Should Childcare Expense Be Tax Deductible?

MiaSanMia on 26/06/2018 - 16:24

Long story short, what's your opinion about our current childcare expense level? Should out-of-pocket childcare expenses be deductible against income tax?

Our combined income is roughly $100k per year and we've been paying a childcare fee of more than $220 per week for one child, that's nearly $11,500 per year and this doesn't look like to change when the new Childcare Subsidy kicks in from July. I thinks it's too much out of our net pay and wonder why the Gov don't allow it as deduction against income tax? We send kids to childcare in order to go to work and earn income to pay tax, so shouldn't it be considered as part of the income earning activity under tax deduction definition?

Your thoughts please.

Poll Options

  • 92
    Childcare expenses should be tax deductible
  • 270
    Leave it as is, we need more tax in this country
Financial Childcare Income Tax

Comments

    • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 17:31

      If you only live to work, you need more than a tax deduction!

      • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 17:54

        I don't - but I spend at least 30% (ish?) of my time at work so I should at least be able to claim 30% of all my day to day living expenses. According to this logic anyway.

    • RocketSwitch on 28/06/2018 - 09:37

      You'll eat food anyway, working or not.

    • MrFrugalSpend on 30/06/2018 - 11:10

      Lol - You need to be able to demonstrate to the ATO how you calculated the apportionment of your food intake that you applied to generating income and keep receipts! :)

  • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 16:49

    No.

    It's not a cost of earning money or cost of education, it's a (discretionary and totally optional) cost of life. If child-care is tax-deductible, much more necessary expenses like food/rent/(non-work-related) clothing should all be deductible too.

  • MrHyde on 26/06/2018 - 16:55
    -2

    Lets take this to the extreme - instead of taxing income, we should tax savings. Everyone run a P&L as individuals and only Profit should be taxed - just like companies.

    • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 17:12

      Other than the practical difficulties in needing everyone to track their income and spending this finely - this would be an extremely efficient way to simplify the tax system. One rate of tax for all savings/profit, and have heaps of benefits:

      1. Encourage consumer spending (because savings are taxed), so stimulate the economy;
      2. Eliminate loopholes, all of them; and
      3. Reduce ATO expenses (could probably sack half of them).
      • jnewau on 26/06/2018 - 19:51

        Savings are already taxed - interest counts towards your income

        About 60% of bank funding currently comes from domestic savings - fiddling with that by discouraging saving more will just see interest rates go up if banks have to source larger percentages of their funding on overseas markets.

        • Krankite on 27/06/2018 - 08:14

          Savings are not taxed. The closest thing to a tax on savings is the reserve banks target for inflation.
          The problem with a tax on savings, or better known as a wealth tax is the people that have a lot of it aren't really locked down geographically to Australia. If Australia has taxes on wealth then the wealthy will just move there money and possibly themselves elsewhere. My personal pie in the sky tax scheme is to introduce a flat rate somewhere between 30-40% and a UBI of around $20-30k. You receive to cash regardless of whether or not you are working but you pay higher taxes with people on 100k being in the no worse off category (30k extra tax paid but 30k universal income). Numbers all need to be tweaked but the concept seems sound to me.

        • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 09:59

          That threw me off, but I think what MrHyde was saying is not taxing savings the asset, but taxing savings the 'income-left-over-after-all-expenditure', ergo the analogy to a personal P&L statement.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 18:58
      +2

      we should tax savings

      Are you trying to get OzBargain shut down!!?

  • ronnknee on 26/06/2018 - 16:59
    +5

    Stephanie, is that you?

  • John Kimble on 26/06/2018 - 17:24
    +8

    Only $220 a week? We pay $150 a day!

  • JimmyF on 26/06/2018 - 17:33
    +6

    what's your opinion about our current childcare expense level? Should out-of-pocket childcare expenses be deductible against income tax?

    You have kids, you pay for kids. Simple as that. Thats what our parents and parents before them and before them did. Not this new wave that the gov pays for everything, via rebates and discounted childcare.

