We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
If you wait for the price crash...
Comments
-
Nothing is free. Either the user pays or someone else does.
There is an aspect to paying for childcare which I find very irritating.
If I buy a £20k antique desk for my room in Chambers, I can knock it off my tax bill.
If I spend £20k on childcare, it is out of taxable income.
It seems to be daft that you can't claim childcare as a pre-tax expense, when it is essential to allow me to work - unlike a poncey desk!...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
You are aware childcare vouchers are not benefits?
You pay for them through a salary sacrafice at work. Ie...Your salary is £33,000, childcare vouchers = £3,000, you are paid a salary of £30k.
The benefit is paying tax on £30k as opposed to £33k.
But either way the parent still pays for them. (It's a little tax break if you like)
Anyway, childcare should be absoloutly free IMO. It's criminal some parents get it for nothing, but others have to pay for it.
And I think gin and tonic should be free, but there we go. I agree that there should be tax relief for childcare ( which there is now with the vouchers) but I don't see why you should get child care free.
As it happens I do have kids, but don't see why anyone sensible enough to not have any should have to pay for mine.0 -
The only reason most are stay at home parents is because childcare is too expensive and they're caught in a trap. You work just to pay childcare, so whats the point?
The only way around that is to make childcare free, this way parents can get back to work and then start contributing in taxation, which in turn pays for their 'free' childcare;)
Many parents stay at home after the birth of their child not because childcare is expensive but because they want to parent their own child. Making childcare free to all means that these people would have a double burden in giving up their own salary in addition to their partner's salary being taxed to pay for the childcare of others.0 -
Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »And I think gin and tonic should be free, but there we go. I agree that there should be tax relief for childcare ( which there is now with the vouchers) but I don't see why you should get child care free.
As it happens I do have kids, but don't see why anyone sensible enough to not have any should have to pay for mine.
Purely to get stay at home parents back to work who you pay for. The only reason they do not work is because they choose not to, due to childcare costs and more often than not, it not being worth it, especially when you factor in fuel/parking charges etc also.
By getting 1 person back into work, it has a double whammy effect on the budget.
Instead of claiming say £500pm in benefits, they are now contributing £500pm in taxation meaning 1 person going back to work earns the government £1000pm, the £500 they save in benefits + the £500 the worker is being taxed.
This in itself could/should be able to pay the bill for making childcare ''free''
People would not be paying for yours, effectively you and your partner through your own taxation contributions would be paying for it yourself.
The double whammy effect above is very real, and should be an incentive to the government.
Your argument is just like stating, why should my taxes fund your children to go to school?0 -
Many parents stay at home after the birth of their child not because childcare is expensive but because they want to parent their own child.
A subject close to home as OH has recently given up their job to look after our 3 under 3... Surveys often show that one parent would love to stay at home at least for the first few years but the cost of living prevents this especially with mortgages being based on joint income these days.0 -
-
HouseBuyer wrote: »who will you find that will lend you the mortgage?
We started looking and when I called London & county this morning they said lenders criteria were getting very tough. And even if house prices fall, no one can say if mortgage rates will fall.
We earn a decent wage (joint £75k pa) and can just about at the moment afford to borrow enough for what we need, £250,000.
For those waiting for the prices to bottom out, do you have something agreed you can transfer on or will you be a cash buyer?
I don't think people are too bothered about what mortgage rates are. If mortgage rates continue to climb, house prices will just fall further anyway. Lots of people would prefer a smaller loan size with higher mortgage rates rather than a large loan size with low mortgage rates. And that makes perfect sense. It doesn't necessarily mean housing is going to be any more affordable, but it does mean you haven't got a big ball and chain of a debt hanging round your neck if things start to go pear shaped in the economy and mortgage rates start rising (like we're seeing now).
And of course some sensible people have been putting off buying over the past 2-3 years and have large cash deposits ready, and no debt. Falling prices mean they have an ever increasing deposit percentage (well over 25% in some cases) and so mortgage applications shouldn't be a problem.0 -
Making childcare free to all means that these people would have a double burden in giving up their own salary in addition to their partner's salary being taxed to pay for the childcare of others.
Not understanding that
Your partner shouldn't be taxed anymore than what he is now, and by you not contributing through taxation due to you being off work then the government is losing out on this. Infact the government would probably be paying you JSA benefits.
Does a mother really need 5 yrs off work to look after a child? Some want to, but i suspect most only do so because childcare costs are not worth them going back to work. (Lets not forget how long 5 yrs is)0 -
dannyboycey wrote: »You chose to have a child - why should someone who chose not to, pay for your childcare?
Why should they pay for them to go to school? The point of the matter is, if there are 2 working parents, then someone else wouldn't be paying for your childs childcare. Your own taxation contributions would do so. Its not a freebie, like the taxpayer pays for those on JSA/Housing etc, its not in the same league. In reality you would be paying your own childcare costs.
If not that, then please tell me why people are caught in the trap of ''There's no point in working due to childcare costs'' There are millions of mums out there caught in this trap.
Surely this is not a good thing, what is your solution? Either make childcare free or double the minimum wage?
Did you not read my double whammy effect above?0 -
Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »And I think gin and tonic should be free, but there we go. I agree that there should be tax relief for childcare ( which there is now with the vouchers) but I don't see why you should get child care free.
As it happens I do have kids, but don't see why anyone sensible enough to not have any should have to pay for mine.
The vouchers thing doesn't do anything for me, as I'm self-employed. It still rankles about the difference between an antique desk and childcare!...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards