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??

Legalise drugs and tax them. That'll bring in a bit

SQ - I think the main way this works is that it gives people a tax break they have to spend locally.

Traditionally Tories would argue that you give people a tax break and they will go out and spend, creating more jobs. But if (1) people are too nervous about the future and/or (2) the country has no manufacturing sector to speak of this won't work because every £1 tax break you give people they might save 20p and spend 40p on imported goods.

I think the grey economy bit and more women working bit are marginal to this primary effect.

You could get the same effect by giving people a tax break for spending on restaurants, haircuts, gym membership or yoga.

Now that is a good idea kal

People aren't going to hire cleaners because of 20% off though are they?

The restaurants, haircuts, gym thing - yes I see that.

But cleaners? Gardeners?

I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think I can Flyyyyyyyyyy

Not any more there's a tax on that

"People aren't going to hire cleaners because of 20% off though are they?

The restaurants, haircuts, gym thing - yes I see that.

But cleaners? Gardeners?"

So 20% off will encourage people to take up yoga, but not to hire a cleaner?

Your thinking behind this latest piece of illogic is...?

Given how many women are killing themselves doing all the housework as well as working full time because they are stuck with lazy, entitled shitbags, I would have thought feminists would welcome this.

A tax break for "women's work"?

Yes please.

If it means more women can outsource the drudge work they are expected to do for free, I'm all for it.

I would get a cleaner if it were cheaper for me, but wouldn't be tempted to join a gym.

Why would a feminist, in particular welcome this. I don't see housework as women's work. Our cleaner helps our family, not me in particular.

athing you didn't answer my questions and you are picking my posts out for some reason which makes me feel a little uncomfortable.

Yes I can see people being encouraged to go to a restaurant or have a hair cut if there was a 20% discount. Restaurants and hair salons often have discounts of this type. It's a one off cost - maybe you normally go out once every couple of months and now you go out once a month. Hairdressers ditto - maybe you get 4 haircuts a year instead of 3. These are things that these types of businesses offer anyway as they know they work.

The gym - thinking about it maybe less so. I guess I know lots of people who are gym members but don't have cleaners? Throughout my working career the younger people have all had gym memberships but none of them had cleaners. Amongst parents I guess it would be different. But this isn't for parents, is it, it's being mooted as a tax break for everyone - which includes young single people, people who are divorced, older people whose children have left home, everyone. More likely to spend on restaurants and gyms than cleaners, surely?

Also with a cleaner / gardener there is the long term commitment aspect. People don't enter into these things lightly. Not as lightly as they do going out for a meal once a month say.

"If it means more women can outsource the drudge work they are expected to do for free, I'm all for it."

Erm who are they outsourcing it too? Other women, in the main.

So not sure how this is a feminist victory.

Cleaners are also generally paid less than gardeners, which is interesting from a feminist perspective.

A real feminist victory (in the context of this thread and in response to that very aggressive "shitbags" comment) would be:

Doing something about affordable childcare
Having a society in which all members of a household do their fair share of running that household

Otherwise known as "moving to sweden"

Soz just read the article again
It is families (how are they going to administer it? People are taxed individually in the UK)

So scrap the gym
But the point about haircuts / meals out vs cleaner still stands.

SQ - I agree the decision for a one off service and a longterm relationship are different. But if the 20% discount (or whatever) was long term then it would influence decisions eg: to have a cleaner, to have them once a fortnight or once a week etc...

I suppose at the root of this is that some people will have a cleaner, whatever, and some people just won't. Some people feel it is a necessary essential thing and some people feel uncomfortable at the thought of someone else doing this type of work for them.

I know lots of people who have cleaners and lots who don't. There isn't a correlation with income. It's a strange sort of thing.

I just don't see this resulting in much change in how many people have cleaners, I don't understand how the 20% tax is made up for by a bunch of people who may well be under the tax threshold anyway, I don't think anyone can say for sure that cleaning is a huge specific problem with tax evasion (more than, say, building) and all the rest of it. I don't get it, it doesn't seem to add up or make sense.

Sorry first bit should say IME people either have them or they don't IYSWIM.

I'd be well up for the restaurants thing though. And the drugs.

Surely the main aim is to boost employment by making it cheaper to employ cleaners, gardeners, nannies etc. Many cleaning businesses started small with one employee and then grew.

It encourages self-employment and makes it cheaper for those who are able to afford these services. It's a win-win, which is probably why progressive Sweden do it.

It also eases the burden on some middle class families who voted Conservative in the first place.

Instead of just providing incentives for businesses to hire employees, this will also provide an incentive for individuals to do so as well.

It's not going to solve all the country's problems, but it is at least something to encourage employment.

Nannies aren't included claig. He specifically excluded childcare from the idea.

If it included childcare I'd be all over it like a rash!

So on the basis of your hunch that people either have cleaners or do not, you think that a policy that has been implemented in several European social democracies is "not well thought out"?

Any evidence at all that cleaning services are not price sensitive?

I don't currently use a cleaner, but it it were tax deductible I would consider it. That's two of us on this thread alone.

Of course, given that this policy has been implemented across Europe, we could actually find out what its impacts have been, rather than just scoff at how ridiculous it is.

Sorry if you are uncomfortable that I'm picking out your posts, they just stand out for being reactionary and badly thought out.

The policy implemented in several european countries, is not this.

This is UK tax regime with tax breaks for hiring cleaners and gardeners bolted on.

Tax regimes across europe differ, their ways of dealing with things differ. You cannot say that taking the UK tax regime and bolting on a couple of additional breaks (which will be impossible to implement given that UK tax is based on individuals and not families) and say it brings us in line with other (better, to my mind) systems in other countries.

Just because it doesn't include childcare doesn't mean it is a bad idea.

You would be OK with cleaners and gardeners being tax deductible if childcare was too, but not if it isn't?

Why?

Who knows if it will actually be implemented? There is an article in the rightwing Spectator against it. It is noticeable that the main reason argued against it is that it will look bad to the voters and make Cameron look "out of touch" as the Labour statement quoted earlier also said.

But forget image and votes and the predictable yah boo acting of the progressive opposition. Will it help encourage employment and self-employment and will it help middle class tax payers and encourage them to spend their money on services rather than keep it in the bank?

Is everything in politics about image, spin and yah boo or is this a postive thing to do?

Specatator article worried about how this will go down

www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7642498/cameron-should-leave-this-terrible-tax-breaks-for-cleaners-idea-in-sweden.thtml