Childcare tax ‘insult’ to full-time mothers
They won’t get benefit but working couples will
MOTHERS who stay at home to look after their children do not need as much financial help as those who work, according to the Treasury. The claim was inadvertently published yesterday as part of a briefing on the Government’s new childcare plans.
It fuelled accusations that the scheme will deliberately discriminate against traditional single-earner families in an attempt to f orce more mothers back to work.
Critics described the new policy as a ‘slap in the face for two million stay- at- home mothers’.
The Treasury briefing, designed to help press officers ‘rebut’ criticism, stated: ‘Working families who are struggling with their childcare costs, or families where parents want to go to work but can’t afford to, are in greater need of state support for childcare than families where one parent chooses to stay at home and look after their children full-time.’
David Cameron and Nick Clegg yesterday confirmed that working couples who each earn less than £150,000 will qualify for childcare tax breaks worth up to £1,200 a year per child from 2015. That means they could have a joint income of nearly £300,000 and qualify.
They will receive 20 per cent – equivalent to the basic rate of
‘Completely incongruous’
tax – of their yearly childcare costs, up to a total of £6,000.
This will save a typical working family with two children under 12 up to £2,400 a year.
Single parents who are employed and earn less than £150,000 will also be eligible.
But, in a move that will anger Tory traditionalists, the Government confirmed that fami- lies in which only one parent works will not receive a penny.
Mr Cameron said: ‘For many families the cost of childcare is not one issue among many, it is the issue – it really matters.
‘We want to help people who work hard and want to get on, and so effectively this is some tax relief on childcare.’
But Lynne Burnham, of the campaign group Mothers at Home Matter, described the policy as a ‘slap in the face’ and said many full-time mothers were angry at suggestions that they were not hard-working.
She said: ‘It is completely incongruous for the Government to be paying £1,200 per child to f amilies on j oint incomes of £300,000, yet taking away child benefit from singleearner couples on £50,000.
‘Mothers who stay at home are hard-working – the difference is that we don’t get paid.’
BEFORE the election, David Cameron struck a resonant chord with millions of voters when he promised to stand up for traditional families.
While Labour seemed to care only about the economic contribution made by working mothers, here at last was a leader who also recognised the huge social value of those who prefer to look after their children full time.
So how deeply depressing t hat traditional families are to be overlooked yet again, with their childcare vouchers to be ‘phased out’, while working couples earning joint incomes of as much as £300,000 will qualify for new allowances of £1,200 per child.
How can true Tories possibly justify this blatant discrimination, so soon after withdrawing child benefit from single-earner couples on just £50,000?
As so often in the past, Mr Cameron – who pledged tax relief for married couples – has once again broken his word.