Well if Labour keep this up I think I’ll be voting for them at the next GE!

Barleyfields

I don’t see how that could work Norah unless as Doodledog says the working partner is paying double income tax and NICs and paying into a private pension for the non-working partner. I can’t imagine how much they would have to be earning. At present a stay at home parent receives NI credits until the child is 12 years old. Is there a good reason why, when a child (or the youngest child) reaches that age, the stay at home parent should not be working at least part time outside the home, earning their own money, paying NICs and tax?

I'll pull links, work out how this system could perhaps pertain.

Barleyfields

I don’t see how that could work Norah unless as Doodledog says the working partner is paying double income tax and NICs and paying into a private pension for the non-working partner. I can’t imagine how much they would have to be earning. At present a stay at home parent receives NI credits until the child is 12 years old. Is there a good reason why, when a child (or the youngest child) reaches that age, the stay at home parent should not be working at least part time outside the home, earning their own money, paying NICs and tax?

There is also the fact that this system would only apply to those who are in couples, so would disadvantage single parents. Whilst I believe that children are usually better off with two parents I am not in favour of making life harder for those who, for whatever reason, are not in that situation. If a single parent could be compensated somehow, that would be unfair to working couples, so that is probably not the answer either. Social engineering of this sort is rarely the fairest way forward.

FICA (Social Security & Medicare). I copied links as promised.

Employees: Pay 6.2% of their earnings up to a taxable maximum. In 2025, the taxable maximum is $176,100.
Employers: Pay 6.2% of their employees' earnings up to the taxable maximum.
Self-employed: Pay 12.4% of their earnings.

You earn one Social Security credit for every $1,810 in covered earnings each year.
You can earn up to a maximum of four credits per year.
The average of your earnings over your working years determines how much your monthly payment will be.

A spouse can receive up to half of their spouse's Social Security benefit.

In 2025, the maximum Social Security retirement benefit is $5,108 per month, while the maximum Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payment is $967 per month.

Of course there are private pensions as well and a type of savings similar to ISAs (presumably to promote saving for need/wants).

Doodledog

Barleyfields

I don’t see how that could work Norah unless as Doodledog says the working partner is paying double income tax and NICs and paying into a private pension for the non-working partner. I can’t imagine how much they would have to be earning. At present a stay at home parent receives NI credits until the child is 12 years old. Is there a good reason why, when a child (or the youngest child) reaches that age, the stay at home parent should not be working at least part time outside the home, earning their own money, paying NICs and tax?

There is also the fact that this system would only apply to those who are in couples, so would disadvantage single parents. Whilst I believe that children are usually better off with two parents I am not in favour of making life harder for those who, for whatever reason, are not in that situation. If a single parent could be compensated somehow, that would be unfair to working couples, so that is probably not the answer either. Social engineering of this sort is rarely the fairest way forward.

Not only couples - a way to collect NIC from sah-persons as a couple.

Social engineering is likely not fair - are taxes, NIC fair as stands?

GrannyGravy13

Norah I think parents (whether it be the mother or father) who are able to stay at home to nurture the next generation are vastly under valued.

Strangely enough, they're not undervalued if the couple divorces. My partner has just divorced and his ex-wife is entitled to half his pension because she was a SAHM and it was seen that she had contributed to the household by bringing up the children and doing the housework. They were married for 40 years, but only had children at home for 25 of those years. When I divorced, I wasn't entitled to anything because I had always worked full-time, even though I had always done most of the child-rearing and housework as well as work.

What about tax though Norah? Income tax.

Norah

Doodledog

And I know that VAT exists, but it is just not the same to go to the shops with money someone else has earned and spend it, and then claim to have 'paid tax. You haven't. You have facilitated someone else's purchase tax.

You're not viewing this the same way as I do.

We're a couple for life - two as one. I wash our landry, cook our meals, clean our home, keep our garden up, walk our dog(s), purchase our needs.

He does as much as I do, now as he slows down at work, he's not one to ever sit idle whilst I work. But for most of our marriage (I was 16 and now 80, he was 18 and now 82) he worked 60-70 hour weeks, had no time to help. I happily did everything related to our home, 4 children. I do his receipts, get the business papers ready for our accounting.

I've not earned money, I'm a sahm. However, I've facilitated his earning. Because I was at home doing/raising, I allowed his long hours at work. Everything we own and all the money we spend is half mine.

I pay VAT and other taxes with our money. I pay no income tax.

There is currently, no acceptable taxing solution for you and others who view sah-people as non-workers. I've many ideas, nobody asks.

Sahm have every right to do so whilst having underage children, I do believe for me it was right, I wanted to be with them as their mother, so therefore I did not pay tax during this time 😱

Growstuff makes a valid point about the partner, usually the woman, who never works outside the home, even when any children are no longer dependent. I suspect that confirms one of the points made by Doodledog

PoliticsNerd

Perhaps the young should stop having the children whose taxes actually pay our pensions, and get out to work to pay these taxes Doodledog.

No need. That's exactly what's happening, isn't it. Your bitterness towards others must make life very hard. I'm truly sorry for you having to live with it.

I didn't say people should stop having children, and nor do I think they should. I have two of my own.

I'm not bitter towards anyone either. I am, like everyone else on the thread, simply discussing what I think is fair - I am perfectly capable of doing that without feeling bitter or attacking other posters. There are many things that most people find unfair or that we would do differently - sometimes mistakenly, sometimes not. That doesn't make us bitter. We can use our votes every so often, campaign if we feel strongly enough, or just chat about it amongst ourselves, as we are doing on this thread. You are the only poster to resort to personal attacks - I certainly haven't.