    Can't afford it? Then stop having kids.

    • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 17:37

      Can't afford it? Then stop having kids.

      If only this applied to more than slightly well-off people. Because so far as I can see, this doesn't apply to poor people in any way.

      • JimmyF on 26/06/2018 - 20:02

        Poor people don't know how to use birth control or pull out? Hmmmm ok.

        • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 12:35
          +1

          I was really referring to the fact that a lot of child-related welfare and government handouts are only for poor people.

        • JimmyF on 27/06/2018 - 13:28
          +1

          @HighAndDry: and having kids doesn't make you richer.

        • RocketSwitch on 28/06/2018 - 09:39

          @HighAndDry: Not everyone can be rich.

        • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 20:05

          @RocketSwitch: You don't need to be rich to be able to afford to be able to support having a kid.

    • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 21:21

      Refugees & immigrants have a greater net impact on your taxation than a child born & raised in Australia to working parents (thats why they need the childcare) over their lifetime.

      If you incentivise less of the latter you get more of the former. You come off worse rather than if you allowed the fees to reduce tax.

      OP definitely has a good idea with this.

      Functional societies, and ones that will continue with culture & cohesion intact require at least replacement birthrates.. Australia is below replacement. This means over time your race, culture & nation fail. We have obligations that stretch well beyond our personal needs & you don't get civilisation without it.

      • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 21:23

        Refugees & immigrants have a greater net impact on your taxation than a child born & raised in Australia to working parents

        No they don't, at least not if people actually stuck to our immigration policies instead of letting everyone and their dog in.

        Our current immigration system prioritizes and encourages immigrants with usable income-producing skills, or high networth, and in most cases specifically require they demonstrate they will not be a burden to our welfare system.

        Functional societies, and ones that will continue with culture & cohesion intact require at least replacement birthrates.

        Sure. Maybe tell the people who do make a lot of money then, or convince them to care about this, because the trend is that the more educated you are and the higher your income, the less kids you have. They're the people who can afford to have kids.

        Or if you care so much, be more productive, improve yourself, become one of those people who're rich and highly educated, and then buck the trend and have a dozen kids. So long as you can support them, no one is complaining.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 22:41

          Current immigration settings allow in a 40 year old (around half way through is working life) and often over time other older relatives.

          Workers barely cover their costs to the nation even when contributing taxes across their full working life, including when they are younger and much less likely to use health services. The majority of the costs to the state for a person occur post 50 years old. A 40 year old worker is a net positive contributor for a very small period of time.

  • coin saver on 26/06/2018 - 18:04
    +15

    MiaSanMia you pay $220pw so you are already heavily subsidised for your childcare.As your "combined income is roughly $100k per year" you would also be getting Family Tax Benefit Part B as well and you want more?Next you will want the taxpayer to pay for your babysitting etc.Why not just ask why don't other taxpayers pay for my kid? Maybe you would like us to pay him/her a wage as well?

    • airzone on 26/06/2018 - 23:54
      +1

      Part B is skewed towards a single income family.. If the lower income earner is making more than about $25k a year, then they won't get it.

  • smuggler on 26/06/2018 - 18:36
    +9

    WHy should people who have kids get free tax kickbacks? Don't have kids if you can't afford to.

    Where's my tax deduction for not having kids?

    • resisting the urge on 26/06/2018 - 20:14
      +1

      It's not hard to understand it from (some) parents' perspectives:

      The Government paid me to have 'em*

      The Government should pay me to raise 'em.

      Paid: * Baby bonuses, incentives to stay at home, tax subsidies, school transport, public education, Medicare, Health insurance, etc.

    • bad hombre on 27/06/2018 - 09:05
      -2

      Your tax deductions are probably lumped together with the 5 rental houses you own. ;)

      • smuggler on 27/06/2018 - 18:37
        +1

        i don't own any rental houses. My babyboomer parents do. They're fit as a fiddle so I won't get those houses for another 40 years

        • bad hombre on 28/06/2018 - 22:22

          It was a joke!

