Tax news for families gets better
Friday 23rd September 2011, 3:00PM BST.
Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf on his way to present his Budget proposals to States Members this morning
TAX thresholds will go up in line with inflation and the cap on childcare relief will be almost doubled under ministerial plans outlined today.
Next year’s Budget plans set out a freeze on fuel duty and 5% rises in duty on alcohol and tobacco.
Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf said that the Budget he was presenting to the States did not contain the kind of bad news for Islanders that the previous two had.
His third Budget will be the last proposition debated by the current States Members before the newly-elected House takes over.
• See Friday’s JEP for details of the proposals
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
JOIN US ON...
Facebook and Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Got a story? Get in touch
KIT 4 CLUBS
Win a share of £10,000
2012 is the year of the London Olympics and to celebrate this great event the Jersey Evening Post, in association with sponsors Ogier is giving all sporting clubs a chance to win a share of £10,000.
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
I am flabbergasted as this should be left to the incoming parliament.
Black mark to the COM and current members
Report abuse
Why always hit drinkers so hard this pushes drinker to supermarkets and drinking at home which is worse than having a few pints in the pub.
The reason that duty increases have a worse affect on pubs is the fact that the % increase is multiplied by the mark up they need to make to cover their costs which are far higher than a supermarket.
Report abuse
As usual, hits the easy targets, this time however, there was no mention of being necessary on “Health Grounds” and why is it that every time there is an increase of 1p on a pint of beer, it seems to cost at least 5p more when you pay for it?
Meanwhile all non-local companies pay no tax,on the assumption that if they did, they would “pull out”, what a load of “bo****ks
Report abuse
5% on alcohol on top of last years 7% rise, so a 12% price rise in a period where wages have gone up at best by 5%.
Damn getting drunk is the only thing keeping me sane, you would think they would want the masses anathetised to keep them under control
Report abuse
Is this a cheery speech for election year or was it written before news of the retail slowdown, the possible decline in the fulfillment industry and the now almost uncontrollable debt crisis became news?
The fact is that the parent organisations of some Jersey banks eg Santander are really exposed in Greece and elsewhere.
But he can always balance the books with a rise in GST that was ‘forced’ on him like last time.
Report abuse
Electioneering again Mr Ozouf?
Report abuse
That s it, I give up drinking and smoking.
I am going to the drugstore…
Report abuse
doubling childcare relief, that will be helpfull to all the immigrants who claim for children who are not even born in jersey and dodge most of tax by working cash in hand, its know surprise they come over here and become baby machines, lets increase the social benefits while we are at it!
Report abuse
that would be the hyper inflation that may be round the the corner, i am not in finance , but traders must be bricking it , no?
Report abuse
Dear JEP leader writer, I am delighted that you enjoy paying tax, because most sane islanders don’t!
Anything less than allowances rising in line inflation, would be a tax increase. May I suggest that you, the JEP, stop following press releases from the Chief Ministers spin doctor!
Report abuse
If all the drinkers and smokers gave up tomorrow,where would they rake-in the taxes from these two?
GST would be one way income tax another the list goes on.
So now beer is dearer here than anywhere else in the UK,well at least the taxes on it is.
Report abuse
I am so pleased!!! Well done Senator Ozouf and thank you for giving more to families, I am so glad we have somebody at the helm like yourself who knows what they are doing and this budget is great!
Report abuse
8 MARK….doubling childcare relief,…. NICE SO AGAIN THOSE WHO DON’T HAVE CHILDREN SUFFER YET AGAIN
that will be helpfull to all the immigrants who claim for children who are not even born in jersey….MARK MAY I ADD THAT DON’T EVEN LIVE ON THE ISLAND
and dodge most of tax by working cash in hand…..THAT IS HAPPENING ALL TIME SO NO CHANGE THERE THEN….
its know surprise they come over here and become baby machines, lets increase the social benefits while we are at it…..WELL ALLEGEDLY YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME AND YOU GET INCOME SUPPORT DON’T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS …. I AM INTRIGUED , CAN SOMEONE HELP ME OUT HERE!!!!!
I really don’t understand how they work out their figures…mmmmmmm is there a recession in Jersey or what? Have they forgotten that there has been no pay rises or bonuses but increase in GST and everything else around us….people are just about surviving and now hit us with this…
Read more: http://www.thisisjersey.com/2011/09/23/tax-news-for-families-gets-better/#ixzz1YnbPJSVf
Report abuse
Well done – and the usual moaners will complain about it…. Ozouf is critical to the continued success of Jersey without a doubt!
I do hope he runs for CM.
Report abuse
I thought duty on tobacco was rising 10%?
Report abuse
Whatever he does as long as we do not have not get debts or obligations which we will be paying off in the future I am happy.
Report abuse
If people want to stick their children in nursery let them pay for it. It is their choice to have children and to go back to work.When I had my children, I stayed at home, we struggled but we didnt go and beg. It was our choice to Have a family and our duty to care for them.Why should my taxes pay for other people children ?
Baby machines = plenty of cash for some!!!
Report abuse
@14 Marc Jones
I LOVE your sarcasm. To the point and very witty. Well done.
Report abuse
The tax news is only good for families with children, not “families” (as the headline states). No mention of means-testing either so this will be given to people who don’t need it at the expense of people without children who are struggling financially.
#17 You’re a rare breed. Some people have actually been fooled into believing that what you (and many before you) have done is impossible in this day and age. And so the taxpayer has to continue giving to people who don’t actually need it when they could only be giving to people in genuine need.
Report abuse
Gone from being a supporter of this man to despairing at his relentless stranglehold on the purse-strings of middle Jersey.
OK, he’s finally realised it is time to let go but it is too late. People who will not benefit from this are still being strangled, its enough to drive a man to drink!
I have said it before; we’ve hundreds of £M in the bank and have had throughout the recession. We never did have a deficit, it was only a ‘structural’ one which means we have money in the bank to tide us over. This man has watched Islanders suffer through it all when there’s been money in the bank for that very purpose.
Suddenly he senses discontentment that could jeopardise his chances as Chief Minister. Too little, too late, I say.
I would also say that he is the most capable statesman Jersey has ever seen. Sadly, that doesn’t mean he should be in government; it takes more than that to be a good one.
Report abuse
#1 Leaving it to a freshly elected chamber sounds pretty democratic to me…
#2 Odd maths – 50p on a bottle of spirits applies whether it is in the pub or supermarket. Thos who switch to secretly toping at home will still get the same tax…
#3 Last time I looked the “non-local” company I work for paid tax at 10% – given the small number of staff generate significant profits it is probably bloody good to this island…(and the staff all pay a lot of income tax as well…)
#6 That would be odd electioneering considering Senator Ozouf isn’t up for election until 2014…
#8 The usual anti-immigrant rant. If someone works cash in hand then “tax-relief” is of absolutely no use to them whatsoever. Tax relief reduces taxable income…
Every night I watch the news and thank my lucky stars that I don’t live in Greece, Portugal, Italy, Ireland etc – we have no national debt, balance our books and for the most part live in relative comfort. Seems like a job well done to me.
Report abuse
Tax news for families gets better?
Then why is the tax allowance for married couples less than 2 single people living together?
2 single people living together as a couple (and this includes gay couples) are better off than a married couple….
Where is this good news for families?
Also did you see the one that has been passed under the radar….any redundancy payment over £50,000 is to be taxed. The States are planning to cull staff next year and up pops this new rule. Crafty…..
Report abuse
This morning on Channel 103, I heard a local tax expert describe these budget proposals as “overly optimistic” and I heard very similar words on both TV news outlets last night.
Take this as a huge hint, folks. These experts are 100% behind the current government, so if even they can describe it as overly optimistic then we know what it really means: it is Senator Ozouf’s blatant attempt to send the island to the polls in a very good mood, thus increasing the chances of the government incumbents being returned to the Assembly, most notably amongst them, Gorst, Le Gresley MBE and Cohen in the senators’ election.
On the UK mainland, the incumbent government would NOT be allowed to issue a partial policy statement like this after the calling of an election. The government is officially in the caretaker hands of neutral civil servants until after the voting is over and a new government takes office.
Report abuse
Agreed no 19, and even then it only benefits families who are paying more than 3K a year per child for childcare.
For everyone else the budget just increases allowances by inflation and increases some duties at a higher rate than inflation, so probably around 90% of taxpayers will be worse off.
Report abuse
Too little to late, you have already raped and piliged this Island for years. Your still out next time. People will remember your barbaric right wing ideology and nothing else. How did you get into the lib dems conference.You should have been at the Third Richt Oz.
Report abuse
Presumably those of us who chose not to burden the state with children and be taxed more for not doing so will be further impoverished. I’m sick to death of paying more tax than my neighbour who has kids whilst taking less from the pot, is it not enough that I subsidise the education and healthcare of other peoples kids without having my nose rubbed in it further.
Another kick in the balls for responsible couples, spit em out and join the queue for tax breaks, subsidised housing and free education, what’s wrong with user pays?
Report abuse
22 Mark G –
2 single people living together as a couple (and this includes gay couples) are better off than a married couple….
Excellent point Mark I’ve never understood this, how can you possibly be worse off tax wise for being married? We can’t have kids and it seems the system is skewed towards those couples who can, my tax rate has changed 3 times in the last 12 months yet my wages have remained the same, the taxation system adopted by Jersey is incomprehensible to all but those who enforce it.
Report abuse
We are so lucky in Jersey to have such a kind and generous man looking after us, I do hope he is in the new government of Jersey. When I was out last night I saw a space ship, it was orange, the stars were pink, yea your right they did clash a bit, but if you want to see something truly awesome, go to Portlet. PEACE
Report abuse
Absolutely fantastic news for many families on the island. Well done.
Report abuse
Great news!!
NOT.
Again all the childless get penalised, why?
Whether it was through choice or not, why the hell should I pay for those who decide to have kids? They should have financially planned for this.
Ah well, maybe we should change our minds and jump on the bandwagon then.
Wheres the Mrs……..
Report abuse
@30.. sure you don’t have kids they would turn out really miserable, sad and probably fat and lazy too or have no time for you judging by your attitude !!
Report abuse
There are people who choose not to have children and to spend their money on other things, fair enough. And there are those who can’t have children, even if they would like to.
But the fact is that when all those people are old they will be taken care of by other people’s children. Society needs a balance of old and young.That is why everybody has some responsibility to invest in the health and education of our youngsters.
So I welcome the family friendly aspects of this budget. Shame that the price of wine will go up, but drinking less of it won’t kill me. And you can’t put enough tax on tobacco in my opinion.
