Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

should higher income working parents get child care tax relief

161 replies

zippitippitoes · 20/06/2006 07:55

..or would that mean the benefit would be spread so thinly that low income families would suffer?

If granny or sis wants to look after the kids then should they be able to be paid through government subsidy? Without formally becoming registered childminders.

\link{http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2233371,00.html\ david cameron on tax breaks for higher earners on childcare}

OP posts:
Uwila · 20/06/2006 13:46

So, cheeseyfeet, where should the cut off be? At what point do people make so much money that they don't deserve any help with childcare? Should they get to take home more than their childcare costs them? Should they get to buy food too? How about transportation to/from work? How about a mortgage? Is that a frivilous expense?

FairyMum · 20/06/2006 13:47

I don't begrudge my taxes going towards paying for someone to stay at home as long as I am not made to paid double. I refuse to pay taxes, a fortune for childcare and to support parents who don't want to work outside the home! Also, it doesn't make economic sense because with most of the population soon being past the retirement age who the heck is going to work to pay taxes?

CheesyFeet · 20/06/2006 13:52

I think you are misunderstanding me Uwila. I do think that everyone should get help with the cost of childcare - what I don't like is the fact that I get very little help compared to someone who earns much more than me who is lucky enough to work for an employer who subscribes to the voucher scheme.

I would love to stay at home with my dd as I said, but I can't, which is why I work. I pay my way, rather than relying on the taxes of others. I suppose I'm lucky that I do earn (just) enough to cover my mortgage, travelling expenses and childcare costs - there are so many that don't.

Saggarmakersbottomknocker · 20/06/2006 13:52

That's an old chestnut Uwila Wink

Childless workers are paying for CTC and WFTC. Why not go all the way and say that you don't want your taxes to go towards DLA if you don't have a disability? Or towards the Fire Service because you've never had to call them?

I don't want to turn this into a Working/staying home debate but I dislike this Government's eagerness to get everyone out to work no matter what.

Original poster
zippitippitoes · 20/06/2006 13:54

I think there are a few extreme right wing conservatives who don't like this tack of David cameron's either as they want mothers at home

OP posts:
Pagan · 20/06/2006 13:55

Sagger I couldn't agree more - but in this country because progress is measured in GDP then the more people in work the better. This totally undervalues the role of a parent. Heck if I was paid for looking after my two children I'd be on £56k a year based on £6.50 an hour that my childminder charges. Then throw in the cooking, cleaning, washing up etc. etc.

Uwila - why should you work and pay taxes for someone to stay at home?? Well you could say the same about the NHS - why should you pay taxes to help someone when they are ill whilst you are perfectly healthy. Without sounding a tad Whitney Houston hear Wink but the children are our future so surely what's best for them is best for the country in the long run!!

CheesyFeet · 20/06/2006 13:57

Oh, and it would cost more than I bring home to put two kids in nursery. That wouldn't leave enough joint income to pay the mortgage, food bills, travelling expenses etc etc. Therefore dd will have to remain an only child for now. If high earners get tax breaks so they can afford a nanny or nursery care for 2/3 kids, why can't the low to middle earners get enough tax breaks so they can afford more than one child?

Saggarmakersbottomknocker · 20/06/2006 13:57

Plus if I'm at home Uwila, I don't have any child-care costs for you to contribute towards!

beatie · 20/06/2006 13:58

Why can a dependent not be written off as a tax deductable too i.e. to help out families where one parent stays at home?

Uwila · 20/06/2006 13:58

Sagger,
Because people with disabilities and people in fires didn't make a concious decision to be there. I don't feel I have an option to stay home.

I think people who are going to work and making a effort to support their families but still can't afford it should get some help. But, I don't have much sympathy for people who simply don't feel like going to work.

gomez · 20/06/2006 14:01

No - you make your choices with the income you have.

If your earning potential is such that you can't afford (not in the don't have a lot of money left over after paying or are working for £10 a week) but in the properly can't afford , i.e. earn £600 per month and child care costs £650 then yes if you want to work you should be supported to do so. But if your left over income is stil double/triple others gross pay in the first place then no.