          My parents (and my wife's parents) are still around and that is a great thing. Would rather have them around forever than get an inheritance!

      • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 21:26

        Rental properties provide housing for people who can't or don't want to buy a property of their own. What do your kids do for anyone else?

    • Samsungnote10 on 27/06/2018 - 17:30

      Don't quote me on which report but I've read multiple studies that say the lower socio-economic people tend to have more kids and start earlier. And thus is how society functions efficiently and it's not a simple case of only smart and financially responsible people should have kids

      I think it sux but if that's what makes the world go around. What can you do

    • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 21:27
      +2

      Your obligation and responsibility as a human being and member of your family, nation, race, culture & civilisation is to play a role in building society and passing on your (& their) genes.

      Many modern people are brainwashed into thinking all about their rights, & nothing towards their responsibilities - don't be one of those people.

      If you selfishly choose not to live up to this responsibility in deed, or through donation of your time and money to help in the raising of other kids for society what use do you think society has for you? Answer: none. You are welcome in it only if you provide for it. Not in a "I earn my wage and get to spend it on myself way" in a "I have an obligation to propagate my race, culture, genes, nation, civilisation" way. This obligation knows no boundaries, it demands you deliver everything it needs to fulfil these aims.

      • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 21:29

        I'm a net positive contributor to the tax base. As far as I'm concerned - and according to the ABS - that places me higher than a big percentage of the population in terms of "contributing to society".

        People who can't support their own kids are effectively a net drain on society. As I said - encourage rich people to have more kids. Being poor does not magically endow you with 'culture'.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 22:44

          Society is only carried forth by children in the end. A net financial contributor has offered far less than a parent in the end, no matter their financial contribution, if they remain childless. One temporarily provides some extra (un-needed*) wealth. The other a vital piece of the future.

          *Economic gains parse very poorly through to genuine social / societal gains once a certain threshold of wealth is reached.

        • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 18:01

          @lghulm: Gobbleglok. The notion that "Oh, parents contribute so much" is such a tired old spiel. I can assure you - no one has kids thinking they're doing society a favour. They're not going - "Oh yeah, HighandDry is going to need someone to pay taxes to fund their pension in 50 years time, I better have a kid." They have kids because they, for their own reasons, want to.

          If you think it's so great, good for you - go earn some money, give your money to them. I certainly won't stop you.

    • RocketSwitch on 28/06/2018 - 09:42

      What cost is there not having kids in your case to have a tax deduction?

      • smuggler on 28/06/2018 - 17:57

        The cost of single people's tax dollars going towards rotten snotty-nosed kids and family tax benefits.

  • Ocker on 26/06/2018 - 19:18
    +6

    You breed'em - you feed'em

    • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 19:29

      In the Southern island(s) it's, you feed 'em, you breed 'em.

  • Marcsie on 26/06/2018 - 20:02

    Haha, you are funny :)

  • [Deactivated] on 26/06/2018 - 21:00

    People with families will generally say not enough is done, people without will generally say families get too many hand outs already.

    I wish we had virtually free childcare like Sweden but at least when I take my babies to the doctor I can do so without thinking about the cost.

    Tax deduction isn’t the go - they are already putting the ‘activity test’ in to effectively give the benefit of subsidies to working families only (that’s a whole different debate itself), and at $220pw you aren’t paying so much in the scheme of things.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 22:58
      +3

      I wish we had virtually free childcare like Sweden

      Do you wish we had 60 % income tax like Sweden?

      • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 00:31
        +3

        On a scale of low tax low safety net (eg US) to high tax high safety net (eg Sweden) i think Australia is in the right place. I wouldn’t trust either side of politics here to spend the sort of taxes they have in Sweden effectively.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 21:42
          +1

          The US is often mislabelled as a nation lacking a generous welfare system - perhaps that is because spending on social welfare is much more split between federal & state payments than in other nations (so comparing federal to federal spending certainly makes the US seem meaner). Overall the US actually spends a similar % of GDP on welfare as Australia, and per capita benefits to those in need can be similar. The US is higher than, but in line with OECD averages. https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/11/27/2053392/welfare-spend…?

