Bureaucracy gone crazy

[Sunflowers]

A couple of policewomen in Britain have been hauled over the coals for looking after each other's children. They work alternate shifts and they've been looking after each other's children for some time. However, they both had a visit - at their houses - from the paper pushers who said that, despite the fact that no money changes hands, because the arrangement was for more than 2 hours per day and because it's reciprocal it constitutes childminding and therefore they are breaking the law because they haven't registered as childminders and been vetted as such!!!

Story here.
Longer article here


What is your opinion of this affair?

[Ivan]

They should drop the charges. I guess there could be some blurring between running a business and a couple of families helping each other out, but this seems to be obviously the latter. In the event that someone is running a child care business, there has to be alot of oversite and regulation.

[Phonedave]

I was reading an article on batering just the other day.

It mentioned how, in the current econimic climate, batering was becomming very popular. They listed a number of wesites and ways to barter.

Then they added a note. Batering is considered a form of income and therefore is taxed by the IRS. I thought about child care as well.

I can understand, for example, if a farmer trades a load of produce to a painter to paint his house. Thats no different that if the farmer sold his produce at a roadside stand, the painter bought it, then the farmer paid the painter for his services. Both would be taxed on that.

But they had mentioned people swapping childcare. I watch your kids and mine on Monday, and you do the same on Tuesday. In that case, both people would be taxed for the income from a days worth of childcare. That just sort of did not sit right with me. I know it boils down to the same thing, but where does a business transaction end and people helping each other out begin?

-dave

[drew]

I was reading an article on batering just the other day.

It mentioned how, in the current econimic climate, batering was becomming very popular. They listed a number of wesites and ways to barter.

Then they added a note. Batering is considered a form of income and therefore is taxed by the IRS. I thought about child care as well.

I can understand, for example, if a farmer trades a load of produce to a painter to paint his house. Thats no different that if the farmer sold his produce at a roadside stand, the painter bought it, then the farmer paid the painter for his services. Both would be taxed on that.

But they had mentioned people swapping childcare. I watch your kids and mine on Monday, and you do the same on Tuesday. In that case, both people would be taxed for the income from a days worth of childcare. That just sort of did not sit right with me. I know it boils down to the same thing, but where does a business transaction end and people helping each other out begin?

-dave

Ok, it took me a minute to figure out what you're saying. You're talking about "bartering", not "battering" (since the issue was regulation in child care, I jumped to the wrong conclusion at first).

I tend to think of things in more subjective terms. If the relationship is pre-existing, and there's an exchange of services, I don't consider it a business transaction. People help each other out all of the time...it's called being neighborly. But if someone solicits such an arrangement from a complete stranger, then I would consider it a business transaction, and it should be taxed.

[Old Dad]

I'm totally in line with Drew's - and others' - line of thinking on this one and *completely* against the British police's stance. As long as it's a private arrangement between a couple of friends or families, big deal ! People have been helping each other like that since the beginning of time. All the publicans (tax collectors) can just go butt out!!!

As Drew said, one it crosses over into soliciting 'business' from strangers then, indeed, it HAS become a business and that changes the picture entirely.

Moral of this whole story: Keep a sharp lookout for your government in action - they will attempt to jump into your private business with every change in the wind.

[Sunflowers]

It's not actually tax collecting that's at stake - it's FAR worse than that. Ofsted (the organisation which is interfering with this arrangement) is the government body responsible for inspecting schools, playgroups and other educational establishments to ensure that they're up to standard - both academically and physically. Therefore, the informal arrangement between these two women - although no money is changing hands - is construed, for bureaucratic purposes, to be in the same category as a professional childminder, a playgroup or a school. Therefore, these women's houses have to conform to the same official safety standards as those laid down for professional childminders, they have to have criminal record checks (despite both being policewomen!!!) and otherwise obey all sorts of other such regulations. This is a huge imposition for both of them. Imagine having to get your house upgraded at your own expense in order to satisfy government safety standards which are supposed to apply to professional childminders when you're not making any extra money apart from your normal wages AND - in addition - to comply with the "Early years" teaching curriculum as laid down by Ofsted!!! THAT is the real source of all the indignation which this case has aroused - as in this article.

[Old Dad]

It's not actually tax collecting that's at stake - it's FAR worse than that. Ofsted (the organisation which is interfering with this arrangement) is the government body responsible for inspecting schools, playgroups and other educational establishments to ensure that they're up to standard - both academically and physically. Therefore, the informal arrangement between these two women - although no money is changing hands - is construed, for bureaucratic purposes, to be in the same category as a professional childminder, a playgroup or a school. Therefore, these women's houses have to conform to the same official safety standards as those laid down for professional childminders, they have to have criminal record checks (despite both being policewomen!!!) and otherwise obey all sorts of other such regulations. This is a huge imposition for both of them. Imagine having to get your house upgraded at your own expense in order to satisfy government safety standards which are supposed to apply to professional childminders when you're not making any extra money apart from your normal wages AND - in addition - to comply with the "Early years" teaching curriculum as laid down by Ofsted!!! THAT is the real source of all the indignation which this case has aroused - as in this article.

That's just insane!!!

Contrary to popular belief, it isn't war that's the bane of humanity - it's the bloody bureaucrats!!!!!!!!!!

[Elefino]

The article says {". . . it is believed they were shopped to Ofsted by a neighbour , , ,"
Maybe the "neighbor" should be taken to task for sticking hias/her nose in other people's personal business.

[Phonedave]

I'm totally in line with Drew's - and others' - line of thinking on this one and *completely* against the British police's stance. As long as it's a private arrangement between a couple of friends or families, big deal ! People have been helping each other like that since the beginning of time. All the publicans (tax collectors) can just go butt out!!!

As Drew said, one it crosses over into soliciting 'business' from strangers then, indeed, it HAS become a business and that changes the picture entirely.

Moral of this whole story: Keep a sharp lookout for your government in action - they will attempt to jump into your private business with every change in the wind.

First - sorry for the horrible spelling in my previous post It was typed quickly while I was busy with other items.

Now, just to play the devils advocate.

The school I used to have my kids in had a parents group. The parents group started a babysitting time service. Some of these people were indeed friends. But others only knew each other in passing from the school, and if not for the parents group, would never have met. Where does this situation fall.

Here is another one. I used to have to pay the school $50 at the start of the year. Then throughout the year I had to work 5 lunch periods as a lunchtime playground monitor - each lunch I worked, I got $10 back. If I did not work, then some other parent would, and if they wanted they could get an extra $10. Should I be taxed for working the lunch period. If no, then how is that different than if they tacked an extra $50 on the tution instead of carving it out as a seperate line item?

This whole thing only serves to solidify my distaste for income tax in the first place.

-dave

[drew]

This whole thing only serves to solidify my distaste for income tax in the first place.

The same problems can arise with any type of tax (service or sales tax). There will always be grey areas.

Granted, I'd prefer not to have income tax, either...but not for this reason.