Childcare tax breaks for working parents.

[youarewinning]

Please someone explain this to me? There seems to be a £2000 tax break for families where there are 2 working parents.

So does this excude single working families as it excuses families with a SAHP.

On the contrary bumblezz, I became a SAHP because I love looking after my children, what's to resent in that?

I wholeheartedly believe in initiatives that support anyone who wants to work, women or men. I just think that this money is going to go straight through into higher fees and isn't the solution in the longer term.

Thanks Bumble - I was doubting my own logic there! This will be a good scheme for us then, although appreciate others might not be better off.

And I agree with fifyfo - the 9k a year I pay in nursery fees includes 3 meals a day, social activities, craft materials, hot water, heating and all the other costs that a SAHP has, but it's unrealistic to suggest meals etc being subsidised but the taxpayer, given that the tax break covers such a small proportion of the overall cost.

woodlandwanderwoman

Hopefully that won't happen but I guess it's a real danger. Where I live nursery waiting lists are so long (I heard a 2.5 year wait time today which is crazy) which makes you think nurseries could easily hike up their rates significantly and they will still have no problem filling their places. Then again at some point market forces should kick in and more players should enter the market.

Perhaps the government should look at what other European countries have done in terms of the state providing childcare, thus maintaining control over costs (and hopefully standards) but that seems like a mammoth task and no-one in government (or opposition frankly) looks capable of carrying off such a massive overhaul. And since massive == expensive, wouldn't that cause even more uproar amongst SAHPs who would not be the key beneficiaries.
I do agree that the childcare schemes (vouchers and now this) are imperfect solutions, but better to have them than nothing.

Just noticed my username is very similar to another recently posted - sorry. I felt like a rant and registered without seeing the most recent posts so didn't realise.

Great minds Ihate

SAHPs dont need childcare, they may want it but they dont need it.

I dont wear a uniform to work so cant claim the tax reduction for having one, i dont need mileage as dont travel really either but dont begrudge those with these expenses having them made tax deductible or exempt as they are a cost of working.

Helping with childcare costs to encourage people to work can only be for the good of the economy. Theres no economic point to paying for childcare of non workers. Surely if you choose not to work, therefore not contributing you cant then moan when a new tax initiative comes out that you dont benefit from. If you want to claim, then work.

I've given up getting worked up by this government now. Life's too short. I'm not happy about the fairness regarding CB either Ihate (confusing, feel like I'm talking to myself ). I'm not happy about them artificially increasing house prices with help to buy either, but there's not much I can do about it. I've driven my husband and the dcs nuts by complaining about them constantly. You know what to do in 2015!

Just read some more articles on the childcare scheme. I think we will be better off sticking with the current voucher scheme because:

• eldest will be older than 5 and therefore not eligible until 2020 (5 years after "go-live", so we will only be able to contribute to one lot of 10k of childcare costs (comes nowhere near our total outgoings)
• we have been contributing to the vouchers since before April 2011 (both higher rate tax payers) so we are lucky in that respect

However it would be handy to have a calculator to check, I guess there'll be loads of online tools in due course.
Anyone else thinking they will also stick with the vouchers?

I think many people would agree that an overhaul in childcare would be one of the best investments that could be made in the future of families and children.

It does beg the question though that if you took the inevitable rising cost of this scheme over a medium term period (since it would be political suicide to try to take it away after if ever it is implemented) and considered that against the cost of an entire overhaul, which would be most beneficial to the working population in the long term?

Until then, vouchers are definitely better than nothing!

Happy, it's not the child care SAHM's are not happy with. It's telling us 3 years ago that the country is on it's knees and the only right thing to do is remove CB from 'high earners' (one earner on Higher rate tax in fact). 3 years down the line we are suddenly rich enough to offer tax breaks to families on 300k a year. Hearing Clegg on the Today programme going on about why it was fair for the very wealthy to benefit from this is a total contradiction to his stance on CB 4 years ago. What happened to people with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden (cringe). Why did he not think that about CB? That is why SAHM married to a higher rate tax payer are rightfully pissed off.