Report abuse
Thanks a lot! – The ‘Yuppys’ get 100%; the Pensioners get 4.5%?
Report abuse
The fact is that we are paying for those who have now retired and for anything to be left in the pot for those still working it requires society to grow and encourage the next generation to stay and work in the island.
I agree that people need to plan for having a family but there are plenty who don’t work, pop out kids like there is no tomorrow.. however, still get full pensions, their social paid, rent paid and fuel relief etc. THESE are the people who should be tackled not the hard working couples with or without children in the island.
Report abuse
We paid for all of our nursery care in full, no free nursery place for us as we aren’t on benefits or incapable of speaking the native language.
Those bitter about people who do have children should be jumping up and down at all the freeloaders who come over to pop out kids and save for a better life elsewhere whilst not paying any tax because they earn below the taxable amount. They need to go into hospital to have the baby courtesy of taxpayers, they then expect to be housed because their child is born here, then they also put their kids into schools which are paid for by .. U guessed it taxpayers this obviously does not apply to all, some people do pay into the system other than foolishly thinking social security covers their exhaustive presence on the Islands infrastructure, just thought I would add that before some who refuse to INTEGRATE into our society start chanting the weak feeble excuses…..
Agree with Penny also.
It would be great if they bought back work permits.. We wouldn’t be having alll this hassle
Report abuse
#31 Shouldn’t your anger be at the (almost) 50% of pregnancies that are completely unplanned? That is a scary amount of very irresponsible parents-to-be!
People start working at 18-21 while still living at home with the chance to save a good amount. They spend their money on alcohol, possessions, holidays with mates etc. Then when they actually have children (around a decade or more later) suddenly they ‘can’t afford it’! That’s the problem, and that’s what we should ALL object to.
We’re not funding their childcare, we’re retrospectively funding all that previous, unnecessary expenditure.
There will be a minority who genuinely never have enough money, but they truly will be a minority. Of course the rest should save for having children.
#32 No-one is objecting to health and education. This article isn’t about those things. As and when a very small percentage of these children are the nurses, doctors, healthcare assistants that may look after us at some point in our old age they will, of course, be paid to do so. Otherwise I can’t imagine they will do it. Remember also that some will never, ever contribute to society, financialy or otherwise.
The States should take the same amount of money from each of us with that of parents going towards childcare, and that of childfree people going towards a savings account. After all, we won’t have children to rely on if it all goes wrong, and we don’t want to have to rely on the taxpayer (your children and grandchildren).
We cannot help not wanting children any more than you can help wanting them, we certainly shouldn’t be penalised for not wanting them.
Report abuse
#29 It’s called a surefire votewinner!
The best way to get selfish idiots to vote for you? Offer them more money (in some form or another). If such a votewinning tactic works it just goes to show there are a lot of selfish idiots about. The island would benefit more from people who vote for what is best for the island as a whole, not just what is good for their own pocket.
Report abuse
I work with a lot of immigrants. I am one myself. All the immigrants I know work hard and pay their share of taxes.Maybe one day they will return to their country of origin, but by the time they do they will have contributed a lot to Jersey through their work and their taxes. I have not noticed any of them “popping out” children casually as you imply (what a horrible thing to say)
I’m sorry to say it but the only “freeloaders” I have come across were born right here. There are fewer such people in Jersey than in the UK,however, which is certainly a good thing..
Report abuse
38 Penny
Are you having a laugh here? Just take a walk around town with your eyes open and look at all the pregnant ones that do not even speak the same language as us. Try walking down La Motte Street near the social and you cannot miss them.
And you say all of the cash in hand they earn is being declared to the tax office? Very funny indeed lol.
I, as a taxpayer, am sick of paying for these scroungers to get off the boat, get themselves up the duff and then sit back and take, take, take from me the taxpayer, (and extra cash in hand to subsidise the benefits). There are of course local people that are also scroungers but control immigration and this will help no end.
Report abuse
Glad I wasn’t born here either then!!
You must work somewhere that is neither a supermarket or cleaning company Penny good on you, please read my post correctly before jumping up and down with all the politeness in the world ( of course)
Report abuse
Taxed to Death (26). I wonder if there have been any societies in the past where children were seen as “a burden on the state” rather than something natural and essential for the future of said state? If so, they won’t have lasted long!
Report abuse
Let’s be ‘avin the truth here…this is no more than a cynical political schmooze …….this should be held off till AFTER the elections….it’s wrong on all levels and is plain not honest dealing……after….after…that would show integrity instead of trying to buy votes for the establishment…bit like the timing on free prescriptions when Routier was trying to curry favour with the electorate…timing…timing.
Report abuse
It’s not the parents you should be knocking – it’s the pensioners who didn’t put it what they taking out of social security. Remember what we pay today in tax pays today’s bills. Without kids no one will be there to pay for your old age and health care which will be huge in comparison. Unfortunately the baby boomers are living the high life with most of the property, low tax during their time and we’re now paying for it. Even worse news is that with more old people they run the show!
Report abuse
#41 Taxed to Death didn’t say he objected to the existence of children. Of course children are a financial burden on the state but only because their parents make them so. This issue is actually very serious, there is no democracy when a majority can vote to be given more of other people’s money? It’s no better than theft. And we are meant to be a democratic society.