          What makes Australia's welfare system world class is often said to be the level of its targeting concentrating much more of its social expenditure on the bottom quintile of the population than on middle or high end welfare. (E.g. in other countries the more you earn the higher you are paid unemployment benefits if you lose your job.. meaning someone who doesn't even need the money can end up with unemployment benefits multiples higher than in Australia).

          My own feelings are that our welfare settings are approximately right (& would support child care tax deductions) but individual incomes in Australia are massively overtaxed as part of our failure to properly derive benefit from our mineral resources & appropriately tax multinationals & sources of "super" profits (banks), and because of the in-ordinate amount of waste & fraud in our public spending.

        • joungs on 28/06/2018 - 00:40

          @lghulm: Wow i didn't know that about the US/international welfare systems, thanks for sharing.

      • greyeye on 27/06/2018 - 13:40
        +1

        if simplifying the tax system and get rid of all the hidden taxes, yes I would vote for 60%.
        GST, Fuel levy, custom duty, council levy, ambulance levy, emergency group support levy, luxury cat tax, payroll tax, FBT, capital gains tax, etc etc

        Effective Tax rate on individual would be quite significant on Aus too.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 21:48
          -1

          Taking over 60% of the income of a person against their will is more akin to slavery than anything else.

          BTW if someone currently pays 45% income tax + 2% medicare levy we are at 47%, then add GST (%10) & average annual stamp duty paid for their home & car over their lifetime, & other property & land taxes, & fuel excise… you are at or over 60% tax already.

          Taxes should be far, far lower & never should a man work for less than 50% return on his labour (my view). If you went line item by line item through the federal, state & local government budgets you would find ~50% of it is unnecessary, wasteful, counter-productive or fraudulent.

        • Baghern on 28/06/2018 - 09:52

          @lghulm:

          Virtually no one at that rate is actually paying that that rate, deductions left right and centre

          People who start earning that rate aren't working an earning more by working an hourly rate… they're just gaming the system/economy

          When you start earning that rate, you're not breaking your back at $20 per hour, you're taking advantage of the economic environment this country provides.

          Thats why its rubbish when the Liberal Government says people won't be incentivised to earn more when they hit that bracket.

    • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 10:01

      to effectively give the benefit of subsidies to working families only (that’s a whole different debate itself)

      I don't know why that's even a debate. If you're not working, why aren't you taking care of your kids yourself?

    • RocketSwitch on 28/06/2018 - 09:44

      $220pw is good. I wouldn't be complaining about that. Some people spend $150 a day!

  • [Deactivated] on 26/06/2018 - 22:08
    +2

    Absolutely not. I'm not here to make up your share of tax because you decided to pop out some crotch goblins.

  • echelon6 on 26/06/2018 - 23:13
    +2

    Your child is not an income producing asset so no, you shouldn't be able to deduct expenses relating to child-rearing.

    • airzone on 26/06/2018 - 23:50
      +1

      If they're not an income producing asset, you're doing it wrong..

  • Laurenlauren on 26/06/2018 - 23:25
    -4

    We pay more for childcare per week than we do for any other expense (including rent). When we had children, every financial decision we made was based on only one income, so I (the mother) wouldn't be forced back to work while the kids were little just to maintain a lifestyle we couldn't afford.

    The kids are now 2 and 4, and I'm back in the workforce. It's not benefiting us much financially - if you take childcare out of my wage, I make less than $5 an hr for a university-educated career. The benefit comes from my career progression and job satisfaction.

