Julie Kirkbride MP resigns saying she was just a working mother trying to make childcare work... Apparently

[TheDullWitch]

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6374856.ece

Can't help feeling she is using the mum ticket so we forget about the ££££ in dodgy travel expenses and second home claiming etc.

what I find is extraordinary are people defending the MPs. Saying 'only rich people will be MPs'.

Well I don't think £64k is that bad you know!

And rather than feeling sorry for them, this is the perfect opportunity for the government and all its rules to be reformed, and not before time!

where do you draw the line - MPs should after all pay for something out of their above average incomes. Fucking hell what a nice life. Cant most of our expenses be routed back to work or family???? It is a stupid argument and she is grasping at straws.

(and I would probably think they should be paid a bit more and then claim 'normal' expenses like any normal tax paying law abiding worker could (!)...that way the increased salary would help cover the 2nd home if necessary)

I mean she's right in one way. It is bloody hard when both parents work and pay for full time childcare. But I tell you what, most of us do it legitimately, have to pay a fortune out in costs from our after tax income (so from our net income ffs!) and just have to live with it!

tbh, I am not a femist, many people would say...but fucking hell...why whould the pablic pay for expenses that are not actually expenses..the ones you makeup...if you work in private sector...you may get expenses for hotel room, food, whatever...you wll not get expenses for childcare, because you take the job and therefore you pay...whatever childcare needs you have...
surely we al have too...actually where tehy are all down on benefit claimers...that is the main prob, for them it often is not actually making any differentce, or they would be worse of, if they worked....so, surely someone with a good wage , no matter what job can pay their own childcare...surely teachers.nurses etc...who don't earn that much considering their training and input, have to pay their childcare costs should they have kids...in the army they don't and if both parties are in the army can be completely fecked...but you still gotta pay or be lucky enough to get free input from your family....

"She and David Cameron pointed out that hers was in fact the more plausible claim, and perhaps she has been shafted due to her husband's dodgy claims, but I suppose public opinion is leaning towards collective responsibility on that one" Exactly. The idea that they didn't know about each others claims so that one could be considered "plausible" is extraordinary.

She was hanging on to this seat, and DC was defending her, because she believed that she was heading for the front bench if a tory govt at next eleection.

I think she sullies the idea of working women. Plenty of families struggle with this and plenty of single mothers work and pay for childcare themselves. Shamelass woman

I wonder if MN should have her as a guest??

Riven - there was one MP whose name escapes me who claimed he needed a second home because he lives in Stanmore which is on junction 3 of the M1 so it's unreasonable for him to travel in for early meetings.

He failed to mention that Stanmore is also on the Jubilee line which goes straight through to Westminster. Not only that but my sister works in the Houses of Parliament (not an MP I hasten to add!) and there are no meetings before 10am.

Tinker - I would have had a lot more respect for Julie Kirkbride if she'd just stepped aside the moment the dodgy 2nd home allegations came to light. And using working mothers as her defence is so low - how dare she use me to defend her fraudulent use of taxpayers' funds!

Why is childcare just her responsibility?

It's actually a good point. Why isn't child care a legitimate business expense? Lots of other items are deemed legitimate, so why not childcare?

I think that all regular childcare (I'll excuse babysitting) should be completely tax deductible as it benefits the economy by enabling parents to work and keeps childcare professionals in employment too. Tax credits and childcare vouchers are a halfway house towards this and harder to administer.

I suppose because we choose to have children?

Well maybe she should have tried to get that changed then. If you work in a shop and think you deserve childcare you don't take it out of the till do you.

As for the traveling, I once had to get a bus, a train, another bus and then walk a mile to get to work. For a wage that was marginally more than benefits.

Thing is, if you make childcare tax-deductible, aren't you giving more to the better-off? Subsidising nannies? Obviously less well-off people who use childminders or nurseries would benefit as well, but to a lesser extent.

There would be a significant transfer of money from the working classes to the middle classes.

Well childcare is tax-deductible to a degree - childcare vouchers give you £243 worth of tax free childcare a month and tax credits are a similar thing.

Yup. But I think making it a straightforward 'childcare is free of tax, no matter what the size of your salary', while being tempting, would be a mistake.