If you wish to discuss previous societies, how about those where the parents had some perspective? Their children were possibly the most important thing to them but they realised that didn’t mean their children were ‘the most important thing’. Children (along with some other social groups) will always need more practical care of course, but that’s all it is, ‘practical care’! They are still just humans, no more or less special than anyone else.
These same societies paid for their own children, and this was back when people were considerably poorer than they are now. They realised their children were their responsibility and if their child caused a scene, or noise at a level that was unsuitable for the environment, it was their job to remove the child from that environment. They didn’t need to wait to be asked, and they certainly didn’t start harping on about completely fictitious ‘human rights’. It was called common decency, and it was good for children, it taught them what behaviour was acceptable in public.
They also accepted that it’s perfectly reasonable to have some places where children aren’t permitted so that adults (non-parents AND parents) can actually relax.
Report abuse
37 – Where on earth did you get that from my comment. Calm down dear !
I think we would be pretty naive to assume that anything these ‘politicians’ did, did not have an ulterior motive. That said I dont care. It benefits many families on the island and for that it is a good thing.
As always the family haters / resenters – (can never decide on the correct adjective ) on this forum can never see any further than what benefits them. And it is that exact attitude that gets you all jumping on your soap box sprouting forth your selfish nonsense.
Report abuse
@ Leah It’s not just the nurses, doctors etc who will look after you .When you and I old and don’t work any more we’ll depend on the young and still working to keep society going, shops, roads, food production- all of it.
Of course nobody should be penalised for not having children- through choice or otherwise- but some comments (not yours) seemed to be suggesting that they are somehow a luxury item, something to be saved for like a big TV or a sports car. The fact is society always needs a younger generation.
It is primarily the parents responsibility to ensure their kids grow up well behaved and well balanced but they can’t do this alone, the wider society needs to contribute too.I do agree with what you say about children needing to be taught good manners etc, and have no objection to child-free venues either.
@Jbean no I am not “having a laugh”. When I walk around town I hear various languages, which I think is fantastic. I do not notice that the speakers of these other languages are any more pregnant than the English speakers, nor do I make assumptions about who gets what from the social!I understand you can’t claim anything til you’ve been here 5 years anyway. Is that not right? Surely by that time you have found a job or starved.
Report abuse
#45 I didn’t, the numbers jumped (as they often do), I was responding to #30. So “Calm down dear!”
As for your rather childish use of emotional language to try and make this something it isn’t, well, when you don’t want kids it’s safe to say there is nothing to resent about families. And no-one has said they hate families, they just object (rightly) to paying for them.
It’s not about what benefits me, I have (more than once) voted for something that would make me financially worse off because it was good for the country as a whole. The best thing for any country is that people who make a lifechanging decision have saved for it, planned for it and take responsibility for it. That’s not happening anymore and it is very worrying, especially when those irresponsible people are getting to affect a human life.
You may not care that children are being born to irresponsible people who lack any kind of sensibility. I do!
I notice you haven’t responded as regards the unnecessary expenditure that parents have often made in their earlier years that COULD (and should) have been saved for when they had a child. I guess people honestly want us to believe they ‘can’t afford it’. I don’t believe it.
Report abuse
#45 Also Sarah, you haven’t realised that it doesn’t benefit ‘many families’. It only benefits families with young children living in the house, that rules out a heck of a lot of families.
I guess you’re one of these selfish people who has no problem taking money from someone worse off than themself (make no mistake, this is what is happening here). Personally, I couldn’t live with myself knowing I was taking money from someone who needed it much more than me.
Report abuse
#43 I’m okay with that. It would be preferable that our generation are worse off in old age and that the population stabilises somewhat. Otherwise when your children are in their old age they will struggle far worse, and their children even moreso again. The further down the line we go the harder it will be for each generation that follows. The sooner a generation agrees to ‘take the hit’ the easier it will be for future generations.
What amazes me is that when I discuss future financial stability with people it is mostly childfree people who are willing to take that hit. I would have expected parents to have more inclination to want to protect their offspring’s future financial stability. And yet they call us ‘selfish’
Report abuse
41 Brian – Taxed to Death (26). I wonder if there have been any societies in the past where children were seen as “a burden on the state” rather than something natural and essential for the future of said state? If so, they won’t have lasted long!
Brian I’m not against people having children, I’m against paying to fund the lifestyle choice of those that do. As a couple who don’t have children we pay more tax and are entitled to less than those who do yet they pay less into the system and take more out, is this fair. Have kids by all means but pay for them, you wouldn’t expect to pay more for owning a Fiesta than the guy who drives a Bentley would you, yet this principle applies with kids.
User pays, how can it not be fair?
As for we need children, we need a certain amount for the species to continue but the planet and this island in particular is overpopulated already, I would suggest a cap whereby only those who can support kids are permitted to have them, it works in China.
Report abuse
@ Vicky 31,
Thanks for the personal comments. I stand by what I said.
I am at a loss on how you get me being fat, lazy and miserable from my post?
Perhaps you would like to back up your comments with some facts?
Oh wait……
ps. I am an extremely fit individual who enjoys nothing more than spending time outside in our beautiful Island. On occasions I look after my nieces and nephews, when I was boogie boarding with them a few evenings ago they saw me as far from miserable.
Judging by your post 35 it is you who is actually bitter, maybe you should cheers a bit, get outside and be happy.
Report abuse
Our government has some separate plans up its sleeve which will negatively impact parents on income support, particularly those with children at primary school. However, these plans, which are the brainchild of Ian Gorst, Francis Le Gresley MBE and Terry Le Main, have been conveniently postponed until AFTER the elections to avoid any potential bad publicity.
Social Security Minister Deputy Ian Gorst commissioned a team of experts from the University of Nottingham to advise him on his multiple proposals to to clamp down on benefits for the unemployed. Most of these proposals were subsequently approved by the States on 21st July with Gorst singling out Senators Francis Le Gresley MBE and Terry Le Main for special praise because they “helped me to develop some of these proposals that Members are supporting today and the other ones that I will be taking further forward in the summer.” (source = HANSARD, 21st July 2011).
The phrase “other ones” is taken to refer to some other proposals which Gorst also asked the University of Nottingham team to advise him on, but which he mysteriously chose to defer until after the elections. According to the expert review, “The proposed changes could have a significant impact on parents…” and would principally comprise the following:
1) Currently a parent on Income Support with a child under the age of 5 years is exempt from the requirement to be ‘actively seeking work’. This will be lowered to a child under the age of 4 years;
2) Currently the guidelines say that a parent on Income Support with a child at secondary school is expected, as a minimum, to be available for at least part-time work and that a parent with a child at primary school is expected, as a minimum, to be making efforts towards re-entering the workplace (ie. undertaking a confidence-building course etc.). These guidelines will be amended to require ALL PARENTS WITH CHILDREN OF SCHOOL AGE TO BE AVAILABLE FOR AT LEAST PART-TIME WORK.
If anyone would like to check for themselves, the proposals are hidden away at the very back of the 178-page University of Nottingham report (the relevant start page is 171):
http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/reports/32480-32721-1972011.pdf
No wonder Gorst hid it right at the back!
Report abuse
#46, penny
‘When I walk around town I hear various languages, which I think is fantastic.’
I think “What a shame that the entire world still hasn’t got around to speaking just one language (English, correctly used, of course). It would make life so much easier.
Report abuse
Having kids and bringing them up to be good citizens IS contributing to society.
So is working.
So is paying tax.
Many of us are doing all 3. So what is so wrong with a budget that recognises that?
Report abuse
@51 Oh no family without kids, you can’t possibly like children and not want any of your own
Your going to blow their minds with this kind of earth shattering information!
I was born NOT wanting children, yet I can still accept that others are born WANTing children (obviously I don’t understand it). Maybe someday parents will offer this same acceptance to those that are born not wanting children. No-one is asking them to understand it, just accept it. Instead you get pathetic individuals trying to suggest you’re bitter, sad, hateful, whatever… because that seems to make THEM feel better about THEIR life!
And hell mend you if you even show an ounce of annoyance at a child screaming blue murder in a cafe, cinema, on a plane, of course you must then be the world’s biggest supporter of infantacide. Parents vs perspective? Unfortunately SOME parents lose ALL of theirs.
Report abuse
# 47, 48. Again many generalisations and now personal insults in your post.
Where did I say I dont care if children are born to irresponsible people and where did I say I dont mind taking money from those worse off than myself. Utter nonsence.
People’s circumstances change. Fact. Childcare is ridiculously expensive. Fact. Anything that can reduce the burden on families trying to return to work is a GOOD thing. Fact.
Report abuse
#46 Penny
Your comment – ”Of course nobody should be penalised for not having children- through choice or otherwise- but some comments (not yours) seemed to be suggesting that they are somehow a luxury item, something to be saved for like a big TV or a sports car. The fact is society always needs a younger generation.”
This is the problem, children ARE a luxury item, one that my parents and many others saved up for and went without other luxuries to bring up.
It seems now that a lot of people have the attitude that they should have children even if they cannot afford them, expecting to get the money given to them to do this. Problem is the kids grow up with the same attitude, that if they want something they should get it, leading to loads of other problems in society, for a shocking example think of the hooded rioters helping themselves….
The rest of society shouldn’t have to pay extra tax to support the child bearers, it should be the other way round.
Report abuse
@57 JBean
On that we must fundamentally disagree. Children are NOT luxury items.Luxury items are the posh cars, the latest electronic gadgets, the expensive sports equipment etc.Children are human beings, not things. They are also the future of our society.
Most people who have children have fewer luxury items than most of those who don’t. That is because children cost a lot to provide for. So couples on an average income with children can afford less than a couple on the same income with none.. Simple maths.So you could say that children are a substitute for luxury things.
Of course there are the couples who have so much money they CAN afford the 3 kids AND the BMW and the big house and the massive TV and the exotic holidays.Good for them.Does it make them better parents though? Not necessarily.
Meanwhile most of us just get by, we don’t ask for handouts, we struggle at times but we make an OK job of bringing our kids up.I have certainly not brought mine up to expect something for nothing, they have two hard working taxpaying parents as role models and they know that the money we save every month for their uni fees is hard earned.
Personally I am not that bothered by material things and status symbols -each to her/his own but I would far rather have my kids.
A bit of a tax break and some subsidised nursery places will be a great help to many hard working couples, especially in those early years when the children are young and the parents are unable to work much overtime etc due to childcare commitments.