    It's incredibly frustrating that childcare takes so much of my wage because if I wasn't working, the kids wouldn't be in childcare. The childcare cost is a direct result of me returning to work. Yet I accept that they are my responsibility and I need to accept the costs of raising kids (or paying someone to help me raise them).

    It's something I feel conflicted about because childcare fees are far too expensive yet childcare workers are paid far too little. Many people, especially those without children don't see the benefit to society when parents return to the workforce. It also makes me think about the inequality between male and female careers because it's often the mother's career which suffers once kids are introduced into the family.

    • JimmyF on 26/06/2018 - 23:58
      +3

      if you take childcare out of my wage, I make less than $5 an hr

      You and your partner choose to have kids, you need to pay to look after them. Simple as that.

      You can't go to work and expect to bank your wage, while someone else pays to look after your kids! It doesn't work like that.

      This then becomes unfair to people who stay at home and look after their kids, or people without kids or people who use grandparents as babysitters ;)

      • p1 ama on 27/06/2018 - 00:45
        +9

        I don't think it's that simple. As a society, we pay for a whole host of things - healthcare, education, pensions, unemployment benefits…etc. It's very hard to justify why certain things should be subsidised whilst others shouldn't. As a prime example, clearly we subsidise education from when children are 5, so why not subsidise childcare (which is quite similar to school in many respects) for children younger than 5?

        So clearly, the argument isn't as simple as you make it out to be - by your logic, subsidising healthcare is unfair to those who look after their health, subsidising education is unfair to those who send their kids to private schools, pensions are unfair on those who built up savings whilst they work, and unemployment benefits are unfair on those who work. Personally, I don't actually think childcare is a bad subsidy in the scheme of things - it actually promotes productivity by encouraging people to work, and I would say that the rationale for subsidising childcare is probably better than that for providing unemployment benefits, say.

        That said, I do think there are many issues with the childcare system, including providers who charge too much for the service they provide, but that doesn't change the argument.

        • Laurenlauren on 27/06/2018 - 06:23
          +4

          I agree. The average cost per student for primary school students at a public school (in our area) is $10,000 per year yet many parents wouldn't know that because the government pays the majority of the cost. It would be very difficult to find someone who believed that the government shouldn't provide this subsidy because "they chose to have kids, they should pay for them".

          Socoety can see the benefit to society in providing affordable schooling from the age of 5 but still don't see the benefit of providing care under 5.

        • JimmyF on 27/06/2018 - 08:14
          +3

          As a society, we pay for a whole host of things - healthcare, education, pensions, unemployment benefits…etc

          All things that EVERYONE can access, unlike childcare.

          As a prime example, clearly we subsidise education from when children are 5, so why not subsidise childcare

          Education subsidises are available to ALL people of ALL ages, not just children.

          Childcare subsidises, is only to a select group of people who want something (kids), but don't want to pay for it (childcare).

          it actually promotes productivity by encouraging people to work

          It also promotes dumping your child with strangers for 9-10hrs a day (assuming 8hr work day). I fail to see the productivity advantage of this for the child.

          Also, people on benefits are allowed access to child care for 4-5 days a week for next to nothing, when they are not working. Again not promoting productivity here either.

          You have kids, you look after them. Its not hard.

        • JimmyF on 27/06/2018 - 08:18

          @Laurenlauren:

          The average cost per student for primary school students at a public school (in our area) is $10,000 per year yet

          So $200/wk per child.

          So whats the average cost of childcare then per year? $7,613 per child per year, so about $150/wk

          and which one provides better value to the tax payer, Spending $200wk giving a child an education or spending $150wk for a baby sitter?

