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

My daughter got an interest only mortgage with a lower % than 35% last month but arguing these details is not my point.

My point stands that you would have to have a deposit for such a mortgage well out of the reach of most single people.

I would rather concern myself with the vast majority of people who earn a lot less than £50,000pa, singles and couples, who are set to be hit hard with the combination of the benefit cap and the housing benefit/room tax changes.

Let's hope your single mum on £50,000pa manages to keep her job, otherwise she will find out just how hard it is for everyone else.

You're always telling us that if only girls had more ambition than working in a nail bar they could discover that there are tons of jobs for them on £50,000pa, ignoring the fact that there are comparatively very few jobs in the employment market which pay that kind of salary either for women or men - and most of them in any case are in London.

Yes I agree that ideally, all women would be educated to a high level and become ambitious, independent, upper-decile workers whose long-term economic circumstances are unaffected by childbirth.

But that is so far from the reality for most women it remains a philosophy rather than a reality.

You also ignore market forces. A salary of £50,000 or above represents the upper decile of the labour market. That means you can strive all you like, but only one in ten people will ever have a chance of earning that kind of money.

Your example is so extreme, it is completely meaningless. So why don't you just say what you really mean, Xenia, about single mothers on benefits?

I'm not quite sure what the pionts being made are. Mine is accurate and it was simply that a single mother on that sum has not that much more and in some cases less than the mother subject to the new benefits cap of the ridiculously high sum of £26,000 a year who for that will have her housing paid for and not have to do a day's work in her life whereas her twin sister working for £50k day in day out perhaps has less money whilst the benefits claimants on look on with green eyed jealousy because they think the £50k is some kind of rich person.

The benefit cap? Far far too high - £26k a year for doing absolutely nothing! What has this country come to.

the mother subject to the new benefits cap of the ridiculously high sum of £26,000 a year who for that will have her housing paid for and not have to do a day's work in her life...The benefit cap? Far far too high - £26k a year for doing absolutely nothing! What has this country come to.

Thank you Xenia, for finally saying what you mean. Please, in future why not just say this instead of dressing up your "scrounger-bashing" as some kind of cod feminist philosophy.

I'm sure a high-flyer such as yourself understands perfectly well the points I am making. Feigning ignorance whenever you're challenged is silly, and may I say it's getting more than a little tedious.

If you can't understand the points I'm making then I'm sure, as a feminist, you will perhaps understand what the Fawcett Society are saying about benefit cuts:

Women rely more on benefits and tax credits than men, in particular due to their caring responsibilities and their relative economic inequality and poverty. In fact, on average, one-fifth of women?s income is made up of welfare payments and tax credits compared to one-tenth for men. Put another way, benefits make up twice as much of women?s income than men?s.

I always say what I mean. I think the poor have no idea how little of £50k full time workers keep after tax and that should be made much clearer.

If women rely more on benefits that is more fool them isn' t it? They don't have a lower IQ. They can pass exams so why be the idiot who picks low paid work or panders to a man cleaning at home whilst he earns more? Be the individualist - look after yourself, work hard, don't rely on men to earn and don't clean up after men.

One thing this recession is doing very well is giving a very good kick up the bottom of some women and indeed plenty of them are now flocking back to full time work , those with under 5s and that is hugely good for children, for women, for equality within couples and for the nation. Win win all round.

You do indeed give the impression that you think of most people as fools, Xenia.

People can't flock back into work if the jobs aren't there, and they don't get to be choosy about what salary they'll accept nowadays, either.

I totally agree that there should be more visibility of what a salary of 50k actually gives you to take home.

And I think the comparison with the benefits cap of 26k is a useful one. Remember that the 26k is tax free. Person on 50k, after tax, has about 35k.

But. Then there are the extras. If we assume 4 kids, as I know those figures from personal experience...

3k child benefit for each - so 29k, and 38k.

Free school dinners - for 4 children this is about £44 a week, which is equal to about £1500 a year, so 30.5k against 38k.

Free bus passes - for 4 children in our area this is equivalent to £600 a year - for 4 kids, that's another £2400 a year - so 33k against 38k.

Council Tax benefit - let's say another 1k a year (that is less than many bands in our area) - 34k against 38k.

Plus many school trips are subsidised for 'low incomes'

And then the person on the supposed 50k salary has to pay for transport to work, clothes for work, possibly child care etc etc

Do you see what I mean? I am not for one SECOND suggesting that life is 'easy' on benefits. What I am saying is that the difference between the figures that the public say is 'difficult to manage on' (26k benefits) and the figure that is portrayed as a 'top income' (50k) is vanishingly small or even non-existent.

I disagree i have two under five and im fighting to stay at home and raise them myself. I bf them this benefits everyone my health theirs and the tax pay because of the health benefits bf provides. I could not bf ob demand if i was at work.

I provide them with a stable emotionally responsive main cearer so they will form healthy long term relationships when adults.

bf and emotional stubility provide the foundation for learning and increased IQ so that they will be more productive and higher earming adults.

I can target learning more to their needs and interest to incearse yheir learning protential.

Children are our future tax payer and decision makers they have more value than you are giving them Xena.

SAHM are influancing the future population and need investing in and respect.

For truly productive and creative people a few years out of paid work is no barrier to long term success.

Breastfeeding and work aren't mutually exclusive.

It is if you breastfeed on demand. I need to be with my child 24/7 day and night and so far work does not allow women to take their babies or toddler to work.

The more the child feeds the more milk supply is stable and at the right levels when you introduce long abcences from the child and pumping and the full night sleep to be productive at work bf and work come in to conflict.

The benefits of bf get better the longer the child is bf it lows adult obsety cancer heart problems hightens IQ improves the immune system saving the NHS money and paying more taxs as a higher earner.