Report abuse
@52 Jerry G
And why shouldn’t parents of school age children who are on income support be looking for at least part time work? Income support is meant to be a temporary solution to tide you over hard times. It is not in itself an occupation, and should not be taken in preference to a paid job.
Don’t see the problem with that at all. if I were the ministers concerned, I would be quite open about it.
Report abuse
@50 Taxed to death
Quick question for you, what if no one had children?
Report abuse
#56 I see you’re resorting to trying to claim I’ve made personal insults as you are unable to respond to any of my questions.
By supporting parents being given money for no other reason than having children (i.e. no means-testing) you do (by implication) not mind money being taken from poor people to give to better off people, and you (by implication) support people being rewarded financially for having children without them having had to show that they are responsible individuals first. Of course I take issue with that, any decent human being would, we should be discouraging irresponsibility when it comes to people having children. There are enough children of bad parents out there (that’s very clear to see) we need fewer of them, not more.
“People’s circumstances change. Fact. Childcare is ridiculously expensive. Fact. Anything that can reduce the burden on families trying to return to work is a GOOD thing. Fact.”
People can plan for their future to a great degree and can save their money instead of spending it on non-essentials. FACT. People do not need childcare if they stay at home and look after their children. FACT. Anything that can reduce the burden on families trying to return to work is a good thing???? Not fact at all. Society operated far better when children were raised by a parent, rather than shoved into childcare. Employees were all treated equally as parents weren’t given beneficial treatment, this made for happier workplaces. Employers weren’t encouraged to only employ men (or women of a certain age) because employing women didn’t cost them (as it does now).
It may annoy you to know that the world of Management and HR is already coming around to the fact that it is better for business and society that ALL employees are treated equally, rather than the current set-up where parents are treated more favourably. Of course Jersey will adopt the ‘old’ system even though it is now known that it doesn’t work, rather than just learn from others’ mistakes and run with the new system.
Again Sarah, I would like to know why exactly I, or anyone else for that matter, should pay for something because you decided in the past to spend all your money rather than save it for the day you had children. By that reasoning the childfree people of my generation should spend every penny they have prior to retirement and just leave your children/grandchildren to fund our lives from that time onwards. Thankfully for you I’m not selfish enough to do that. I guess a lot of parents were incredibly selfish all along.
Report abuse
#57 You do make a good point. People did used to save up for having children. But maybe those people truly loved their children? They didn’t get benefits of all sorts, they just did without non-essentials. Clothing was essential but they used hand me downs. No-one wants to see anyone on the breadline, but if you have kids while having non-essential items AND taking money from the taxpayer (tax relief etc) then the taxpayer is really just funding your non-essential items. No matter how much you try and kid yourself that they are helping fund a human life, they aren’t, they are funding your non-essential expenditure.
Unfortunately removing all the child benefits will be very difficult because today’s generations have actually convinced themselves that non-essentials are actually essential. They are unwilling to compromise their social lives, their possessions etc to anything like the degree that previous generations did, even though they claim to want and love these children very much.
Report abuse
#60 What’s your point?
What if every couple had 2, 3 or upwards? Same result, different method.
Report abuse
“Society operated far better when children were raised by a parent, rather than shoved into childcare.”
Evidence?
And better for whom?
Emotive use of the word “shoved”- unnecessary.
Report abuse
Ann 60 –
@50 Taxed to death
Quick question for you, what if no one had children?
Excellent point, let me expand what if Exeter City won the FA cup, what if Elvis came back, what if my gran grew a pair of balls? yeh ok these are all more likely than your scenario but it does illustrate the point.
We need kids to propagate the race, we just don’t need anything like the amount we’re having. Paying people to be baby factories bankrupts our finances and under the current regime penalises those who elect not to partake in the activity. I use less why then should I pay more?
Good point Leah, non parents are disadvantaged at work also, we have to provide unpaid cover for parents when their kids are ill and parents are entitled to paid maternity leave which we are not, we must also provide cover during maternity leave and can’t take our holidays when the kids are off. Dads now get paternity leave further expanding the disadvantage gap.
Now explain to me how this is a fair and equitable arrangement.
Report abuse
A depressing conversation this morning with someone with three small kids. Next year they reckon their itis will be down to about 0% yes 0%. They pay the max off their mortgage every month and all kids will be in full time nursery care and they are now planning holidays with all the extra money..
This island is just getting worse, I didn’t want kids but maybe its worth popping out a few of the little money machines as I am already paying for them out of my hard earned cash anyway?
Report abuse
0% ITIS with 3 kids, it’s just plain wrong, whose picking up the slack, single people like me paying 14% on a £26,000 wage. I bet most of these parents earn more than I do, good to see I’m not the only one sick of this, won’t change anything though.
Report abuse
@ numpty.. Well done for showing your arrogance your nieces and nephews must love the fact that you are bitter about taxes to help out your own siblings! Bitter? Ha ha funny
j cloths about a quid in a supermarket to wipe the egg off your face…
Report abuse
@55 funny in fact hilarious and the one thing all of you not wanting kids that stl behave like spoilt children? You were all kids once upon a time dare I say it lol! Seems like some never actuay grew up or stopped behaving like spoilt kids peace out and sorry you never will experience putting something se before yourselves, an experience that most women who have had kids can agree with
Report abuse
This is a minor point compared to what’s already been discussed, but on the rare occasion I go out on the town in Jersey I’m always flabergasted at the astronomical price of drinks here. I always have to ask the barmaid/barman twice how much it is, as I’m convinced they’ve made a mistake. By contrast, when I go to London on Business (get me eh?) and go out for a few drinks to some trendy wine bar I always prepare too much money and am equally shocked by how cheap the drinks are there in comparison with here. Surely that can’t be right?
