tell me I've dreamt this - DC proposing to give tax breaks to the middle classes (who can already afford this) to help them pay for their cleaners/nannies/gardeners????

[ssd]

surely not?

what planet is he on??

I dont know if this is over complicating things ... But If you gave everyone the right to buy a certain number of subsidised cheques per year, and they were tradable then people who still couldn't afford/didn't want any kind of personal services even if subsidised could sell their cheques and make some money from richer people who use more the average amount of cleaning, nannying etc...

...wages for housework and all that.

"If you follow this through logically, if David Cameron wishes to eat at expensive restaurants i should subsidise him, because I will be giving jobs to needy restaurant staff..."

I think you need to take another look at your Introduction to Logic textbooks.

Cogito - "And, in the absence of adequate skilled manufacturing you're arguing that people should stay home and do nothing just because cleaning or similar doesn't offer a measure of power? Work is work. There's no such thing as dirty money and there's no point sitting back waiting while the world turns to match your aspirations."

No not at all, I think this policy could be useful, to get some money flowing.... But it's limited as a job creation strategy and going nowhere as an economic competitiveness strategy.

For governments there is no option to 'sit back waiting while the world turns to match your aspirations' we cannot clean our way out of economic stagnation.

This is not the only thing the governemnt is doing or suggesting to stimulate demand and increase employment. It is a straw man to suggest that they think this is the government's "economic competitive strategy".

This is just one small measure that helps to encourage employment, particularly for people who are relatively unskilled and haven't got a string of educational qualifications to get a job. It is meant to help some people find employment and to encourage and help those who can afford these services to employ people. Just because it doesn't help every taxpayer is irrelevant.

We all pay taxes that subsiidise art galleries and operas and yet the majority never go to any of these, but they still have to pay. Just as government gives employers incentives to train and take on young people, which doesn't help every taxpayer, so they also are helping people who can afford to hire cleaners to take on cleaners and create employment.

Most of our taxes probably don't help us individually, but they do help other members of society.

OTheHugeManatee - the tax neutral argument is false, or at best unproven.

There is no evidence for the claim that 'the vast majority of cleaning work is currently cash in hand' that you make.

But even were it to be true, most cleaners earn so little that the tax they pay, if any, is negligible, even if they declare all their earnings as required to do. However, those paying for the cleaners who would receive the tax rebate would, in the vast majority of cases, be higher rate tax payers. So we would be gaining virtually no tax from the cleaners in return for lots of 40% tax lost from their employers - not neutral at all.

Moreover, the cleaners - assuming again, which i strongly dispute, that most cleaners are currently failing to declare their earnings - would not gain in pension terms, as the changes to pensions mean that they will not in future be dependent on having paid in; a flat rate is planned. And any cleaner who tried to claim sick pay would pretty soon find themselves unemployed, as cleaners do not exactly have skills that are unusual or hard to replace. So no advantage to the cleaner at all.

Far better to subsidize jobs that have the potential for growth, both in the role for the benefit of the employee, and in the company/industry for the benefit of the economy/country as a whole.

No-one ever got promoted into anything meaningful or had a 'career' as a cleaner, any more than any country ever got rich by virtue of being professionally cleaned.

If the economy is really in as dire a state as the Tories claim, such that cuts to essential public services etc are unavoidable, then subsidizing the rich in this way is clearly a luxury we cannot afford.

Economically I can see this plan could make sense. In so far as it would be an incentive to employ someone which lets face it in the current climate can only be a good thing.

Politically however it's a complete non-starter. If Labour had proposed it then I think the reaction would be different.

Anyway, from what I've read it sounds like something DC has mentioned in passing along with other things and hardly sounds like it'll even get made an official proposal, let alone any chance of becoming reality.

If I was unemployed, I'd much rather the Tories were subsidizing education say, to ensure i could be trained to have a meaningful career, than subsidizing the rich so that I could be their servant/skivvy. And anyone who says otherwise - tell me in all honesty that you would jump at the chance to be a cleaner over other jobs. Oh, and tell me that with a straight face, and tell me that you have experience of working as a cleaner, as I have.

If you've cleaned up other people's wee, you'll know it is not in any way desirable. Frankly, the rich can clean their own loos or pay for it themselves if they're too lazy.

If they want to subsidize an industry - which I'm not averse to at all in theory - then I'd recommend housing. Lots of unemployed people in the construction industry, and a huge shortage of homes nationally. Plus it's skilled work. Now that is a policy I would support.

'No-one ever got promoted into anything meaningful or had a 'career' as a cleaner, any more than any country ever got rich by virtue of being professionally cleaned.'

What about people that started on their own and now own cleaning companies that employ others? What about teh contestant on The Apprentice a few years ago who ran her own cleaning business?

'If the economy is really in as dire a state as the Tories claim, such that cuts to essential public services etc are unavoidable, then subsidizing the rich in this way is clearly a luxury we cannot afford.'

That's why many Tories argue that spending billions on foreign aid is strange, particularly when an Indian minister recently said we don't need your "peanuts". Tax money is being spent all over the place on things that many consider wasteful. But at least if it creates jobs in this country then it is not as wasteful.

The tax neutral argument is false

No it isn't.

It has already been cogently explained to you. I can say no more.

Other than perhaps you are having an emotional reaction to a fiscal policy. It makes total total sense to me in tax terms. Entirely logical.