Oh, and no need to feel 'truly sorry' for me. My life isn't hard at all. Save your sorrow for when I start making unwarranted personal attacks to strangers on the internet?

Iam64

Growstuff makes a valid point about the partner, usually the woman, who never works outside the home, even when any children are no longer dependent. I suspect that confirms one of the points made by Doodledog

I suppose they are fully entitled to do so if it can be afforded.

Iam64

Growstuff makes a valid point about the partner, usually the woman, who never works outside the home, even when any children are no longer dependent. I suspect that confirms one of the points made by Doodledog

It does, thanks. Staying at home with babies and toddlers is very different from never working when they are at school and beyond.

This gets rehashed so often on here that I forget what I've said when .

Sorry your thread has gone off-topic, FGT.

BevSec

Iam64

Growstuff makes a valid point about the partner, usually the woman, who never works outside the home, even when any children are no longer dependent. I suspect that confirms one of the points made by Doodledog

I suppose they are fully entitled to do so if it can be afforded.

Everyone is fully entitled to do as they please, but IMO not entitled to expect others to pay for it.

Doodledog

Iam64

Growstuff makes a valid point about the partner, usually the woman, who never works outside the home, even when any children are no longer dependent. I suspect that confirms one of the points made by Doodledog

It does, thanks. Staying at home with babies and toddlers is very different from never working when they are at school and beyond.

This gets rehashed so often on here that I forget what I've said when .

Sorry your thread has gone off-topic, FGT.

I dont understand why you think that women should work if they can afford not to, regardless of having children or not.

Barleyfields

What about tax though Norah? Income tax.

Apologies, this was not included in the other links.

Federal Income Tax --

www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/federal-income-tax-brackets

Doodledog

Iam64

Growstuff makes a valid point about the partner, usually the woman, who never works outside the home, even when any children are no longer dependent. I suspect that confirms one of the points made by Doodledog

It does, thanks. Staying at home with babies and toddlers is very different from never working when they are at school and beyond.

This gets rehashed so often on here that I forget what I've said when .

Sorry your thread has gone off-topic, FGT.

I'm sorry ad well FGT2.

It actually matters not why sah-persons do as they do. I'm out.

Doodledog

BevSec

Iam64

Growstuff makes a valid point about the partner, usually the woman, who never works outside the home, even when any children are no longer dependent. I suspect that confirms one of the points made by Doodledog

I suppose they are fully entitled to do so if it can be afforded.

Everyone is fully entitled to do as they please, but IMO not entitled to expect others to pay for it.

I dont understand, why are others paying for someone to not work who can afford not to?

I’m obviously very thick but I don’t understand how the US system works to cover a situation where the working spouse pays the tax the one at home might have paid had they been working. It seems just to be a way of filing one return instead of two. Obviously I haven’t studied it properly.

The US equivalent of healthcare contributions covering a spouse is the same as many private health insurance schemes here, which can cover family members.

BevSec one aspect is that all UK citizens are entitled to free healthcare from the NHS whether they have paid NICs or not.

Another is that the fewer people paying tax, the more everyone else needs to pay to fill the pot.

Yes I agree with others who have commented that you deserve credit for carefully researching actual policies rather than just sticking to usual voting habits . Well done . I do the the 20k Personal allowance is aspirational rather than achievable at the moment - especially with the current military costs. But its a good target for the ordinary people .

MayBee70

If people like Trump Farage Bannon et al hadn’t spent the last few years empowering Putin we wouldn’t have to now be increasing defence spending. Or if the last few Conservative governments hadn’t reduced it. It’s a short term fix for a long term problem. Overseas aid isn’t all about basket weaving. Amongst other things it’s soft power. Countries like China will probably fill the gap.

Chins has been “filling gaps” for many years, their advantage is they don’t have conscience, they whatever they will buy whatever they want regardless how odious the seller is, and pay in whatever form is requested.

Also in many developing countries they are beginning to dominate commerce, Chinese EX Pats taking over businesses competing with the locals, even in rural areas.

Barleyfields

BevSec one aspect is that all UK citizens are entitled to free healthcare from the NHS whether they have paid NICs or not.

Another is that the fewer people paying tax, the more everyone else needs to pay to fill the pot.

I wonder how many of us would feel they should work though, because of your points, if they for example, married someone wealthy? Probably not a 9-5 in some drudgy office somewhere or a long shift on a ward, I know I wouldnt!

MayBee70

If people like Trump Farage Bannon et al hadn’t spent the last few years empowering Putin we wouldn’t have to now be increasing defence spending. Or if the last few Conservative governments hadn’t reduced it. It’s a short term fix for a long term problem. Overseas aid isn’t all about basket weaving. Amongst other things it’s soft power. Countries like China will probably fill the gap.

Exactly. Well said MayBee70

If you have a very wealthy spouse they should be paying a lot of tax. However few if any of us have spouses so wealthy that their taxes and NICs could be said to also cover what we might have paid on our own account. The stay at home mothers I met ‘at the school gates’ most definitely were not in that bracket and clearly had no intention of working even when their children were well into their teens. Staying at home became a way of life. As I said above, they were typical ‘ladies who lunch’ and their husbands’ jobs were nothing special. The most immaculately turned out, who professed she couldn’t cook and bought all the food from M&S, was married to a jobbing builder,

Personally, I think builders are very special, where would we be without them!

I'm pretty pleased with what Labour have done recently, I like the new knife crime laws that make it harder for people to buy those awful fighting knives, I like the law that means CEO's of water companies don't get a bonus if they make rivers dirty. Personally, I don't mind loosing fuel tax but I would have stopped it at higher income tax payers. I've got quicker drs appt.s since they've been in charge, I'll be voting Labour next time