy whilst striking a blow for equality.

WetAugust, they get about £10 an hour, but on another thread a couple of years ago I explained why this only equated to about £5-10k a year, as many of them work school hours only and very part-time as well.

Id really rather have decent childcare options frankly. I can take or leave my own cleaning. I need help with decent places and prices of places for my under school age kids.

LaC if this applied to in home childcare it would be hugely beneficial for families with 2+ children not in school. A FT nanny can cost £2000/month, the tax rebate at 50% could cut that to £1000 making it affordable for a whole lot more people.

Could I register as self-employed and dh pay me to clean the house/do the garden/a bit of diy and then get the tax rebate? Just wondering...

£10 an hour for cleaning?! I dont pay that in London. £7 an hour here for ironing and cleaning. Unfortunately due to the down turn we have reduced hours to every other week, rather than 5 hours a week. If there was a tax break I would gladly increase my cleaner's hours and thus her income.
I work long hours and once we have a kid and I work part time the money for cleaning will be less available, especially given the ludicrous cost of childcare if you work a normal 8 hour day & have a 2 hour commute. Giving my DH & I a tax break to employ home help would keep me in work and thus paying income tax & NIC to swell the coffers of the Treasury, as well as creating an employment opportunity for other people.

We had help when we lived outside London, when we earnt significantly less, but both worked long hours and were often away from home. Cleaning and ironing were a major cause of domestic stress so we found a lady to help. That amazing lady later launched a cleaning business off the back of us giving her a way back into work.

So yes, giving a tax break would not only be good for those employing domestic staff but also good for those who could take advantage of the employment opportunities created.

Lets not knock it until we try it -if it can work in Sweden and in France why not the UK?

Are the Tories running a competition on who can come out with the most stupid and infuriating way to annoy the working classes?.

Anyone who can afford a cleaner can afford to pay childcare and go to work, if they can find a job, but then considering the kind of people we are talking about they will probably just get a job off one of their mates or their husband etc.

unless this is a new scam for the JSA claimants, work experience as a cleaner, the government will take your pathetic wage, you just get to keep your JSA.

I really was in two minds about this.... after all it may increase employment for cleaners, gardeners, nannies etc.

Then I remembered how this very same government are getting rid of childcare help in tax credits, for those families with low pay who are now going to really struggle as a result.

So no, i don't think those with the money to 'buy in help' should get tax breaks unless the working poor also get their childcare help back. They need it more.

It's an insult to woman anyway, to assume that woman are not working because they are cleaning, such bullshit.

Get your husband to do some cleaning or the kids, break stereotypes, don't pander to them.

Ryoko

I don't know much about developments with tax credits and child care but I do know that changing the focus from "Women need Child Care" to "children need Child Care" would be helpful. Should children have to pay for child care?
Cleaners need work opportunities........... or do they, who are these people who aspire to clean other peoples homes. Have they had a top notch education that would rival Dave's. I didn't think so, no they made do with what was forced upon them by a long list of Daves or they are immigrants desperate for any work however low paid and degrading.

A better solution to all of this would be universal FREE child care for all children, a living wage paid at a rate that would not make claimants out of hard working tax payers and a vigorous hunting down of wealthy tax dodgers and more help for small businesses to employ people.

I've thought a lot about what bothers me about this and it's this...

The effect of this policy, from the government's POV, is a lot of cash in hand work will have to be declared, as the employer will be telling the revenue they have a cleaner and who that cleaner is.

Which is fine to a degree. After all, everyone should pay tax, and I don't condone tax evasion.

Except, under these proposals, the better off person isn't, at the expense of the less well off person. That seems inexplicable.

One benefit would be that cleaners would be less likely to work cash in hand so it would help counter the 'black economy' preventing benefit fraud (cleaners claiming out of work benefits & working). I am shocked by the number of people I know who think nothing of paying their cleaner cash knowing that they aren't paying tax and NI on their earnings and could possibly be claiming benefits to which they are not entitled.

Yes that's it isn't it, if you combine taking tax from a low income, capped benefits and lower rates of tax credit, the money saved will be syphoned into tax breaks to the wealthy employer. All Dave's friends will be wetting their pants with excitement when they realise what their supporters are likely to gain.

"Last night, Labour said of the latest proposal: ?This demonstrates how out of touch David Cameron is about the pressures facing women in this country. He is suggesting tax breaks for people who can afford domestic workers at the same time as he is cutting tax credits for working parents and removing child benefit from squeezed families. "

This expresses just about everything I think about this proposal.

I think it is utter bollocks. We are very lucky. Dh is a 40% rate taxpayer and I have chosen to take a career break to look after our DCs whilst they are small, because we feel this is best for our family. I guess potentially I could be in their targtet audience for this. DH does lots of extra work on top of his main salaried job to allow us to afford this. I repeat, I know we are lucky. I think it is a good choice for many families to have the option of one parent looking after the children themselves whilst they are small and actually I believe this should be an option for all families irrespective of income. I think it's sad that in families where one parent would like to look after preschool aged children themselves they may be forced out to work because of financial circumstances . For parents who do not want this option then that is their choice and good childcare is vital, but it incenses me that the Govt thinks that caring for small children is something that every family should outsource.

Yet, everything the Government does in this area seems to be designed to push both parents out to work as soon as possible. We will lose our child benefit when the changes come in. I could live with that if it weren't for the stupid inequities (single families, cliff esde implementation where a payrise of a small amount might lead to loss of all child benefit and a family being worse off, the fact that families with 2x £39K paying less tax overall will keep it, whereas 1x 45k won't). It will be difficult, but we will cope. However, it is harder for DH to find ways to earn the difference simply because he is the higher rate payer and has to earn so much more to compensate than if I could earn it, because I work occasionally and am well under my personal tax allowance. But, if I work more, we would have to pay childcare... and anyway that's not what we want nor what's best for our children.

Everything seems to be about generating jobs. Encourage mothers to work, then not only are they employed, but they need childcare, and now subsidised cleaners as well . As I say, fine if that is your family's choice, but it is not best for many families or children, especially under 3s. It actually feels like social engineering to me and I hate it. I thought the Conservatives sold themselves as the party of traditional family values? Not so much it seems, or only if you're extremely wealthy .

That's aside from why the hell they're coming up with schemes like this whilst cutting disability benefits and lots of other things that are v important but totally unrelated to working parents. Subsidised domestic staff, FFS what next ?

I like gramercy's idea [wry smile]. Maybe I could register as a CM and DH could pay me to care for outr children with childcare vouchers too.

Oh no wait, those things are probably illegal aren't they because the value of mothering (or fathering) all day is ZERO, it only becomes worthwhile employment when we pay other people to do it .

Child benefit was created in response to child poverty. Not because of actual family income but because men didn't always share the spoils of their labour. It was paid to women, acknowledging that women & children should have greater safety and protection from poverty than was simply afforded from the traditional family set up.

Now women are making gains in employment opportunities and many women ditch unreliable or violent partners and go it alone. However we shouldn't assume that women and children are less vulnerable if their husbands earn more.

So maybe, it would be better to assure women a certain level of income no less than the present child benefit what ever her partners income or her wages. If she chooses to work or not, pay for cleaners or not should be her choice. Why? because time and time again on MN women are saying, I pay the child care, I pay the cleaner, I pay to get his shirts ironed. Women are paying these bills just for the right to work. Women pay these bills because somehow we are being made to feel that we should because it's our responsibility and our work we choosing to outsource.

What ever the outcome of the Dave's idea, my guess is it will be the cleaner on a low wage and the working mother who still pays the real price and she will probably be one and the same!

I have to say it gaul (sp?) that if I want to employ a nanny or cleaner ligit, and do payroll etc, then I am have to pay employer tax out of money I have already had taxed. But a company pays out all its costs before their tax bill is calculated!

Boffinmum - I think it's worth getting away from arguments about class and comparative pay here and asking what the benefits to society and the economy might be.

I agree. I guess the main point of it is job creation - getting more of the earnings of higher earners to trickle down to the local economy rather be spent on goods which boost imports. I don't think it's primarily about getting women 'back to work' as that isn't really the priority right now.

I see that this could be a good (but limited) measure, but I don't fancy the vision it implies of an upstairs- downstairs economy with a high earning financial sector being the source of the country's economic competitiveness and everyone else benefiting through a trickle down of service jobs. On the other hand I don't much fancy the vision of the same thing but with benefits creating the trickle down of wealth which seems to be the current alternative. We need policies for high productivity mass- employment not a return to domestic service.

Watfordmummy - that's how taxes work though.

Businesses buy goods and services (their costs), do something to add value, then sell them on to earn money (revenues). The difference is profit and that's what they pay tax on.

Individuals pay tax on their wages, and pay for goods and services to consume out of taxed income.

If a cheese factory buys milk they do it out of pre-tax income because it's a business cost, if we buy milk we do it out of taxed income. Both are buying milk, but if you accept the principle of income tax then it's not unfair just because they are both buying the same thing.

But Himalaya, in the same way the cheese factory needs milk to be able to produce cheese, a family unit with DCs needs childcare in order to be able to go and add whatever value it does to the economy. I have employed a nanny and it maddened me beyond words that I had to pay her, and pay an employer's NI contribution, with no tax breaks at all from my taxed income, while a good friend of mine who worked as a gun-loader and dog handler for an aristo who liked shooting, could be set against the aristo's estate's profits for tax purposes. Pick the bones out of that one. I can now get childcare vouchers (deducted before tax), but even now only one of my DCs needs a CM, and I work term-time only, the amount I can buy does not cover all the costs.

Sure but an individual also needs food and clothing, fuel etc... to go out and earn money in the economy. But we are happy to pay for those things out of taxed income.

I agree if your mate is just gun loading for their employers' hobby that shouldn't be counted as a business expense, but if the Estate earns money by hosting paid shooting parties then they are working for the business.