Surely we're taking away taxbreaks from people earning over 150,000 each ihate? This is adding an (admittedly high) earnings cap to a tax break which previously didn't have one, and before that was actively more beneficial to higher rate tax payers.

Hearing Clegg on the Today programme going on about why it was fair for the very wealthy to benefit from this is a total contradiction to his stance on CB 4 years ago

This

IhateGeorgeO -yes you are meant to leave secondary kids alone. It's best for the economy, apparently.

I'm so thrilled that as a single working mum who paid for both children to go to nursery from 3 months I now have to use my very modest income to subsidise couples on 300K

In fact, I'm really angry that the hypocritical Tories are introducing non means tested benefits purely in order to buy votes.

The problem with all these subsidies is that nurseries and child care providers will just whack up their costs commensurately. It is the same with help to buy. Sellers will just crank up their asking prices as they know buyers can get government subsidies. The sad truth is that subsidies don't really address the problems, they exacerbate them. The more money government gives families to help with rising costs, the higher these costs will then escalate. No one will end up being better off. Everyone will just be working harder and longer for less. I think it's thoroughly depressing really.

I'm pleased about most of the changes. My brother and SIL both are self employed and didn't get any tax relief on their childcare costs, now they do. That makes sense. Having the scheme for all children up to 12 makes sense as well since some of us can pay for our after school clubs with childcare vouchers at the moment so were going to be much worse off with the original version of this scheme.

Personally I don't think this is an attack on parental care, after all if a couple both work part time and share the childcare they are still eligible for this scheme. It does reduce the attraction of the 1SAHM/1WOHD model which leaves families vunerable to redundancy or death or illness or abandonment by the wage earner. Maybe more men will start doing their share of the childcare if it makes more sense financially to have 2 lower wages than 1 high wage. Or is that too positive a thought?

Dinosaurarextinct - I'm so thrilled that as a childless couple we are subsidising couples who want someone else to care for their child. Entitlement issues, much??

Entitlement issues how thatpink? I paid for both my children to go through nursery, on a not that high single income, and didn't get maternity pay either (as self employed, had to work through the births). In what sense am I entitled? I do resent people on very high earnings (up to 300,000 pounds family income) getting support from the state for their childcare costs. Because they in no way need it. Yet people who do need state support, eg the poor and disabled, are constantly being shafted. This is buying votes, no more no less.

Dinosaursarexxtinct - it wasn't aimed at you at all. You've done it as it should be done. I just have problems with people having children who then expect the rest of us to subsidise their outgoings. You are correct it's all buying votes. Hopefully the public will see through it (but I doubt it)

It undoubtedly does discriminate against SAHP. Fair enough, SAHPs don’t need help with childcare costs as such, but we are very much squeezed by foregoing one income. Yes, it’s our choice to have one of us be a SAHP, but this choice isn’t subsidised by the taxpayer, so why should those making a different choice, namely paying for childcare, be subsidised?

There are arguments for and against putting your kids into childcare versus looking after them yourself, both for individual families and for wider society. But I am utterly sick and disheartened by the policy of all main parties of financially favouring those who opt for paid childcare, as if this is the only acceptable route.

What do you want OneMile? It doesn't discriminate against SAHP, it is irrelevant to sahp. If you want free childcare you can access the 15 hours of free childcare for under 3s. What more do you need.

We need the gov't not to choose to direct financial support so discriminatorily, GreatHunt

thatbitpink we all subsidise each other in different ways. Were you a child once? Did you go to state school? If so, taxpayers of your time funded your education. Taxes fund maternity services provided by the NHS. They fund services that some groups access and others don't.

Some people are so selfish and cannot see beyond the end of their noses.

How so?

When the government funds hospitals they are only funding the sick.

When they fund schools they are only funding the children.

The government provides a number of different things for a number of different reasons but overall it benefits the economy or helps the vulnerable.

Exactly what would be the point in having parents continue to pay extortionate child care costs? This isn't a free wodge of cash, it goes direct to the childcare provider. If parents cannot afford childcare then they cannot afford to work. Which means less people in work and the treasury gets less tax revenue.

Parents are always going to worse off than those without kids. The tax break doesn't make them richer, which is clearly what you're worried about.