[Sassy Dingo]

I think suggestions like this show a fundamental misunderstanding of the tax system.

Most people already get back 50% of their child care costs by way of a rebate. To replace this with a deduction would only benefit those who don't get the rebate as Australia does not have a marginal tax rate that is greater than 50%.

[wrong]

Isn't childcare subsidised now? Through the CCB and CCR? I realise that there are cut offs, but the majority of people would be eligible.

CCR is a 50% rebate up to $7,500/yr for approved childcare only, which for some might only cover 3 days/wk of long day care.

And childcare is not universally accessible - the only guaranteed government entitlement is for 15hrs/wk of 4yo kinder.

It is completely ridiculous to suggest tax deductible home expenses for the following reasons:

1. the most needy people in our society do not pay tax so won't get any benefit from it.
2. if everyone is eligible Joe Average is just going to be subsidising very high income earners who will spend more on home help, and also get a greater tax benefit due to marginal tax rates.

Perhaps you forgot about the positive effects of job creation on the economy and society?
In Sweden, which has less than half of our population, it is said to have created more than 5,000 jobs.

3. it is just going to cost money in red tape. If everyone is eligible, rather than pay lots of tax and get lots back at tax time - it is more efficient to simply lower the tax rate.

Maybe more efficient but more costly and less tailored.

4. it is nonsense to expect the community to subsidise your living expenses. Absolutely ridiculous.

Why? What should the community subsidise?

Why would people get a tax break on something they may or may not choose to even do, ie. they may not even clean or cook anyway, why give them cash for doing nothing?

What do you mean by give them cash for doing nothing?

Do you pay tax and others receive tax breaks for things that don't directly benefit yourself?

[Guest_Buy Me A Pony !_*]

I would like the taxpayer to subsidise me for breathing.

lol

Radical thought but maybe people could pay for their own child related expenses.

CleverChook I've been blocked by many members for hinting at this idea previously. Apparently it makes you some kind of extremist to suggest that people live within their means.

As SassyDingo said, a rebate is vastly different to a deduction and is pretty much a flat and non descriminating distribution of costs.

PP perhaps the community could subsidise those who are in need of subsidy, those who are not capable of full participation and contribution rather than these overly generous handouts to people who are capable. I know it's a radical idea and all

[wrong]

PP perhaps the community could subsidise those who are in need of subsidy, those who are not capable of full participation and contribution rather than these overly generous handouts to people who are capable. I know it's a radical idea and all

So you do not believe in universally accessible services and support?
You believe that all subsidies and government support should be means-tested and that it should be user-pays for those ineligible?

[wrong]

Tax is not just used for welfare, but also for boosting growth and development of a nation in many areas.

+1

[Bam1]

I don't think we have a perfect system but I'd be hesitant to say all nanny services should be subsidised. Only the actual childcare part should be subsidised, and it is also not very cost effective for only one child. If the parents are working standard hour jobs then they shouldn't expect the taxpayer to pay more so that their child has a 1:1 ratio rather than 1:4.

[doctorseuss]

DH pointed out to me that tax-deducting nanny services would probably make the government money, because all of a sudden all the workers would be registered and would have to pay tax.

Personally I'm on favour of it, I work shift work and DH travels with work, so a child care centre does not cover our needs.

[Guest_tigerdog_*]

Do you not agree with the rebate for CC? Isn't that tax payers money to help people who choose to work?

Yes but they need this service - it's essential for enabling them to work and pay tax in the first place, whereas home help services are not.

This post has been edited by tigerdog: 27/03/2012, 01:42 PM

[Moo point]

Not sure about the policies you're quoting, but my brother lives in Stockholm with subsidised childcare. The fees per month are based on income - when he was a full time student and his partner was working part time and studying part time, their monthly fees (including 5 days per week, meals, nappies etc) were equivalent to $180 per month.

Once my brother started working full time, the fees increased but still to no more than (I think) $300 or $400 per month - he earns the equivalent about average wage here. Plus, at the age of 20 months my niece was the youngest in centre. Thanks to their generous parental leave scheme, many parents are encouraged to stay home for the first two years, split between both parents.

I'll take that policy, thanks!

[Banana Pancakes]

And childcare is not universally accessible - the only guaranteed government entitlement is for 15hrs/wk of 4yo kinder.

Not in NSW

Radical thought but maybe people could pay for their own child related expenses.