What's the single biggest thing the government could do to help parents?

[JustineMumsnet]

Hello Mumsnetters,
Can I pick your brians for a moment please? Were you to get the chance to sit around a table with Gordon Brown and he was to ask you what government should be doing to help mums and families, what would you say?

I think all inheritance should be taxed (and I speak as someone who has recently benefited hugely from an inheritance) It's the one area of tax that I think should be truly re-distributive.

SP - no my dh pays horrendous amounts of income tax. Sorry, but if hiwbb is only a few years off tax credits your tax bill is not horrendous. But you know what, I don't actually mind paying such huge amounts of tax - I just have a few issues with the way it's spent

And childcare is not an expense caused by working - it's an expense caused by having children. If you start to subsidise working parents childcare, you are saying that WOH is a better thing to do than SAH. Far better IMO to give children tax allowances that working parents (whether that be oen or two parents) could use to offset childcare bills than to make value judgements about which choice is better by financially advantaging one

Actually QC, GB's removal of pension tax credits is not the real problem with penson funds. Thatcher started the problems when back in the 80's she allowed pension fund surpluses (built up because of a rampaging bull market) to be taken back inot a companies balance sheet, causing increased valuations of companies, and further fuelling the rampaging bull market. It screwed up the whole premise of long term investements in pensions funds and meant that many funs did not have enough surpluses to ride the low market returns when teh inevitable crash happened, or were able to cope with a less (OK significantly less) favourable tax treatment

Yes I agree that inheritance should be taxed but unfortunately the way it works right now is inequitable.

The poor don't pay it because they are below the threshold. The rich don't pay it because they can hire trust specialists and tuck it all way nicely and neatly. So who pays? The middle income families who are not wealthy enough to afford fancypants planning but inherit a house. That's simply not fair.

good point.

I think I have a reflex sarcastic reaction whenever I hear people who live in the uk moaning about tax. what I probably should say instead is "try living in Europe"

The issue with pension surpluses is around one of valuation primarily. Because of the overoptimistic ways in which pension funds were valued, companies took pension contribution holidays which lasted for years in some cases ...

yes - flipping queen mother giving things to william and harry before she died. I was outraged.

lots of rich people do pay IT though: that's how the national gallery gets most of its new stuff I believe.

and agree on pensions too. the problems started a long time ago.

Actually I found it incredibly difficult to afford my dds childcare prior to school as a single parent working full time.

Pension?

Haahaaa.

Can't afford to save a bean.

But that's okay because I'm pretty well resigned to the fact that I will have to work until I am physically or mentally completely incapable of doing so.

Oh, yes, renting is SO cheap! Especially here in Edinburgh. It's beans! Especially when you get turfed out every 6 months and have to stump up another deposit which you'll never get back, fees and moving costs.

Dirt cheap, yeah. Poor BTL landlords. My heart bleeds for them and for the hypocritical government which pays lip service to the working poor whilst not only shoving a dagger in their backs to the hilt but also twisting it round.

expat - you have such good sarcastic tone in your posts!

sorry, had to go last night - an unpleasant indcident happened in car park near our house - heard woman screaming and man shouting madly. called police (typical was here alone as dh out)... basically was some sort of alcohol-fuelled domestic - horrible.

anyway, yes - stealth taxes - I really meant things like council tax going up, VAT, NI, indirect taxation, I suppose. our council tax is 2k a year for a small-ish blooming cottage. unbelieveable. oh, and keeping the 40% tax threshold low so more and more people are earning over it but yet are by no means earning a huge salary.

Expat - sorry, should have said that rent is cheap relatively to house prices. we are renting atm and our place would prob sell for about 380-ish yet we rent it for under 1,000 pcm.

