New childcare tax break to be announced by the Government today - what do you think?

[JaneGMumsnet]

David Cameron and Nick Clegg are due to unveil new childcare plans in a joint press conference today, with further detail expected to follow next week.

According to reports, families could be entitled to claim up to £2,000 per child every year from their tax bills, to cover the cost of childminders and nurseries as part of a new government scheme to help families.

The new measures will not be means tested, and will replace the current voucher and allowances scheme.

We'd be interested to hear what you think of these proposed changes, particularly in the light of the changes to child benefit which have been implemented today.

Thanks,

MNHQ

"Working mothers will be given thousands of pounds-worth of support for child care to help them to return to work, under plans being considered by David Cameron and Nick Clegg."

The above quote is why it is also relevant to mothers who do not currently work (or only work a little), and especially those whose household income is under pressure from other sources, say maybe the loss of cb. The measure has been badged as to 'help' mothers return to work. See my original post about the devaluing of parents caring for their own children.

It should say working parents will be given.... Children have two parents. The way this is presented is sexist to the core and Cameron (wife works at Smythson and Clegg (wife is senior lawyer who will earn more than he does as a lawyer at a London law firm) ought to know better.

If it were great for children or great fun to stay home men would be itching to do it.

DeGlitterbug

Irrespective of any decisions made to support both parents working, the devaluing of parents caring for their own children has been increasing for more than a decade now.
I think it is such a shame that some people look down at a sahp or as in Xenias case choose to believe in some way its not good for children, or fun. Speak for yourself but don't generalise.

I'm not sure how you know whether it's fun or not, xenia, since you're always telling us that it's something you've never done!

One thing I do like about the proposed changes is that everyone can claim back childcare costs. I have worked as a freelancer/temporary worker after my eldest was born. I have never been able to claim childcare vouchers - either I have been self employed, or my employer did not offer them. So at least I would be able to benefit form this proposal.

However, I'm not sure I can see any other positives in it. It is hard work dealing with the tax credit system when you do not have a salary, claiming back tax can only make this more complex.

DeGlitterBug spot on. One parent at home is great for children Xenia, whether it's their Mother or Father. I couldn't care less if another Mum wants to work, but I get fecked off with my decision, my choice to stay at home being derided. Feminism is about choice and I am not returning to work to a shitty, clerical job, which are always low-paid, just to keep anti-SAHP people happy, working to pay to get to work and for childcare. I worked full-time for 15 years and paid into the system. I agree that being a SAHP isn't easy so I'm glad that was acknowledged though.

I admit I am confused about this universal tax thing. What is is? We don't qualify for any tax credits in any shape or form therefore I have no idea what any of these 'elements' mean. The only thing we do is the childcare vouchers which is not means tested. I suspect we are not the only people here who this applies to.

I don't think it is right that women have the choice to return to work. It is up to the parents to decide how they want to raise their children. If the parents decide one is to stay home, and therefore not work, the family should get some sort of assistance. I think the fairest way to do this is to make raising children a minimum wage job (35hrs a week at min wage) which is deductible against the working parents income. The dual income families should be able to deduct the full cost of childcare against their income. Not that many households with no SAHP have more than 2 children.

This would make the UK truly progressive which is why politicians don't want to go there. Instead they would rather bring in rules on boards having a certain number/percentage of women.

The Government is very very against board quotas (a pity) . They seem to like women doing badly at a work and very very few women in the cabinet.

On benefits there is a good letter in today's FT about child benefit issues:

Think again, FT, on benefit cap

From Ms Fran Bennett.

Sir, You argue in your editorial ?Child benefit cap is tough but fair? (January 7) that ?the welfare state should be targeted at those who need it most?. But this is a very narrow view.

Benefits in particular have a range of aims, not limited solely to the relief of poverty ? the only function a ?targeted? (read: means-tested) benefit can perform. A social security system can provide mutual insurance against shared risks, and facilitate adjustment to economic change. More specifically, child benefit can help redistribute income over the life cycle to the time when families need more of it ? when they have children.