        • Slippage on 27/06/2018 - 11:06
          +3

          @JimmyF:

          $7,613/year? lol

          try $120/day, $600/week, $31,200/year for each child (you pay for public holidays also)

          To give you some perspective, we have 3 under 5 and in order for my partner and I to work full time, this is what it will cost under the new scheme:

          Child Care Fees
          Week $1,800
          Month $7,800
          Year $93,600

          Child Care Subsidy
          Week -$636
          Month -$2,757
          Year -$33,078

          Child Care Benefit
          Week -$439
          Month -$1,903
          Year -$22,838

          Out Off Pocket
          Week $725
          Month $3,140
          Year $37,683

          your comparison of child care vs primary school shows your ignorance, consider these:
          - Educator to student ratios Primary School 1:16 Day Care 1:4 (0-3)
          - Self sufficiency of a 5-11 year old vs 0-5 year old
          - Available hours: school is 0900-1500 vs Child care 0600-1830

          Should taxpayers foot the bill for me having children? If you think about it that way, the answer is always going to be no. but consider what would happen if we didn't have future tax payers. Are you going to be a 100% self funded retiree? and when you are, who is going to generate the pool for public expenditure? What should be looked at is who is making big bucks from this industry and why dole bludgers get 100% subsidised placements while they "look for work or study".

          Yes we choose to have a bunch of kids close together and yes we choose a centre over family day care

        • p1 ama on 27/06/2018 - 12:28
          +3

          @JimmyF:

          You're still boiling the argument down to really simplistic terms which doesn't reflect the way that we approach other situations:

          You have kids, you look after them. Its not hard.

          You want a degree, you pay for it. It's not hard.
          You got cancer because you smoked, you pay for it. It's not hard.

          There's no difference between the argument you make and these arguments. I think you're strawmanning the argument here.

          All things that EVERYONE can access, unlike childcare.

          Yes, I should be able to access a pension even though I'm not of the required age. Perhaps I should turn up to a hospital and demand treatment despite not being sick. How about I enrol myself in primary school? Clearly not true.

          Childcare subsidises, is only to a select group of people who want something (kids), but don't want to pay for it (childcare).

          That's true of all government subsidies - by definition of a subsidy, the government pays so that the individual does not have to pay.

          Now, I'm not saying that the government should provide childcare subsidies, nor am I saying that there are no issues with the way that things are currently done. However, I do think that there is more nuance to the issue than simply saying that childcare is something that the individual should pay 100% of, or the government should pay 100% of.

        • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 12:30
          +1

          @Slippage:

          Yes we choose to have a bunch of kids close together and yes we choose a centre over family day care

          I mean you could've left it at that.

        • cillianbc on 27/06/2018 - 14:35

          @Slippage:
          I haven't done the math fully but it looks like you would be better off having 1 parent at home?

        • HeWhoKnows on 27/06/2018 - 18:03
          +1

          @p1 ama: The child care benefit was an election stunt that turned into an ongoing privledge because they found they couldnt remove it.

          Whats more the child care subsidy is very responsible for pushing child care fees up to where they are now as with anythinng for which the govt provides a subsidy.

          I say take away all govt subsidies and watch prices fall.

        • p1 ama on 27/06/2018 - 19:29
          +1

          @Amayzingone:

          It's actually hard to say. I'm an economist and I've previously worked in public utilities regulation (energy and gas), so I'm pretty familiar with these sorts of markets. They're markets which tend to have very high fixed costs and very low variable costs (i.e. it costs a lot of money to put in a power line, but not a lot of money to send power down that line). Childcare is similar, it takes a lot of money to build up a new centre, but staffing and variable costs are quite low. So what's actually ideal is to maximise throughput. Another characteristics of these markets is that competition actually works pretty poorly.

          I'd say that the main issue is that there's not enough regulation in childcare markets and providers are pushing prices up to the cap. The solution (in my view) would be to have a credit system rather than a rebate system, where parents have a certain number of hours per fortnight they can use and prices are standardised.

          In any case, I do agree that the current system is broken and is costing parents and taxpayers too much.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 21:59

          @p1 ama: Lack of local competition, lack of controls regarding fraudulent claims, too much regulation (carer ratios, licensing etc), too high asset prices in the economy fed by poor policy (pushing up wage & land costs), high land taxes…

          With lower asset & wage prices, better fraud control, less regulation (allowing parents to choose to opt for high cost / high care and lower cost / lower care environments) & lower land rates & stamp duty the impost on the government could be reduced 50% and the provision of services increased.