Original poster
zippitippitoes · 20/06/2006 14:03

the trouble with changing from the current tax credit which enables low earners to get quality child care, to a system of tax relief is that those low earners would not be able to afford to work as the tax relief would be negligible for them

OP posts:
Caligula · 20/06/2006 14:05

But Uwila, why are you happier to go to work to pay taxes for people to go to work who don't want to?

If you take my situation, I earn £9Kpa. On top of that, the government pays me in the region of £8.7Kp.a, plus a couple of thousand child benefit. It would cost them far less, if I didn't work outside the home, but stayed at home and worked bringing up my children and keeping house and my sanity. Why is it less of an investment in our society to pay me to work inside the home, than in paying for me to work outside the home? Either way, you're paying. Thanks. Bottoms up! Smile

Caligula · 20/06/2006 14:07

Exactly Zippi. My childcare costs are about £5K pa I think. On £9K without tax credit, it would be impossible. Offsetting it against my tax bill is irrelevant - I don't pay enough tax to offset.

kiskidee · 20/06/2006 14:07

By Uwila: I meant that once you make something like 30k (and I'm not sure what the figure is) you don't get any help at all. And if you want enough help to actually make a difference then you have to be poverty stricken.

this is how Gordon Brown that parsimonious Scots made us think he gave us a break on childcare. Not very Old Labour or New Labour or whatever he claims to be.

Bozza · 20/06/2006 14:07

It seems unfair to me that the richest people (ie in 40% tax bracket) potentially get the biggest saving from childcare vouchers.

Caligula · 20/06/2006 14:08

But Kikisdee, he did give people on very low incomes a break. That is old labour - redistribution.

Gosh i hate it when I have to defend Gordon Brown.

Original poster
zippitippitoes · 20/06/2006 14:09

this is also true of putting money into a pension (40% tax relief)

OP posts:
FairyMum · 20/06/2006 14:10

I don't see it as benefical for my children if mothers wanted to stay at home at all. It would only mean even more people who had not contributed towards the tax system, got a proper pension etc and my children would have to pay higher taxes to pay for an ever-increasing population over the retirement age and probably end up working until they are 105......

Caligula · 20/06/2006 14:11

The answer is to change the pension system then FairyMum

Pagan · 20/06/2006 14:14

Imagine this scenario ....... totally hypothetical but just imagine.....
One parent stays at home to bring up the kids and gets paid to do so

  • no rushing in the morning with the school run to drop kids off then get to work so less traffic
  • no worrying about making ends meet
  • no rushing home again to rush through dinner and all the chores
  • no worrying about childcare if kids are sick
  • no worrying about childcare if childminder/nursery/whatever lets you down
  • time to spend helping kids with homework so they get better grades, thus better jobs and make the economy better in the long run
  • no wandering aimlessly around wondering who to talk to because you have plenty neighbours around because they stay at home like you
  • because people are around more, then less burglaries, folk looking out for your kids more, safer for kids, greater sense of community
  • more local amenities because we'd no longer be getting everything in town where we worked
Uwila · 20/06/2006 14:15

Zippi: the trouble with changing from the current tax credit which enables low earners to get quality child care, to a system of tax relief is that those low earners would not be able to afford to work as the tax relief would be negligible for them

But, Zippi, I didn't say that the relief couldn't exceed your income. Of you make really little, then it may be you are given more in tax relief than you paid in taxes.

Caligula, hmmmm, I guess if you are actually costing the government less by not working then you may have a point. But, I'm not sure this would be the norm.

Bozza · 20/06/2006 14:16

But where would the money come from pagan?

SaintGeorge · 20/06/2006 14:17

Barring the end of "One parent stays at home to bring up the kids and gets paid to do so", that is my parents - and many others - in the 60/70s. The ratio of income to outgoings was better then.

The biggest problem is the out of control property market and people not affording living costs let alone anything else.

Original poster
zippitippitoes · 20/06/2006 14:17

you may be saying that uwila but I'm not sure David Cameron is?

OP posts: