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!)

No, employed to accompany his boss on shooting trips around the country. But the point is that food, fuel etc are consumables, the benefit of which is solely enjoyed by the consumers. Employing someone enables them to purchase stuff out of their taxed income - isn't that the whole point behind the drive for growth? I am against the current proposals on the grounds that if we can't afford to state fund things like speech and language services for children with hearing impairment, to name just one cut hurting someone close to me, then I don't see how we can divert taxes to something that will hugely disproportionately benefit the relatively wealthy. However, tax breaks for employing personal service providers have been skewed away from the kind of services that women tend to take responsibility for sourcing and funding, and it would be nice once we are in recovery mode if that balance were redressed.

I think the point of it is to encourage people who hire cleaners anyway to make sure that their cleaners are paying tax on the income and not fraudulently claiming benefits.

My friend ran a cleaning agency and really struggled to find cleaners who were prepared to work and be 'on the books.'

To take another angle on this - how about the elderly who need someone to help clean up or put up shelves because they can no longer cope. Making that cheaper for them is going to help keep them out of (expensive) care homes.

I actually agree with this. The problem is legitimacy of such things, it's so easy for cleaners to work cash in hand in this country. No one will vet a cleaner's bank account and say 'ooh where did this £200 come from then?' so why not (from their PoV).

But I would say that it needs to be shared - say for example a small tax break for the employer and an increased personal allowance for those working in jobs people just don't want to do (loo cleaning etc.) So instead of getting the basic allowance you get 30% more if you are prepared to do jobs people consider 'lowly' (FWIW I think cleaners are bloody amazing - though we lost ours when we moved and now I do it all myself I think they are even more amazing).

And yes, I'm in that 'affluent' group you all hate so feel free to cash bash

I am in two minds about this (as someone who would benefit) ; i don't think it should be priority at the moment if it is a net cost to the country - I would far rather the money was targeted at those who need it.( i do think benefits should be targeted including child benefits) but it would be interesting to see the numbers- we currently employ cleaners and babysitters through agencies so they (probably) pay tax- but there are a huge number of people working cash in hand so a lot of lost tax revenue to be gained.
I'd also rather they had a look at the tax position on childcare costs though as this is a direct cost of working- DP doesn't get any tax deduction for this as he is self employed whereas he would if he were PAYE

Can I make the point that any tax deductible element of home based childcare only just covers the cost of the employer's NI contribution and payroll?

If employers with five or fewer employees were let off this extra NI contribution, which only started a few years ago (thanks a bunch, Gordon Brown) it would be brilliant for families and small businesses, I think.

I think it's a brilliant idea.

Not every policy that the government implements has to be of help to poor people or these claiming benefits. It is ok for other members of society to want some help from their government too.

sorry but when does this government help the poor?
I haven't seen this at all

I didn't actually say that the government helps the poor, I was referring to posts on this thread that have implied that this idea is a bad one because it does nothing to help the poor.

My point is that it shouldn't have to help the poor, there are other members of society that have as much right to be considered by their government as poor people do.

And anyway, the government helps the poor by giving them benefits, obviously. They may not always be enough, but it is simply inaccurate to say that the poor get no help at all.

Ok. So the rich get tax breaks to pay their nannies whilst the working poor can no longer afford their childcare because their childcare element of tax credits has been taken away.

Whilst disabled children get their benefits cut off.

That's fair.... right ho.

It's diverting the tax benefit cycle. Rather than tax income then pay it out in benefits you cut the tax and get that person to employ the person who would have claimed benefits directly. One more person in work and less wasteful shuffling of money through government departments. Also, some people with lots of cash in the bank might be persuaded to create a job when otherwise they would have just stockpiled the cash. I can't see the downside apart from the whinging from the reverse snobs, who generally also lack a basic understanding of economics.

'Not every policy that the government implements has to be of help to poor people or these claiming benefits. It is ok for other members of society to want some help from their government too.'

err, like hospitals, schools, roads etc
And generally better schools than the poor. Which lead to more opportunities etc
I cant believe people think tax breajs for luxuries is an ok thing in preference for tax breaks for childcare which will benefit everyone

And this is the Govt who have just removed child benefit from those same middle classes who have complained on a fair few threads. Given most claimed they were barely making ends meet on 45K you honestly think they will be skipping off now and hiring cleaners?

If they implimented this, then a single person with no dependents earning £45,000 a year who can afford to pay £100 a week for cleaning, would pay less tax than someone who is supporting a family of six, where there's a SAH partner looking after the kids on that same income (who can't afford the cleaner, and where the cleaning is done by the SAH partner). That cannot possibly be fair.

Err, yes. Those same schools, roads and hospitals that everyone benefits from, including the poor.

I don't think tax breaks for cleaners is preferable to tax breaks for child care. I think they are two separate issues. Just because I think that it's a good idea to give individuals tax breaks for providing employment does not mean that I don't think we should have more affordable childcare.

but as we are told constantly as the Govt cut money from disabled children, there's no money in the pot. Except for tax breaks for luxuries for the wealthy apparently.

Exactly KalSkirata. It's about prioritisation.

even a tax break on child care will not help carers though, getting child care for a disabled child is so expensive as to be unaffordable unless you are well off

You are missing the point. This is about encouraging people that use cleaners to make sure they use cleaners that declare what they earn. That would make more cleaners stop working cash in hand, so they would pay tax that goes into the pot that helps the disabled, and help prevent money being taken out of that pot by people who are also working for cash.

People will often do things the cheapest way they can, even if they don't have to. That means it will be cheaper for them to hire a cleaner that they wouldn't otherwise hire, therefore providing employment at the same time as encouraging those cleaners to declare what they earn.

Cleaners are a neccesity for some people that work full time and have dc, or for disabled people that also pay tax, or elderly people that pay tax. They would also see the benefit of this.

you are missing the point that whilst cutting money for disabled people. which means they won't be able to afford carers. so won't even be able to clean themselves, we can't afford this.

you reckon your average person gives a crap if their cleaner is working cash in hand?

tax breaks for childcare don't benefit everyone. They benefit parents who use paid for childcare.

How is that better or worse than tax breaks for domestic employees (including childcare)? Still only benefits the group that uses it/them.

Why not argue for both to come under the policy anyway - if nannies employed in the home qualify it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to say that it should count for privately funded childcare generally?

I really like the idea though, think it's great that we're talking about the fact that parents might want a type of support that doesn't only mean someone else being paid to look after their children for them. After all, parental involvement is usually the biggest indication of how children will do in life and all those things.

And the money being paid directly to local people/businesses can surely only be a good thing for the area?

childcare enables parents to go out to work. High house costs mean many families need both out earning.
Cleaners, errr, mean you have a cleaner house?

How is that better or worse than tax breaks for domestic employees (including childcare)? Still only benefits the group that uses it/them

Parents come from all sections of society. Those with lower incomes cannot afford domestic staff. If govt money is limited and spending must be prioritised, I'd rather not see measures targetted at the wealthy whilst things that benefit the poorer sections of society or people across the board are cut.

Kal, I think people would start to care if the cleaner was paying cash in hand if it meant they could save money by caring.

Sevenfold, I really do appreciate your points about disabled people facing cuts, and I know you are in a difficult position. But not every political debate should be brought back to disability issues, there are other thing that the government has to consider.

I don't even earn enough to pay tax yet but have had a nanny share because other childcare didn't cover the hours I needed. I know people with health issues on fairly low incomes who use a cleaner so they don't use up all their energy on that instead of their work and children. I don't think it's that helpful to assume only the rich would benefit from this policy.