Anairofhope, surely after 9- 12 months maternity leave, most babies are no longer EBF - nutritional needs met by solids at that age. No reason to stay at home just because of BF - I bf my twins until 10 months and by then it was just morning and evening

For truly productive and creative people a few years out of paid work is no barrier to long term success.

I wholeheartedly agree. If you're going to have children, you should give them the best start you can, no matter what.

Let us leave breastfeeding to one side. I demand fed twins and worked and I am no superwoman and with the older children I could express often at work and the children were fed by our nanny my milk when I was not at home from a bottle - that is still demand feeding and it meant I could financially provide for them.

The best start in life for most children is a high earning working mother who breastfeeds surely and works full time? Why is that not the best start? Why would someone assume mother at home is best? Most women work.

Why are we bringing bf into this argument? But if you wish...
I bf my first child till aged 2. We stopped because it got to painful; realized I was pregnant with no 2. He refused formula. Would wait for me to bf him at the start of the day, during my lunch (I rushed to nursery) and then at the end of the day. Whilst we are talking about this, I also blw him.

Baby no 2 is now over 2 years old. And she's also bf. still in fact. But eats v well, also blw.

I went back to ft work when they were both 6 months old. We couldn't afford for me not to be at work. Despite the fact that we both have postgraduate qualifications and in an ideal world would be seen to be highly qualified and professional members of society.

And good job I did have a job because dh got made redundant when baby 2 was 1. Otherwise we would have had to sell up, move to council house or something and get some handout. So frankly having a job has saved the gov some benefit claim from my family.

i think the research shows that the best childhood predictor of future life success is mother's education level, NOT income.

The points im making are

1. SAHP are contrubuting posativly to sociaity

2. There should be a tax brake for SAHP and those parents that use childcare

3. The poor could care less about your personal circumstance Xena because we are too busy trying to suvive on £900 or less per month. I would love £50k pa

Demand feeding is where the mother is available all the time to feed the child when the child wants to bf not when the mother choice to bf the child!

Demand feeding is not a nanny with a bottle.

Xenia, you talked about how you "demand fed" your twins while working full time on another thread. I wondered how on earth you managed to work full time with twins strapped to you.

Now I realise you weren't "demand feeding" at all. You had a nanny, who was doing all the caring - and all the bottle feeding.

Another of your mythical "superwoman" achievements exposed as dishonest, misleading twaddle.

AnAir Oh, FFS. I returned to work FT each time when my kids were around 9 months old and kept demand feeding until they were 18 months. You know what the secret was? When I wasn't around, they didn't demand milk, but were perfectly happy with the solids and water on offer while I was away. Neither of my kids ever took a bottle -they didn't like them.

Certainly demand feeding is no reason to need to stay at home until they're five.

Also am not sure how much you're "incearsing yeir learning protential" when all they learn from you is that a mother's place is in the home fulfilling all their children's demands.

olgaga - she still fed herself in the evenings and at nights. Which is pretty demanding in itself, and it's good to see her example that breastfeeding is not a barrier to work and work is not a barrier to breastfeeding.

I do agree that many people seem to forget that benefits are tax free. Thus person on £12,000 per year paying tax. Person on £26,000 benefits per year not paying any tax. How can this make sense.

One thing this recession is doing very well is giving a very good kick up the bottom of some women and indeed plenty of them are now flocking back to full time work

Something else you've got completely wrong.

Unemployment down, but not for women

A survey conducted by Working Mums found that 24% of mothers have had to give up work as a result of the changes. The government itself has recognized that ?the reduction in support through the childcare element of tax credits?will particularly affect women in lone parent households? as 60% of the recipients of the childcare element of the WTC are single parents.

And how about this? Working families most hit by Autumn Statement, says think tank

Do you seriously think anyone in this kind of position gives a damn about your poor single mum on £50,000 a year?

The point some people are making is.. That those people on supposedly higher incomes (40-50k) aren't better off! At least whilst they are paying for childcare whilst working their socks off.

olga - this not really a breastfeeding thread but with the tiwns I worked for myself, mostly was at home. I was in the home office, the nanny was across the hall with the babies. When they needed a feed I went in to feed them one on each side (they were gorgeous, I love breastfeeding) and it was just I did not do the holding when they cried during the working day. That was much easier than 10 years before expressing at work with the first few who in those days the nanny gave my milk to. It is technically demand feeding whether they drink direct fro yor breast, are fed your milk on demand by a carer or your husband or are demand fed powdered milk actually.

The important point of young women to know is that many of us have exclusive fed our children breastmilk and even back in 84 when my first child came I could buy a very good book on how to work full time and breastfeed so anyone conning you into staying home and shooting your career to pieces on breastfeeding terms if you would rather work needs to be given very short shrift and shown how well many of us combine in all kinds of different ways breastfeeding and work. IF people want to breastfeed. We have the worst breastfeeding recording in Europe whether stay at home mothers or working mothers sadly in the UK. We are absolutely dreadful at it and huge numbers of women at home stop it in a week or two so it is not a hugely material issue in relation to whether women work or not.

If those without work know that the £50k mother on h er own as the same money as they do presumably they have sympathy for her if they find their own money rather short? Surely they would. If this thread has helped those who don't work and are supported in effect by the full time working single mother on £50k I expect they feel jolly glad she works so hard for the same money they get without working as otherwise they might starve.

I certainly though have never said jobs are easy to find at the moment. They aren't and we need to do something to stimulate industry, make the UK THE place to be to found your company etc.

There has to be some incentive for people to work their arses off for 26k net income (ie about 50k gross) rather than 26k tax free benefits. If you are on 50k and have to pay 10k childcare out of your net income no wonder you are pissed off. I am.

That is why childcare should be fully deductible from gross income