          Our system is not an efficient one.

          Subsidies as a mechanism also inflate prices but perhaps with other changes would be more manageable.

        • p1 ama on 27/06/2018 - 23:18

          @lghulm:

          Subsidies as a mechanism also inflate prices but perhaps with other changes would be more manageable.

          It's quite hard to conclude this without some pretty robust economic modelling. Without subsidies, less children go to childcare and the fixed costs of operating a centre are amortised over a smaller number of children. This is not an issue for most produced goods which have relatively high variable costs, but I think it's an issue here.

          Think about something like trains - running trains is pretty cheap compared to putting in tracks and buying in new trains. If you weren't using the lines to capacity, then the costs of putting in those new lines are spread amongst fewer people, so it actually makes more sense to subsidise train travel.

          Lack of local competition, lack of controls regarding fraudulent claims, too much regulation (carer ratios, licensing etc), too high asset prices in the economy fed by poor policy (pushing up wage & land costs), high land taxes…

          I completely agree that this is what's causing the entire issue. Before even addressing how to go about making the rebate system better, I think all of these things need to be ironed out first.

        • Slippage on 03/07/2018 - 13:30

          @cillianbc:

          you would think so, but no.

          Example: when you apply for a loan, the expenses for each dependent are auto calculated. So when we went for a home loan we had my income and 4 dependants. and they have a figure they assign to each, depending on age. Wife went back to work we were financially worse off, but had double the borrowing power.

          There is also the non-financial side to it. My wife is very social, staying at home drove her nuts and I know it would me too. plus day care teaches kids to interact with others.

      • Laurenlauren on 27/06/2018 - 06:17
        +4

        If you had continued reading, you would see the point I made about them being my responsibility and I accept the costs that come with raising them.

        • HeWhoKnows on 27/06/2018 - 18:05
          +1

          Not really. You expect family tax benefit A & B and child care rebate and now you are asking for a tax deduction too.

          So in other words you want hard working pax payers to pay for your kids.

        • Laurenlauren on 27/06/2018 - 20:51
          +3

          @Amayzingone: OK, you clearly didn't read anything I wrote. I never asked for a tax deduction too. I never said that there should be a tax deduction for childcare.

          You may have my comment confused with another.

      • RocketSwitch on 28/06/2018 - 10:02

        It doesn't work like that in your opinion. Life can work however the authorities want it to work.

        Life is unfair.

        • JimmyF on 28/06/2018 - 11:27

          It doesn't work like that in your opinion. Life can work however the authorities want it to work.

          You know that comment goes both ways?

          Just like the OP whining about wanting cheaper childcare

    • p1 ama on 26/06/2018 - 23:58

      Perhaps you need to look for more affordable childcare?

      • HeWhoKnows on 27/06/2018 - 18:06
        +1

        Perhaps one of them should stay home and look after the kids or they get jobs where they can spend some time at home

    • bobbified on 29/06/2018 - 21:42

      It also makes me think about the inequality between male and female careers because it's often the mother's career which suffers once kids are introduced into the family.

      Well, are you expecting men to take time off to give birth? That's not an inequality issue. It's a biological issue and if you have any suggestions to how to overcome this "issue", please come back and let us know!

      In terms of who stays at home to care about the children, that's between you and the father of the child.

  • picklewizard on 26/06/2018 - 23:43

    Why did you have children?

    • HeWhoKnows on 27/06/2018 - 18:07

      So we, the tax payers can pay for the costs of bringing up thier kids of course.

      • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 22:01
        +1

        In successful human societies the provision of children has always been a boon for the whole, not a detriment.

  • p1 ama on 27/06/2018 - 00:00

    We send kids to childcare in order to go to work and earn income to pay tax, so shouldn't it be considered as part of the income earning activity under tax deduction definition?