Report abuse
@66,67
Just for the record I don’t think 0% tax is fair either, kids or not. In fact I find it hard to believe as we pay 20%, with 2 kids.
A quick tally around the office and the lowest we had between us was 12% – and that’s a person with no kids. So I don’t know who works it all out, but the UK system of child benefit seems clearer.
Report abuse
#69 Oh dear Vicki, still avoiding the real issues (people taking from others that have less than them) and trying to just make out like all childfree people are selfish and just looking out for themselves. Pathetic, it really is!
I don’t know a single childfree person that is remotely selfish, mind you I barely know any parents that aren’t selfish! Looking after your own child doesn’t make you selfless, you’re just protecting your own genes
Maybe you should study some biology, you would then understand why you look after your child. On the other hand childfree people are often involved in looking after people (for free) when it in no way benefits them!
Spoilt? Nope, not at all. Just don’t want money being taken from poor people and given to rich people. If you have a problem with that then you are an incredibly selfish, unfeeling person. Next time someone is made homeless due to lack of finances maybe you should ask yourself where all the taxpayers’ money is needlessly going?
At least I’ll know I wasn’t responsible for making them homeless.
And yes we were kids, and we do recall that, which is possibly why we want better for your kids than what you are offering them. Learning that everything is free and the taxpayer will provide it all is NOT a good education. Life can be tough, kids need to learn that you get money through hard work, not just for having sex and getting pregnant (well, not unless you’re a lady of the night).
Report abuse
#67 Oh my word! That’s absolutely shocking. What happened to 20 means 20? Can someone ask Ozouf? Does 20 only mean 20 if you are born not wanting children?
#55 I guess you’ve upset Vicki. The truth hurts, and when it comes down to it no parent wants to accept that they are taking money from people poorer than them, so they just spout the usual childfree stereotypes (all disproven thankfully) in the hope we’ll take offense
There are parents who believe they should pay for their own children, but unfortunately they are a minority of decent, law-abiding citizens who understand that EVERYone is important not just them and their child. The other type of parents are undoubtedly the most selfish people you will ever meet, no care for the rest of society as long as their family is okay.
Report abuse
Seems like a lot of hysteria on both sides now.
Ridiculous suggestions that all parents are selfish (Leah)or that all non parents are selfish (Vicki).
Doesn’t seem like an interesting debate anymore. Time to quit methinks.
Report abuse
Look it’s not complicated is it, people who choose to take more out of the system should be paying more not less into it.
Arguing that the present system is fair is like arguing that slavery is a good thing, the my kids will pay your pension bull*hit is comparable to we give slaves food and a place to live line.
For heavens sake be a grown up and admit the truth.Have the balls to say the system is unfair but you’re happy to exploit it, it’s the truth after all.
Report abuse
#74 Penny, I haven’t at any point said all parents are selfish
Just that I have personally come across a lot of selfish parents. And that, unfortunately, is true. I have met numerous parents (mostly the 20-40 years old age bracket) who simply do not wish to adjust their lifestyle to meet their child’s most basic needs. You also see them (strangers) in restaurants late at night etc.
You can not want children and also be selfish, but (if you look up a dictionary for the definition of selfish) it is quite clear that not wanting children doesn’t mean you are selfish. Incidentally, wanting taxpayers’ money to only go to those in genuine need doesn’t meet the definition either. What DOES meet the definition is taking money off people who are more in need than you are!
Report abuse
Leah – You said “I barely know any parents that aren’t selfish” in post 72.
I think the important thing is to separate the perenthood from the selfishness. There are selfish people who happen to be parents, and selfish people who happen not to be. That’s certainly my experience.
But I don’t think you can argue that it’s selfish to go ahead and have and raise children before you have paid off your mortgage and saved up those uni fees. Because, by the time they’d done that, women on any but the very highest incomes would be well past childbearing age. So most of us are trying to do all three at the same time. Which is why it’s not normally possible for one partner to stop work.
I pay the full 20% tax myself, and paid my own nursery fees in the past. But I think a budget which helps young families is a good one for society as a whole. Call me selfish if you like, I stand by everything I have said.
Report abuse
Don’t people moan a lot! Seems like good news to me. Mind you I don’t smoke, don’t drink and don’t have kids so therefore live quite happily on approx £300 a week. I seriously cannot understand how so many people seem to struggle financially when once rent, food, petrol and utilities are paid do you really NEED much more (Oh and does the rental have to be way over what you can afford or would a room or bedsit do…did for me for years till I saved up to buy a house (earned £400 a week in those days). Instead of always moaning about what our poliyicians do how about standing for election and see if you can do better.
Report abuse
basically it’s 0% as mother not working all year, 3 kids going into full time nursery when she goes back to work next year, paying max off mortgage around £2,000 a month….
As a childless couple earning good money we still couldn’t afford to pay that much off our mortgage every month due to the thousands we are paying in tax instead, something not quite right here!
Report abuse
Without kids have mine! only joking!!!!
think you have valid points here, we really had to think twice before adding another to our family, as the cost is so high, places in schools short etc..!
Think there should be a bonus paid to couples without kids, as they are NOT claiming child support etc… from Social,yes I really do!
I know I have opened a can of worms here.But free speech and all (not taxable yet!)
Report abuse
What about paying a bonus to those who get snipped/tubes tied, like they did in Australia!
Or get them snipped/tubes tied by Law if they cannot look after what they already have, re claiming all sorts and too lazy to get out of bed!!!
Too many unloved children already on Jersey.
Come on then have a go at me…..,
Report abuse
#77 Penny, the key words ” ‘I’ barely know”. You may know plenty, I don’t. Nor did I say that other stuff.
All I’ve said is people should save up for having children but instead they choose to spend, spend, spend, because they assume they can fall back on the taxpayer when they finally start having a family. This is the point that no parent seems to want to respond to. I wonder why?
So, how does this suit you? When a couple start a family the States look back at their gross incomes (from the date they first entered the world of employment to the due date of the child). If it falls below a set level they will get some tax relief (up to 2 children) but if it is above that level then no matter how much of it they have chosen to spend on non-essentials they will receive no taxpayer support. This ensures that any money provided by the taxpayer is genuinely for the care of those children and not a second car, bigger TV, holiday etc.
We also need to consider those who have moved to Jersey choosing to leave behind free childcare (in the form of grandparents), why should Jersey taxpayers’ fund their childcare here? That’s pretty out of line.
Report abuse
My Wife and I have a small baby,she has given up work until our child is at a free nursey when she is 3,this is because she wants to spend as much time as possible with her while she is a baby and we don’t have much spare cash now each month,before around £600 would be going into the economy(mainly bars & restaurants mind).To me this is a ploy to keep house prices high by giving breaks to the people likely to pay these prices or else prices would have to come down.
To those people moaning because they don’t have kids and pay more tax because of it where do you stop? I don’t smoke so should I pay less social? You can add to that fat people,junkies, alcoholics,someone who has a fry up every morning etc.Should all these types of people pay more tax/social to cover their extra burden they may be on the state?
Report abuse
#83 Short answer? YES! (Drinkers and smokers do contribute slightly through the tax on their addiction).
Report abuse
What is everyone moaning about the detail for, the simple fact is that the government believe they have a right to take taxes from us whenever they want, without our consent.
No one pays taxes, the government steals them out of our pay packets.
Report abuse
83 Far Queue –
To those people moaning because they don’t have kids and pay more tax because of it where do you stop? I don’t smoke so should I pay less social? You can add to that fat people,junkies, alcoholics,someone who has a fry up every morning etc.Should all these types of people pay more tax/social to cover their extra burden they may be on the state?
You are missing the point, people who choose to have children do so knowing for certain this it carries a significant cost. You can drink, smoke, take drugs or engage in risky sporting activities but by no means is it certain that will cost the health service more. The health service to which we pay into is an insurance, it will cover the cost for those unfortunate enough to need it.
If a non smoker non drinker clean living person gets cancer it will likely cost more than they paid in to treat, do we deny them treatment. The comparison you make is invalid, have kids you will definitely incur significant expense, drink/smoke etc you may not and anyway there is an argument that the excessive tax placed on cigarettes and alcohol is already paying for the treatment.
As Leah says no one has answered the real question – knowing the cost of having children why does no one provide for it, it can only be that they know the taxpayer will bail them out and those poor responsible people who elect not to have children will face higher taxation for doing so.
Slice it any way you want – it’s not fair.
Report abuse
@Leah “All I’ve said is people should save up for having children but instead they choose to spend, spend, spend, because they assume they can fall back on the taxpayer when they finally start having a family. This is the point that no parent seems to want to respond to. I wonder why?”
Leah, I for one have responded several times! See my post at 58 for example.It directly addresses your point.
And as for your comment about grandparents…my parents would be offended by being casually dubbed by you as “free childcare.” This is 2011 not 1950.They have always been happy to help here and there but I would never have used them as day to day unpaid childminders. They have their own lives to lead. And anyway, like many people I have had to go where the jobs are, which has not been my home town, so I haven’t lived near my parents since I was 18.
No, I chose to have my kids and I have paid for their childcare.Now I am happy for my taxes to go towards supporting struggling young families because I know how hard those first years are.
I guess all of us who pay full tax could argue that we don’t want to pay for this or that because it doesn’t directly affect us. But in the end we have to accept that we’re all citizens of Jersey with both rights and responsibilities.
Now that really is my last word on the matter.
Report abuse
well said Penny.
@Leah – sorry but your argument is naive. taxation is a cross-susbsidised mess that can never be fair, both domestically and internationally. [petrol costs about 2p per litre in venezuala] and for several decades our own taxation system has been ‘unfairly’ skewed – by draining tax revenue from developed industrialised economies through offering tax shelter.
thus, if you want taxation to be ‘fair’ as in user pays, get prepared to start paying 40% or more.
ps through happy coincidence, not everybody gets the chance to save up and choose when to start a family [which is for the most of us unrealistic as penny states] my wife was to all intents and purposes infertile – now i happily have twins.
so yes, i do appreciate tax breaks. as it stands i will now never afford a house, but i can feed my family. sure there are folks that dont need/shouldnt have that extra, but again you could say that about almost any tax you care to mention.
Report abuse