tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434369190746987531.post8242396505704396102..comments2023-11-05T23:07:01.842+11:00Comments on Grog's Gamut: Tax Breaks for Nannies? Oh Mister Abbott!Greg Jerichohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04956402439870441083noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434369190746987531.post-83822267338930367562012-10-22T09:42:15.566+11:002012-10-22T09:42:15.566+11:00In the past nannies have been subsidised - and it ...In the past nannies have been subsidised - and it was capped at two kids. It was the start of the Child Care Cash Rebate 20 years ago.<br />The remarkable thing that happened - was that nannies were going onto the ATO books - having their tax and entitlements paid, the amount was the same as the tax a fulltime nanny paid - but at least it was getting nannies onto the books and there was a way to track their employment. The biggest change was that more nannies were being paid superannuation - therefore not being a burden when they reached their retirement years. <br />The ATO Cash Economy Taskforce provided the above info 15 years ago.<br />I agree that to introduce subsidies now would be a burden - but we need to see the big picture.<br />Having worked in the industry for 25 years now - the majority of parents are hospitality, medical, emergency services - or parents who need more flexibility because of their work demands. Many mums are paying their nannies almost all of their wages as they need to keep up their professional work history and may drop back a few days a week - but on the days they do work - they can't get to day care by 6pm. Many also don't want their kids in care for 10 hours a day!<br />For some parents with two or three kids having to pay $5-6 hr for their day care, not having access to the Childcare Benefit, only to the Rebate - see having their kids cared for at home a better option not only for the hours the kids are having to 'work' but also for the consistency of carers (staff turnover in centres is high), reduction of illnesses their kids contract - often meaning time off to care for them and a little more flexibility. Very few nanny employers are earning amazing incomes - they just want to get through the first 5 years of their kids lives in a way that benefits all family members.The Australian Consortium Of Nannieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15864845959562398600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434369190746987531.post-81063703433147811582010-04-03T13:45:42.785+11:002010-04-03T13:45:42.785+11:00They wouldn't pay out just on any nanny. Nanni...They wouldn't pay out just on any nanny. Nannies would have to be registered in some way, have child-minding certificates, or degrees or similar. Otherwise neighbours would just hire each other to do the nannying (aka in Normal orld as "Can you mind the kids for a couple of hours, luv?") and charge it to the government.<br /><br />There'd have to be ATO regstration to consider, PAYE deductions and so on. Plenty of opportunities for rorts, scams, free-loading &etc..<br /><br />Then what if one of these nannies went beserk and harmed or even murdered the kids? Under the Garrett Rule who'd be responsible? <br /><br />A government subsidization scheme that distorted the nanny market, leading to spivs and shonks entering to make a fast buck sounds a lot like Insulgate to me. <br /><br />What of reputable nannies? Would they get a hearing at the inevitable Senate inquiry? Would a higher demand for nannies lead to immigration scandals?<br /><br />What of families that can't afford a nanny - subsidy or no subsidy - would we start to have cases of nanny envy and nanny rage?<br /><br />This and the Abbott PPL scheme seem to be just another way of creating Liberal babies, ready-to-vote conservatives with silver spoons in their mouths while the common herd can go and fend for themselves.<br /><br />SUCH a stupid idea.Bushfire Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434369190746987531.post-6995533740660850822010-04-03T09:15:05.433+11:002010-04-03T09:15:05.433+11:00If a nanny cost the same amount as a child care pl...If a nanny cost the same amount as a child care place, I don't think there would be an issue. But nanny jobs go for around $18-$25 per hour (or in one case $35k p/a - http://www.findababysitter.com.au/nanny-jobs/sydney)<br /><br />So at $20 an hour, that's $160 per day. That is massively above what anyone pays for day care.<br /><br />It's a luxury. The Government should not be in the business of subsidizing luxury child care, or giving child care tax breaks to anyone who can afford to pay $600-$800 per week for a nanny.<br /><br />If it is means tested (you would hope), those who would be elegible to get the tax break wouldn't be able to afford a nanny anyway (perhaps one day a week at most), and if it wasn't means tested then we're giving tax breaks to those who obviously do not need it. <br /><br />It is stupid politics as well as questionable policy.Greg Jerichohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04956402439870441083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434369190746987531.post-65921318626552306552010-04-03T07:20:11.734+11:002010-04-03T07:20:11.734+11:00But the uptake is not going to be great it you arg...But the uptake is not going to be great it you argue that all subsidized child care should be means tested (as I would as you need to limit middle class welfare).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434369190746987531.post-558979804081295052010-04-03T07:16:31.473+11:002010-04-03T07:16:31.473+11:00You can argue sanely that all childcare should be ...You can argue sanely that all childcare should be subsidized to the same amount as a child care place. After all it should not be government policy to encourage their use over other forms of child care.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com