    What? How is childcare "income earning"? It's about as "income earning" as eating, sleeping and living. Should rent, food, transport and mortgage payments be tax deductible? Should a house someone just bought be tax deductible too?

      • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 10:04
        +5

        If I wasn't at work or if the kids were school aged, the cost wouldn't be there.

        If you didn't have kids, the cost wouldn't be there.

    • HeWhoKnows on 27/06/2018 - 18:10

      A bit unreasonable but Im sure OP could readily justify food and transport to and from work as tax deductions.

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 27/06/2018 - 05:43
    +12

    If Joe Hockey can use 70k of tax payers money on dinners and breakfast with his wife in the USA i reckon child care should be tax deductible or if anything a basic child care should be free like primary and high school.

    Most Scandinavian countries have free child care, free education and Free health care

    Australia should do the same

    We are all children at some stage of our lives parents in his country should be given support in someway or another.

    P.S i do not currently have any children of my own this is just my opinion

    • HeWhoKnows on 27/06/2018 - 18:13

      Firstly Joe hockey is representing Australia in the USA
      You and your kids clearly are not.

      Secondly nothing is for free.
      Scandinavians pay the highest tax rates in the world.

      • RocketSwitch on 28/06/2018 - 10:08

        Doesn't have kids.

        Anywhere you go in the world, you're representing Australia if you are Australian. So I expect to use tax payers money to fund this. Thanks.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 06:43
    +1

    Whinge whinge whinge

  • MessyG on 27/06/2018 - 08:22
    +5

    Look I don't know a lot about economics but childcare is already subsidised by the government so no I don't think that it should be tax deductible because that would be double handling. And I say this as someone whose wage goes pretty much on childcare.

    I WOULD like to see some sort of subsidy for nannies though that would bring the amount you pay for one roughly into line with the cost of daycare - i.e. subsidise it or tax deduct it down to the cost of a day in daycare. That way you could use both, you wouldn't have to put the kids in full time daycare, and you would save so many days (and of lost productivity due to parents and kids sick from daycare.

    As for that old "well you chose to have kids line", without children, there is no future economy, no future workers. So you want to support those that do have kids to ensure that the ones they do have turn out to be functioning, contributing members of society by providing some support (no one is asking for taxpayer funded helicopters, dinners, or overseas travel here). We need to support the type of families and children we want here.

  • Slippage on 27/06/2018 - 08:50
    +7

    Child care is a joke in Australia. They are going to keep raising the prices, until they have vacant spots. I can all but guarantee that if you could claim child care as a deductable, they would raise their fees, the same way they raised their fees when the CCR/CCB came into place.

    This is from someone who spent over $40k last year in child care (out of pocket)

    • HeWhoKnows on 27/06/2018 - 18:18
      +2

      Any time the govt susbidises something in any way the prices ALWAYS skyrocket.

      Hence everyone is worse off including the govt - except for those providing that product or service of course.

      I have seen this over and over again.

      Hence the best way to keep something affordable is for the govt to stay out of the way - dont get involved at all!

    • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 22:03

      Plenty of multi-millionaires being made in the childcare sector, both by providers making fraudulent claims & those managing to build centres & fill their places legitimately.

  • trev likes bargains on 27/06/2018 - 09:08
    +3

    Op, try focusing your energy on increasing your combined income. That will be easier than trying to control what is outside your control.

  • h4zey on 27/06/2018 - 10:03
    +1

    depends on your job i guess, if you want most of your out of pocket expenses become deductible then you should looking into becoming a politician and depending how successful you are, you can even donate your annual salary for charity :)

  • wallet72 on 27/06/2018 - 10:30
    +10

    I think employers should be able to provide child care without it being succeptible to fringe benefits tax. That way they could make it part of your salary package and everyone wins.

    • imurgod on 27/06/2018 - 14:12
      +1

      Great idea

    • Laurenlauren on 27/06/2018 - 20:54

      I think this is the best solution so far.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join