Even MPs, it appears, consult Professional Nanny as the expert voice on nanny matters. On 14 May the Finance Bill committee, debating this year's Budget, discussed at length the move to abolish limited companies for nannies from 9 April. The paymaster general, Dawn Primarolo, quoted aloud from the article in February's Professional Nanny by Stephen Vahrman and also pointed out the figures from the Nursery World readers' poll that asked 'Is it a good idea for nannies to become limited companies?' Opposing MPs wanted the Government to amend the Inland Revenue's ruling and delay the date for the tax change so that nannies who had set themselves up as service companies at least would not have to file two self-assessment tax returns in one year. They were sympathetic that nannies and other domestic workers are people on relatively low incomes who'd been encouraged 'in good faith' by the previous year's Budget into trying out the limited companies approach. However, they lost the vote on the amendment and the loophole stays closed as of 9 April. But perhaps the most telling comment in this debate came from Ms Primarolo after quoting Professional Nanny. She said, 'It is incumbent on the Government to protect nannies' best interests. The temptation provided by the loophole has been removed precisely to protect those nannies.' Oh, really? What if nannies' best interests were for the Government to make them registered childcarers and make their employers eligible for childcare tax credits? Perhaps Ms Primarolo is saying that it's not nanny who knows best, but the nanny state - removing those silly weak-willed nannies from the 'temptation' of saving some money?
Even MPs, it appears, consult Professional Nanny as the expert voice on nanny matters. On 14 May the Finance Bill committee, debating this year's Budget, discussed at length the move to abolish limited companies for nannies from 9 April. The paymaster general, Dawn Primarolo, quoted aloud from the article in February's Professional Nanny by Stephen Vahrman and also pointed out the figures from the Nursery World readers' poll that asked 'Is it a good idea for nannies to become limited companies?' Opposing MPs wanted the Government to amend the Inland Revenue's ruling and delay the date for the tax change so that nannies who had set themselves up as service companies at least would not have to file two self-assessment tax returns in one year. They were sympathetic that nannies and other domestic workers are people on relatively low incomes who'd been encouraged 'in good faith' by the previous year's Budget into trying out the limited companies approach. However, they lost the vote on the amendment and the loophole stays closed as of 9 April.
But perhaps the most telling comment in this debate came from Ms Primarolo after quoting Professional Nanny. She said, 'It is incumbent on the Government to protect nannies' best interests. The temptation provided by the loophole has been removed precisely to protect those nannies.' Oh, really? What if nannies' best interests were for the Government to make them registered childcarers and make their employers eligible for childcare tax credits? Perhaps Ms Primarolo is saying that it's not nanny who knows best, but the nanny state - removing those silly weak-willed nannies from the 'temptation' of saving some money?