Pay effin child benefit to a 1/2 British child ( registered in the UK but living abroad) Where mum has paid into the Uk system for 20 years and gets a fat ZERO back . ( debatable if she will get a pension either)

prufrock I don't quite get your last para about childcare is an expense caused by having children rather than by working I know if I wasn't working my childcare expenses would be a big fat zero!
Do people not feel that the gov is pretty clear on what it thinks we 'should' be doing, Mother stay at home until child is 1 then return to work (perhaps claiming our 'right' for flexible working!)if we refuse to work then the children 'MUST' go to nursery at 3 so that any ill effects of their parents parenting can be neutralisd before it's too late!! I certainly feel this gov.prefers both parents to work (with the exception of the tax credit system at the higher end) most other things seem to be saying 'work' to me.

OK - you work, you get paid your wage.

You have children, you either no longer work, and therefore no longer get paid, or you work and pay some of your wages out in childcare. The extra expense is caused by you having children, not by you continuing to work. And whilst I do completely appreciate that childcare expenses are high (it's one of the many reasons I am a SAHM), and there should be more, good quality, reasonably priced provision; I think it's just part and parcel of the costs of having children which should be taken into account when you make a decision to have them.

I lose money by having given up work, you lose money by paying for childcare. So we should both be compensated by state funding for the having children bit, not for the working whilst having them bit.

Oh and before somebody brings out the arguement that working parents contribute more to teh economy because tehy pay taxes, tosh. The only reason my dh is able to work so hard, and therefore earn so much, and therefore pay so much tax (which I reiterate I do not begrudge) is because I am at home organising his life. Having just done our tax returns I know that our joint tax bill last year was considerably more than in the 2 years that we had kids and both worked

It is entirely different though Prufrock if you are a single parent working. I don't have a spouse to look after my dd so I pay childcare, I'll get almost 0 tax credit this year as they don't know their arse from their elbow. I have no choice but to work the only relief I get is 20% off my council tax as I'm the only adult over 18 living at my address.

And on a seperate note.. I pay tax and NI and yet I can't get my DD into an NHS dentist so although I can't afford private health and dental I am forced to pay ~£8 a month just so my dd can have 2 check-ups a year.. that works out that I'm paying ~£50 a check up for my 4YO.

But I disagree prufrock I have childcare expenses because I work not because I have children. Bottom line is gov. wants Mothers to work (imho after first year -see below) therefore it has to take costs of childcare into mind. It would be way way easier for me not to. (sorry if this is argumentative I'm feeling cranky tonight!)

in answer to the op
Bring house prices down
Bring house prices down
Bring house prices down

You're right NN

I don't think you are a typical case though prufrock. Because I only work 3 days I have a bit of both, I am earning less and helping support DH's career by being around two days a week, so he knows that he can do whatever on those days, also a lot of the housework/cooking/errands get sorted on those days, but I am also helping to ensure we have the standard of living we want by working 3 days/week. There is no way that if I didn't work DH would be earning anything like enough to cover what I earn even after childcare. And as time goes on we will be paying less childcare - DD will be eligible for nursery grant in September, she will go to school the year after and I may request a change to my hours, so I will be earning more after childcare costs.

you're right bozza - i don't think i am typical - i was just feeling a bit got at (elsewhere) about what sahm's do not being valued at all (which when I practically have a full time job atm chairing our pre-school committee really really p's me off)

But I do maintain that childcare costs are because you have children. If you didn't have kids you could work and keep all your wages. Or you could not work and get no wages and sit on your butt all day. When you have them, you can work for less wages, or not WOHM and get no wages, and run around all day.

Option 1 - (working) - it's the kids that cause the difference. Option2 (not working), it's still the kids that cause the difference.

MOH - you're right, it's different for single parents. But giving you a tax allowance for your child would mean that you could use that saving to pay for childcare

Actually 1dilemma, bottom ine is that govt should not be dictating how parents manage their lives, so should be giving them a benefit for being a parent, not for comforming to an ideal that they shouldn't even be promoting.

If you weren't working youjr childcare expenses would be a big fat 0, but then so would your income.

Agree with everything prufrock is saying

Go prufrock go!

tessa Jowell was talking about issues raised by netmums this morning, did she mean netmums or is this thread to do with her.