Out of touch Labour

Anonymous

Also true.

Your final point is (kind of) what happens, I thought?

10K nil rate band, eroded by taxable benefits, oyher income etc.
20% thereafter
40% after 40K
50% after 100K (cant remember if this still exists?)
NRB declines as income increases past 100K

tangled_metal

Arran- ppl need to appreciate stay at home parents more. They have a worth economically speaking as they often allow the other half (male or female) to go out and earn more. They do have an effective earning potential. Perhaps their equivalent income should be calculated and if income gives you status then their equivalent income gives them the higher status that they deserve.
BTW with national insurance included it kind of works out at about 20% I think. It is a tax too.
Some excellent points above. My opinion is there needs to be simplification. How about local income based taxes, or even better one income based tax. Is vat necessary too? That really sucks money from you. How feasible is it to have only a tax on your earnings at source instead of extra, stealthy taxes?

arran77

Totally agree that stay at home parents have a great value, not just financially as you point out but also the benefits that it has for the children by having a parent being the one bringing them up, others may disagree with me but for us it has really worked and we would do it again no question.

It does undoubtedly put more strain on a family financially as I have said before which is pretty sad really as the benefits that it brings are huge. If it were not for the financial aspects we would choose for Mrs 77 to remain at home looking after the children as long as possible but sadly that won't be the case :roll:

tangled_metal

I've heard arguments that stay at home parents are a benefit to society as well as the family. As such they should receive pay accordingly. That helps the family and the parent to afford to keep offering this service.