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.

I want my CB back. We had an expectation to receive it until our children left school. It was factored in when we worked out if I could afford to be a SAHM. We have never received any other type of benefit. To take it away in effect gave my husband a 3K pay drop - our mortgage hasn't reduced and the cost of living has increased. I went back to work part-time after three years but couldn't get a job at the same level of salary I had prior to being a SAHM.

Of course this is a push to disincentivise parental care.

IhateGeorge I was discussing the effect of the child benefit cut with my husband. No way, back in the day, would it have been sensible for him to be promoted to a salary beyond the cut-off point. It would not have been better for the economy in the long term to have me in a low-pay job and him avoiding promotion to a higher tax bracket. His taxation levels are now eye-watering which I don't mind!but it's a fairness issue; claiming this up to £300,000 income is such a joke.

If I had lost my child benefit I'd be annoyed but you really can't expect low earners paying tax to supplement people's choice to be a SAHP. So I think it was a good decision.

How does a couple earning 300,000 pounds a year need help with their childcare costs? It's outrageous, particularly in the context of the horrendous time that the unemployed and disabled are having under this Government. If there is money to spare, then use it on then or on other people who genuinely need it. But the money is cynically being directed at those the Tories think can be persuaded to vote for them. It's about that and nothing else.

I'm happy for the tiny amount of tax that I pay to go on necessary government spending. Subsidising childcare for those earning up to £300,000 - No.

why does anyone think they are subsidizing a couple earning £300kpa between them?

they would be paying £120k in tax very year and getting a small percentage of that back when they have children under 12.

They shouldn't be getting that percentage back, is all. They can easily afford childcare all by themselves, being very high earners. This new proposal will cost a great deal of money, which could be far better spent elsewhere. The problem being that the poor tend not to vote Tory.

What annoys me is that all figures show 25 hours of childcare, whereas in reality I need our nursery to do 7.30-6.00, which is actually 52.5 hours a week. A full-time place where I am in the SE for a child is around £1100 a month. I am pretty much working for nothing until free hours kick in at 3 (and if you have a child who is born a day or two in to the term window it can be 3.4 years old), where I will start to get about 200 a month off my bill.

We are not rich at all, but anything that helps with the bill is a good thing, although we may be better off sticking with vouchers, we need to do the maths on that. If I gave up work, in the industry I am in there is no way I'd get back to the same levels of pay if I had a few years off, so it's better to keep going as we are as one day (in about 5 years' time) we may finally have some disposable income!

So why should you expect low earners to subsidise child care for the seriously loaded Vivienne?

If you have a high earner in a household you are subsidising another pair of high earners childcare.

The same applies to CB for those earning over 50k Favourite. By your argument, they are paying for their own CB and not being subsidised by the low earners. It's funny how the CB issue always comes back to the fact that they should not be subsidised by lower earners, despite earning considerably less than 300k. However, when it comes to child care subsidies for the seriously minted, they have paid for it themselves through high taxes. Smacks of picking and choosing the deserving and undeserving of middle class state largesse.

Yes Notthe it makes long term financial sense for reasonably paid parents to continue earning anyway. Later on you will reap the rewards.

ihate, it's a concerted effort to get everyone in the paid workforce, even when it would make more financial sense (without government interference) for some families to have a SAHP.

The current tax system is biased against a sole earner.

but those earning 50k will still get the childcare benefit. so whats the problem?

they loose cd but get the childcare help.

I don't agree with these subsidies up to £300K. It is an insanely high figure. Even with the argument that these people are paying a lot in tax already. But on the other hand I think tax breaks are different from handouts. I agree with some tax relief on childcare but not for really wealthy people.

YouAre : Not every family that lost child benefit uses outsourced childcare.

Why is everyone complaining - its a tax incentive for tax "payers" ... why would a sahm or dad need childcare tax break!! we already get 15 hours when they are 3, jesus you just dont knnow when your well off you really don't - for the record, I am a working lone parent, using childcare vouchers and with my 15 hours now that my little one is 3 I am finding childcare very reasonable - admittedly it was hard from the age of 9 month when I went back to work to him being 3 and no I didnt get tax credits due to having a decent job - but I can see that this is fair as if your low paid or single tax credits will help to child care, if your well paid and single or married you will get basically 20% off childcare and still get 15 hours free, and if your a sahm you ALSO get 15 hours free when they are 3 - - with the added bonus of having precious time to bring your own child up yourself - get a grip everybody I am not a tory supporter but I can see that this is fair and won't be expensive to rollout, maybe a few more not for profit local nurseries wouldnt go a miss but seriously you don't know when your well off - everyones a winner in this country so stop whinging you could be in australia where NOTHING remotely like the above schemes exists!! and thats considered the lucky country

teacake - then they have lower costs.

NK:

I wouldn't have wanted the government to give a us child care tax break. They shouldn't nudge us to their view of family life via the tax system.

The government finances are in a pickle. Why give a tax break to families earning up to £300,000?

Investing in not for profit nurseries would be preferable as a true investment in education for the nation. But that wouldn't buy them the votes.

And a missing second income..

tea cake - and they 'miss' paying tax on that second incoem

For: the "problem" is expressed best by ihategeorge at 08:43:04.

Listen we can argue about who pays more tax till the cows come home. In our case we pay an enormous amount now (luckily really and which I do not begrudge) and far more than if I had worked through on a low wage and my husband foregone promotion to the higher tax levels.

Our decisions (nudged by government tax policy) would be different today. I think that's wrong.

I think you need to look at this from a govt perspective. a family with one earner of £50-60k is not making a massive contribution in terms of tax - however large it feels for that family.

the break even for an adult in terms of tax paid in one year v. their share of the cost of running the country is £26k.

if you earn more than that - well, the country needs you to pay tax and you still have a good income. so I still see no problem

I put my family before the exchequer!

But even so according to your figures the government is better off without my meagre contribution but with my partner earning a lot, than the newer more favoured set up of me on low pay and him on middling.

We have too many low productivity jobs in UK.