On 9 Dec, 11:48, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:19:39 on Sat, 8
Dec 2007, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
....

Should they be able to split the tax burden? I would say yes.

Only if there's a similar transferable allowance for employed people.

Yes please! SWMBO has worked as a nanny for the last 18 years. Now we
have a little one of our own, it makes no sense for her to go out to
work looking after others' kiddies, and for us to pay someone to look
after ours. Except in Gordo land. I can get tax breaks to pay for
childcare, but can't use my wife's tax allowance to offset any of my
income. The gummint keeps telling us how important it is for parents
to spend time with their children, but then do nothing to help them do
so.

/rant

TL

In message , at 10:55:53 on
Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Rupert Moss-Eccardt
remarked:
I also don't understand how they'll make sure this doesn't mess up the
Matrimonial Causes Act. That currently provides for the principal that
the 'homemaker' makes a significant contribution to the wealth of the
'breadwinner' by looking after the house, children, pets etc.

You are confusing two quire separate issues. The 'homemaker' makes a
similar contribution in kind to a PAYE-employed 'breadwinner' as well.
--
Roland Perry

On 10 Dec, 10:55, Rupert Moss-Eccardt
wrote:

I also don't understand how they'll make sure this doesn't mess up the
Matrimonial Causes Act. That currently provides for the principal that
the 'homemaker' makes a significant contribution to the wealth of the
'breadwinner' by looking after the house, children, pets etc.

and then the government do nothing to recognise this, and actively
penalise non-working partners. Bring back the transferable tax
allowance!

TL

The Luggage wrote:
On 9 Dec, 11:48, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:19:39 on Sat, 8
Dec 2007, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
...

Should they be able to split the tax burden? I would say yes.
Only if there's a similar transferable allowance for employed people.

Yes please! SWMBO has worked as a nanny for the last 18 years. Now we
have a little one of our own, it makes no sense for her to go out to
work looking after others' kiddies, and for us to pay someone to look
after ours. Except in Gordo land. I can get tax breaks to pay for
childcare, but can't use my wife's tax allowance to offset any of my
income. The gummint keeps telling us how important it is for parents
to spend time with their children, but then do nothing to help them do
so.

/rant

TL
But surely if you 'employed' your wife you would get tax breaks on what
you were 'spending' on childcare but you wife would pay income tax on
her 'earnings'. I guess, but stand to be corrected, that you are better
off as you are.

Andrew

In message
, at
05:11:42 on Mon, 10 Dec 2007, The Luggage
remarked:

Should they be able to split the tax burden? I would say yes.

Only if there's a similar transferable allowance for employed people.

Yes please! SWMBO has worked as a nanny for the last 18 years. Now we
have a little one of our own, it makes no sense for her to go out to
work looking after others' kiddies, and for us to pay someone to look
after ours. Except in Gordo land. I can get tax breaks to pay for
childcare,

Lucky you. Back in the mid 90's I didn't.

but can't use my wife's tax allowance to offset any of my
income. The gummint keeps telling us how important it is for parents
to spend time with their children, but then do nothing to help them do
so.

My peeve was that I could employ someone to do my work while I watched
the kids, and that cost was entirely tax deductible. But if I did the
work myself and hired someone to watch the kids (to enable me to work)
it wasn't tax deductible.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:59:01 on Mon, 10
Dec 2007, Andrew May remarked:

Should they be able to split the tax burden? I would say yes.
Only if there's a similar transferable allowance for employed people.
Yes please! SWMBO has worked as a nanny for the last 18 years. Now
we
have a little one of our own, it makes no sense for her to go out to
work looking after others' kiddies, and for us to pay someone to look
after ours. Except in Gordo land. I can get tax breaks to pay for
childcare, but can't use my wife's tax allowance to offset any of my
income. The gummint keeps telling us how important it is for parents
to spend time with their children, but then do nothing to help them do
so.
/rant
TL
But surely if you 'employed' your wife you would get tax breaks on what
you were 'spending' on childcare

Not allowed if her "employment" was looking after the kids.

but you wife would pay income tax on her 'earnings'.

Of course, but in fact all you can do is employ someone and effectively
pay their entire wages, and tax, out of your post-tax income. So there's
twice the tax being paid as if one of the parents gives up work to look
after the kids. (And leaving any benefits out of the picture).

--
Roland Perry