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??

from Quottrocento earlier in this thread:

"See, the majority of domestic employees are paid cash in hand. So by giving the employers a tax break, it costs the government virtually nothing. Nada. However, what happens is that the employees are traceable and taxable, and the government raises money by getting tax it otherwise would not have got."

Employers of cleaners pay less tax (but they pay NI contributions instead - probably roughly the same amount)
Cleaners only pay tax once they reach the threshold
Cleaners no longer receive benefits, as now earning a salary
Cleaners also now have proper sick pay, maternity pay, pension rights etc.

So the state is taking in a similar amount (but as NI instead of tax), unless the cleaner is earning pots of money (in which case they shouldn't have been on benefits anyway, whilst earning all that cash-in-hand!) = cash neutral for the state

Employer pays roughly the same in total as before = cash neutral for employer

Cleaner now has decent social protection, whilst in most cases still not taxable = cash neutral for cleaner

With the bonus that no-one is working illegally, the poorest workers now have the same rights as other workers (sick, maternity, unemployment...) and the official unemployment figures no longer include those claiming benefits whilst actually working! Those only working a few hours a week may still be entitled to certain benefits, but it's a good way to get people back into the workforce!

Good point Derbys - this will help anyone who needs or chooses to use these kinds of services.

It will also provide an incentive to use such services, thereby potentially creating jobs.

But sure, whinge and gripe about policies that work well all over Europe.

It's not even likely Cameron will introduce something like this, it doesn't fit with the self-defeating austerity he and Osborne are enjoying inflicting on the country.

If Cameron doesn't introduce a scheme like this the political reason will be that he doesn't want to be accused of pandering to 'nobs'. The 'titres services' system works well in Belgium and it sounds as though the French have something similar. But we won't get it because too many voters, egged on by the popular press, are inverted snobs

Here you can also use the cheques for things like an ironing service - it's not necessary that someone comes to your house.

It's not inverted snobbery to be concerned at the class system we have in this country where there is so much inequality. A proper welfare state should work for all it's citizens, not just the ones that are better off and more likely to vote for DC- look at the Scandanavian countries for models of how the welfare state should work. They have it better sorted than we do, because everyone is valued and equal, and it doesn't depend on how much money you have or which school you went to. They also have subsidised childcare.

all the cleaners I know (and i used to be one) are working legally. Not 'cash in hand'. I imagine the cash in hand types will continue the same .

Tax breaks for childcare would be better, benefitting the low paid too

"look at the Scandanavian countries for models of how the welfare state"

:o

Sweden is the model for this suggestion!

This thread makes me ashamed to be a lefty.

Reactionary, envious bollocksology used to whine about a proposal that is used in social democracies all over Europe just because it is proposed (disigenuously) by a Tory.

Giving people tax breaks to pay for cleaners will make more people hire cleaners.

It's an excellent idea.

KalSkirata sorry had to lol at the idea that this government would help the low paid.

What does a 'tax break' actually mean? Is it 'I pay a cleaner £50 so dont pay tax pn that £50 of my salary'? Thus saving £10 off my tax bill each week?

You'd still have to find £40 you didnt have in the first place surely.

And tax breaks shouldnt be for luxuries They should be for necessities like childcare, personal care for disabled people, communting costs (which really should be in the form of cheap frequent public transport).

How will this benefit the 50% of families earning below 26K who can barely afford heating and fod while working every possible hour?

VitaminC it isn't cash neutral then is it?

Government receives less tax from the employer's own income tax payable but then gets it back by the employer paying NI to the govt. What you have missed out is that the govt then have to pay out mat leave and sick ben not previously payable. So it will cost the govt more.

Also surely employers won't be incentivised to use this scheme if it doesn't benefit them and is really cash neutral.

"How will this benefit the 50% of families earning below 26K"

It benefits those families because it potentially creates more jobs. At the moment, with incomes being squeezed from all angles, 'nice to haves' like cleaners and gardeners are often the first thing that goes. Which isn't good for the people doing those jobs.

I suspect a lot of people earning under 26K do not have time to take on an extra cleaning job. When I was working in a shop 7 days a week on minimum wage, often working long days, I would have attacked you with my mop bucket if you had suggested that I could have solved my problems by taking on an extra cleaning job.

How will it create more jobs when it is "cash neutral" for employers?

Essential thinking about your post

Most cleaners and gardeners are self employed. Changing it so that all people who have cleaners have to be proper employers with contracts and tax and NI and holidays and everything is unlikely, surely?

If they stay self employed then up to about £5K a year they pay no NI, over that it's a nominal amount. The people who use their services pay them directly and it is up to the self employed person to declare for tax purposes etc. The people employing them do not pay any NI for them.

If they are going to change it so that all cleaners and gardeners etc have to be employees of each person they work for, rather than self employed, it would be fiendishly complicated and I suspect a lot of people would rather do the work themselves rather than take on all that paperwork and responsibility.

So really, how is this supposed to work? I don't see it making any extra revenue for the govt at all.

No, EFA, because as said cleaner is now officially in work, they won't be claiming benefits, except sick, maternity etc where appropriate.

It works in plenty of other countries!

I don't understand who it benefits and how
I also don't understand how there can be benefits but seemingly no costs to anyone at all

What the devil are the mechanics of this, nobod has explained it so I can understand it!

surely it means that people who can afford cleaners will pay less tax.
so that means less tax paid.
so less money in the pot

Cleaners will continue to claim benefits though VitC
most only do 1 or 2 jobs a week - £40?

The gardeners I know don't claim any benefits

They all have oodles of money and vans and what-not.

Don't know so much about people working as cleaners. The ones who work for agencies I imagine it's all kosher? The cleaners I have met have all been young eastern european type people, do they claim benefits? I don't know how that works. I thought you had to put in before you could take out or something.

Why are people assuming that cleaners and gardeners are all on the fiddle?

They are all self-employed, no reason to think they are any more dishonest than any other group of self employed people.

The more I think about it the more it becomes clear that this idea is a load of old nonsense.

It just all sits very uncomfortably with me. Basically Cameron is saying to the poorest in society. it doesn't matter that the economy is fucked and there are no real jobs. it doesn't matter that I am cutting your benefits, cutting public services because now I can hire you to scrub my shitty toilet, at not great cost to me.

I acknowledge that is an overly emotional reaction but I suspect it is one shared by many. It suggests that either the Tory government is completely out of touch or they just don't give a shit.

If this was genuinlely about job creation and enabling people to work, this would have included child care.

Nonsense Molly

I have not seen any costings for making childcare tax deductible, but it must run to billions, without any exaggeration. The economy is in a mess. How on earth can it be affordable to make childcare tax deductible? What would you like to cut to make way for what would benefit you? Would you like to scrap the NHS entirely? Or maybe the state pension. Perhaps that should go.

Actually making childcare tax deductible is such a middle-class preoccupation. Would the gal serving at WH Smith benefit from tax deductible childcare? Unlikely, I reckon. If she's serving at WH Smith on a minimum wage, the chances are she either hasn't got any children or if she has, she's benefiting from free childcare.