Childcare isn't just her responsibility. She is the one bringing it up though. And claiming on her allowances for it. I dare say Andrew Mackay could have done the same. In fact, rather surprising that he didn't claim too

I don't get that argument though Edam. When I first had a nanny, I wouldn't say my salary was even above the average for London. It was just that it was the only form of childcare that worked for us (and with both of us working, it made it more affordable).

I think it's a common mistake to think that people who are the wealthiest have nannies (I'm not saying you don't have to earn a good salary because you do).

As far as I am concerned, the wealthiest people can afford the cheapest form of childcare because they have huge houses and can have live-in childcare like au pairs which cost virtually nothing compared to nurseries, childminders and nannies.

That, for me, is the biggest inequality.

Also, those earning under a certain amount get working families tax credits. My sister gets this and it is a big boost to their income.

The people who end up paying the most are the middle earners who don't have huge houses but work silly hours and don't have family help so have to use a nanny to be able to work. It costs me so much to have a nanny, it's barely worth me working but I do it for the long term benefits and because, as my children get older, we will be able to scale it down at some stage!

(as for the argument as to why it isn't deductible, nor is travelling to work. It isn't the only expense for working that isn't deductible).

They would never do it anyway (I don't think) because it would cost them too much and it would be open to a lot of abuse.

I agree with a lot of that foxinxsocks. If you're loaded, then you'll get by ok. If you're a low earner, there are tax credits these days, plus all sorts of other things that kick in (access to free or subsidized training courses, EMA for your kids etc etc).
Middle earners are often caught in the trap of not being able to live on one salary, so having to have two earners, but getting bog-all support in the form of any tax credits or anything else. I know loads of people in this situation, where both adults work, and one wage is almost entirely consumed by the costs of working, but on the other hand if they ditched one job they'd go under.

I'm so glad she resigned - shame she had to be pushed into it. Shame also that she lacked awareness that this stuff about needing childcare to be claimed on expenses is so nauseating. I don't recall Julie Kirkbride championing the cause of tax-deductible childcare in parliament ...

Fox - I used to have a nanny myself. But I was aware that 9/10ths of the population couldn't even dream of employing one. Think you need to earn at least £40k to make it work and have anything left over. Which is not enough to make many people feel particularly well-off in London, but still way above the average wage.

thing is edam, you need to look at the costs between you and dh. So together, you need to earn at least £40k to make it work, so if you both earn £30-35k, then it can work iyswim (though v tough) and £30k not a huge salary, london wise.

No, you need to earn much more than 40k together - I worked out 40k was just enough to clear the nanny's gross salary and leave a few K over. Not enough to pay all the household bills and eat and everything.

(Round here qualified full-time nannies earn upwards of £25k.)

There is no such thing as 'working families tax credit'. There hasn't been for a few years.

There is Working Tax Credit. This tops out at around £15K gross/annum. And that's for however many children you have, even if it's none.

Yes, you still pay tax on that £15K, too.

You need to be working at least 16 hours/week to get WTC.

And there is Child Tax Credit. Even people on benefits can get CTC. People who use registered childminders or nurseries can get more CTC.

So let's do the maths here before we all assume that low-wage earners are not getting the shaft as much as middle earners (LOL).

If you're not eligible for WTC, then you don't get free school meals, dental care and all that other ilk. You're probably not going to get any council tax benefit, either, and limited housing benefit.

But it's entirely possible all of you are trying to live on £16 or £17K/year.

And paying NI and tax (thanks for the 10p tax, GB, it's just the working poor needed) so Julie can tell you how hard done by she is that she needs to steal from your pay packet.

You earn £70k together and you can afford it (which is £35k each). One salary then almost entirely pays for the nanny (as you probably clear around £25-26k net) and the other one covers all the costs (mortgage, food, travel). It's a squeeze though!

All I'm saying is that the perception that you have to be a top earner to have a nanny isn't entirely correct. Yes, you both have to be earning a very decent salary but those salaries don't need to be top banking type salaries and having a nanny doesn't necessarily = extremely wealthy individuals. It can just mean both individuals earning a decent living wage.