But most importantly, child benefit replaced not just family allowances but also child tax allowances. For more than a century, this country has recognised that all those with children, at whatever income level, have a lower ?taxable capacity? than those without. Virtually all developed countries have similar provisions, through either a tax allowance or a benefit. Now we are reneging on that.

Instead, the government is imposing a tax increase ?targeted? on families with children. There are good arguments for the better off to pay more towards reducing the deficit. But there are none for picking on only those who happen to be bringing up children at the current time. The government should think again ? and so should you.

Fran Bennett, Oxford, UK "

Very good points.

I am still finding it difficult to understand why so many people are surprised by the present government announcements. I have said this before but here I go again. We really do have a Conservative Government who historically support a sahp and the traditional nuclear family. Of course the 2 parent working situation isn't really going to gain help from the gov in real terms. The married persons allowance will be back though.
FWIW even though nothing has been announced yet we have all heard their propositions over the past year. I think the only people who won't be out of pocket will be the married couple, one working, one sahp, with no childcare, on low income.

Yes morethan, I think they'll have to do something along those lines to pacify the Tory vote before 2015 - it's going to be messy though.

Or perhaps I should say, even messier.

David Cameron's wife gave up work when he took office, probably to set an example to all of us about standing by your man and washing his socks.

Mosman, no she didn't. She moved to a part-time consultancy role.

Xenia, that is an interesting letter, thanks. I'm going to ponder on taxable capacity.

Part time consultancy is almost more insulting actually. Doesn't physically get her arse to work but is paid a nice sum for bugger all. Nice work if you can get it.

I'm not sure how "part time consultancy" equates to "doesn't physically get her arse to work". Want to elaborate?

She changed her role at work because she was having another baby, as I recall.

Want2bsupermum,

If raising one's own children is be treated as paid employment, who is the employer? Surely raising those children is ultimately the parents responsibility; and therefore it seems to reason they are the employer. So, should SAHPs pay themselves and then deduct the usual enployer and employee taxes?

Not sure your plan is going to benefit SAHP.

Surely you are not suggesting that people paying to raise their own children should also pay for yours?

Mosman, she started working two days per week after getting pregnant with her fourth child and after her husband took a more demanding role. If it was some kind of political statement to woo "traditionalist" votes,, I'd expect it to have happened when he became leader of the opposition.

Cleggs wise though does work full time www.dechert.com/miriam_gonzalez/
Cameron's see www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8700059/Samantha-Cameron-pushes-the-envelope-at-Smythson.html

It is not surprising they are taking a lot of measures against housewives and obviously many feminists are very pleased.

yes but they are hitting the sahm /housewife very harshly

some will lose

child benefit
now they on about scrapping vouchers.
I suspect the 2000 new one only be availible for people in work or very low income.

people already lost tax credits last year.
not many kids get free school meals

everythings going up, wages are not.

To me im baffled what they doing as they were already behind in female supported.

Labour would have done better if yvette coooper was leaer as least they look like they offer something different.

Does every other country give universil child benefit?

not quite right about the FSM, mam29, the pupil premium went up from £400 ish last year to £600 in the current year, £900 next year, and the criteria for schools getting that money have been changed so that ifa child would have qualified for FSM at any time in the past 6 years, the PP can be claimed. That is how a HT explained it recently to me anyway, at a school where 47% are on FSM.

and no, very few countries offer anything like universal CB.

But (cough, ahem) other countries encourage transferable tax allowances between spouses, and/or tax breaks for each child. UK does not have those things. ARRRGH.

ps: I do not understand how half of the things Xenia posts are allowed to stand. She expresses approval of "measures against housewives". If I said that I would like the government to take measures against working wives, would anybody on MN let that go? I bet MNHQ would delete it for a start.

Stix.

Maybe sahps shouldn't be paid to sah, but surely you can see how wrong it is for 2 parents working to expect other tax payers to pay for their childcare. You can't have different rules for different people.
Nobody should expect others to fund their lifestyle choice , unless of course they need welfare which really should not be cut.