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 put my family before the exchequer!

well that how your family contributes to the NHS, SS etc. so the govt not going to do what you want. hence the situation you find yourself in.

But even so according to your figures the government is better off without my meagre contribution

no. a small tax contribution is better than non from a working age adult.

My problem is with government tax systems nudging people to use childcare over parental care.

I also think tax breaks to very high earners using childcare is crazy in current economy.

You are being deliberately obtuse I feel You. My DH's contribution has become very high but would not have done had I worked when children young. My tiny missing contribution from then would not have made up for his long-term reduced taxes.

My situation ? I've said I'm happy with my situation. I'm unhappy with gov. policy.

they don't care what childcare you use - they care about the total tax take.

Gives up...

fair enough

Ok I have to say this! Then I'm off.

I realise they don't "care" about childcare (George Osborne care about my children's development or anyone else's, that would take a parallel universe.) They are using the governmental power they have within the taxation system to encourage particular behaviours and thereby increase their tax revenues. I wish they'd piss off and leave some elements of life unmonetized.

but we are a democracy and not many people agree with you. or it would be on the political agenda.

you just want what suits you 'unmonetized'.

I did'nt come onto this forum to argue about who pays more tax but rather to reflect my view (to any Mumsnet representative speaking on behalf of 'mums' and also in case any of the Political Parties review such sites for an insight into public opinion) regarding the unfairness of removing CB from families on modest joint incomes but now justifying why they should give tax relief on childcare to couples earning 300K.

I could argue all day about other injustices suffered by others on lower incomes and the unfairness of tax reliefs for the rich and how much my HRTPH pays in tax but I'm currently at my low paid part-time job while the kids are at school and I have to get home for when my 12 year old child gets home from secondary school.

My advice is don't give up your job if you have children, you will find it difficult to get back to the same level of salary afterwards. There aren't any well paid part-time jobs even for mums with degrees/professional qualifications (but your existing employer may let you go part-time). When your kids start school you will reap the rewards of your two good salaries and tax relief but what when they start secondary school and they finish at 3.00 p.m. but you don't get home until 7.00 p.m.

@YouAreMyFavourite at 11:49

“not many people agree with you” (in response to @Teacake at 11:32)

Really?? I think you’ll find that many, many people agree with Teacake. The comments on here are very split. And if you hop over to the equivalent discussion on the BBC News site and sort the comments by highest score, you’ll see that the views expressed are very much against this policy.

I earn less than £30,000 and my partner, previously a SAHP, is now on a tiny part-time wage. I HUGELY object to my taxes subsidising dual-income couples, earning vastly more than our household income, via tax breaks to reduce their childcare costs.

Think of it another way. If the government increases duty on (say) cigarettes to change behaviour (i.e. reduce smoking), the vast majority of people would agree that this behaviour change is desirable. But by designing the tax system to nudge people away from parental care, they act as if this behavioural change is universally accepted to be a good thing, when no such universal agreement exists. The discrimination against parental care is gradually creeping up the political agenda, and not before time.

Apply for flexible working?
Hope that they are grown up enough to do their homework and make dinner ready for your return?
Employ an au-pair or home help?

This won't be much of an incentive to high earning parents to earn rather than SAHP. The money they earn in the job is the incentive. The cut off should be way way lower. I think this is primarily a way to give money to the better off to encourage them to vote Tory, packaged in a way that is acceptable to the Liberals.

“not many people agree with you” I means nationally - not land of MN.

"I HUGELY object to my taxes subsidising dual-income couples, earning vastly more than our household income, via tax breaks to reduce their childcare costs."

they subsidise you, not the other way around. not that there is anything terrible in that.

Lets not forget this money is being given indiscriminately to high earners IN ADDITION to the UNIVERSAL free school meals for 4 -7 year olds.

I don't have any axe to grind, I don't need childcare and I don't need free school meals and we don't need child benefit BUT this government is absolutely appalling in its incoherence.

Why if child benefit was such a burden is it necessary to now reintroduce 2 very costly universal plans. Are we in 'austerity' period or are we not ?

This is all about political point scoring, there is NO economic or social policy involved here whatsoever.

I simply cannot vote for a government with so little intelligence.

how many families with an income of 300kpa send their DCs to state school?

if they go private, they wont get fsm.

Plenty do. I used to live in an area with lots of high earners (London suburb). Housing is extremely expensive. Many families use the state schools if they are good and private if they aren't. They have that flexibility.

YouAre: I think more people agree it's a poor scheme outside of MN as MNers are more likely to benefit than not, being mostly parents.

@YouAreMyFavourite

“not many people agree with you - I means nationally - not land of MN.” I assumed you meant nationally. I meant nationally, too. As I said, BBC forum posters (for example), who often aren’t typical MN’ers, are mostly against the tax break; and it’s now commonplace to hear, on news broadcasts, “critics of the scheme complain that it discriminates against stay-at-home parents”. You underestimate the strength of feeling against this, methinks - not only from many SAHPs but also from many without kids who resent it, and others.

“they subsidise you, not the other way around.” How do you work that out??

It is, in very simple terms, highly unfair, as well as inconsistent and incoherent when compared alongside other policies, as others have mentioned. Support ALL hard-up parents, not just those who opt to pay for childcare in order to have a second income.

My DH's contribution has become very high but would not have done had I worked when children young. My tiny missing contribution from then would not have made up for his long-term reduced taxes.

But maybe, just maybe, if more couples chose to BOTH work part time then working part time won't be such a hindrance to promotion because it won't just be seen as something women who aren't that committed to work do. And maybe a future version of your DH would be able to be promoted AND get the chance to develop a meaningful relationship with his children (not just Saturday fun Dad) and the future version of you would have the chance to continue working and developing your skills and take home a good wage as well as continuing to spend time with your children.

That to me seems a better reality than the version where women have to sacrifice their ambition and freedom to become unpaid skivies for their families and men have to be wage slaves to keep a roof over their families heads and forgo any meaningful relationship with their children because they spend all their time at work. Which is the version of life that was pushed for generations. You might be happy with that version of reality but not all of us were and while I agree with most of the improvements that people have suggested to the system overall I think it is perfectly reasonable to stop taxing people on an expense that they only pay because they need to work.

You are making a lot of assumptions based on taxation there lego!

I brought our tax into this as a counter to the idea that it was always better for the treasury if a SAHP worked. Really I don't want government policy deciding how we run our family lives.

Do both parents need to work when their combined income is 300,000? Hardly.

And you aren't? You are talking about your situation and how unfair it is that you don't get tax relief on childcare. I'm talking about my situation and how the tax relief on childcare is very nice thankyouverymuch and we still get CB because we are below the limit because neither of us work fulltime and that people at my work get promoted even if they work part time because we've now hit a critical mass of middle and senior staff that don't work full time so they can't ignore us anymore. The world changes and taxation is a way for government to try and influence it. You don't like it because you think they are forcing people away from the choices you made. But surely that means you are making assumptions based on taxation as well, I don't hear you saying 'well, I'm going to work now so I can claim tax relief on childcare'.

Lego said "I think it is perfectly reasonable to stop taxing people on an expense that they only pay because they need to work".

Dh spends about 5k a year on train fares for work. Surely that falls into this category. Why can't we have tax relief on travel expenses too. Oh, and suits for work. He only buys them for work. How about tax relief on work clothes. Also the dry cleaning bills for said work clothes. He wouldn't get them cleaned if he didn't need to for work. As far as I'm concerned, these costs are at least as valid as childcare, if not more so. At least you can make the choice not to have children. You can't make the choice not to work.

You have misread my posts lego.