What I am reading on this thread is not a logical rebuttal. It's an argument that entirely consists of 'it benefits the rich therefore I am agin it. Robbing bastards. They all have bonuses and what have you. Have to be propped up with taxpayers money'.

And that is so far from accurate that it is impossible to argue against. You cannot defeat emotion with reason.

claig, I agree that our taxes needn't help us all personally, but the examples you give fail to make your point. We subsidise the arts because they are deemed to improve the cultural life of the nation ie a public good. Your cultural taste may be different but you cannot disagree with the principle. Likewise, we subsidise training and support for the unemployed because they are needy.

What we do not do is use taxpayer's money to subsidise frivolous luxuries for the rich, that only benefit them personally. The subsidised opera ticket is available to all. The professionally cleaned house belongs to its owner only and i am not allowed to benefit from its cleanliness (unless I want to be done for breaking and entering).

As I said, as taxpayers we subsidise the public good, not individuals' private good.

'You cannot defeat emotion with reason.'

Then how did the Tories get the largest share of the vote?

claig, the foreign aid thing is a bit of a red herring. The fact that that makes no sense does not mean that this policy makes sense.

'We subsidise the arts because they are deemed to improve the cultural life of the nation ie a public good.'

Hmmm, that's what the toffs tell us on their way to Sadler's Wells. Meanwhile there are homeless people sleeping under bridges.

'As I said, as taxpayers we subsidise the public good, not individuals' private good.'

But the bigger picture is that the individuals are providing employment - it is employment that is the common good. We are not subsidising their plasma TVs, we are encouraging them to provide employment for some people. It is not just training that doesn't lead to a job, which we also all pay for - it is a real job.

'the foreign aid thing is a bit of a red herring'

the foreign aid shows that we are not skint, that money exists, just as it exists for the high speed rail link, the Olympics etc. The money is not being spent on the greatest need and never ever has been, so objecting to this policy on that basis should mean that you should also object to all the other non-essential spending too.

Can I just add, that I am not rich, but have a cleaner. I have a huge overdraft, but work full time and cannot do everything without going insane. Why is it that only the rich and middle class have any kind of domestic help. Lord - the Belgians don't fret about these things. They hire cleaners and put their kids in kindergarten with nair a worry. Probably cos it is cheap.

If I admitted at work to worrying about such things, they would think I was a bit mad/foreign.

Quattrocento - do you think it would be difficult to implement a policy like this?

What downsides could there be?

Are there any peculiarities of the Swedish model that make it incompatible with introducing this measure here?

(sorry to bombard, just glad you are back :) )

"We subsidise the arts because they are deemed to improve the cultural life of the nation ie a public good. Your cultural taste may be different but you cannot disagree with the principle. "

You don't think it's possible to disagree with the principle of public subsidy for the arts?

We also subsidise the £600,000 salaries of some BBC employees. Is that to improve the cultural life of the nation?

I would rather spend it on creating employment, accommodation for the homeless, reductions in heating and water bills and improved healthcare in hospitals.

If we are going to take about waste of money, let's not look at subsidising employment for cleaners, let's look at some of these publicly funded salaries and public subsidies.

I know that some of the "stars" are said to be "talented", but I prefer tax breaks for those on low incomes and to help create employment.

We've all read about their annual "taxi bills" and their junkets to Glastonbury etc., all paid for by those on low incomes. Isn't it about time someone gave low earners a break and gave cleaners the opportunity to get more work.

And if we are talking about doing something productive, the cleaners do a lot more of that than some of the "stars".

This is the Hester's bonus argument all over again.

Take a hugely talented man who could readily command a £3m package. Possibly more. This is the way the world is. You recruit him to do a turnaround job on an ailing bank, and you promise him £2m. Because he's the man he is, he takes up the challenge. Then the public wade in, baying for blood and vengeance for the economy going tits up. He has to give up £1m of his package. The public thirst for blood is satisfied. He is paid a third (or less) of his market value.

How many other talented people will readily go in to any institution that has an element of public ownership after that sort of unedifying display? You'd have to be a fool.

'How many other talented people will readily go in to any institution that has an element of public ownership after that sort of unedifying display?'

What are the salaries of the top Japanese bankers and the German bankers? I bet they are less. What about public service in a partially nationalised bank? What do all our talented civil servants earn? Are they all on million pound bonuses?

Financial services is a global industry - packages level out in global banks

Civil servants may be talented. Or they may not be, perhaps the civil service is a good place to hide if you're worried about cutting the mustard. If they are talented, then they know ab initio that they are forsaking a private sector income for the cut and thrust of political life.

Bank salaries have risen over the years, just like the pay of footballers has too. If the public are bailing out banks, while being denied loans themselves and being laid off due to a credit crunch caused by the lack of lending, then employees in subsidised banks should show salary restraint. Private banks which get no bailouts can pay what they like.

So, claig, who would you employ to turn around an ailing bank and make it profitable again?

A banker who can count his market value in millions?

Or a civil servant? Possibly of the Sir Humphrey variety. Would he be your man? He wouldn't be mine ...

Let's not forget, amongst all this outrage and public indignation about bankers'/wankers' bonuses, that the financial services sector is the single largest contributor to the exchequer. It's what actually funded everything the previous government spent (although obviously the previous government spent more than it earned) and it's why it was never regulated effectively.