# Are separated divorced dads the biggest losers of budget 2014



## supertramp (24 Oct 2013)

It looks like separated/divorced dads are set to lose €2,490 in 2014 - and there has hardly been  a word about it.

Is there any other group who have lost 200 per month as a result of budget changes?

I heard the health insurance industry nearly having a heart attack because health insurance might rise by €100 over the year - ie €8 per month

The media keeps saying separated / divorced dads have lost 1650 - but we have actually lost 2490 as the standard tax band has been reduced by 4000 so this is an extra 840 loss for high rate tax payers.


That is such an impact on fathers who look after their kids  = pay maintenance and also have to pay for a second home. I heard it been abolished because there has been abuse but divorced people have had their finances arranged by the courts
Will we see them rush back to the courts to re negotiate maintenance payments?


One initiative that would alleviate this situation for genuine cases would be to extend tax relief to legally enforced kids maintenance payments - how could we propose this change?


----------



## kateball (27 Oct 2013)

I had a look at this change as I know a few people in your situation. Yes it looks like you will lose over €2,490 net next year - if you are a high rate tax payer.

I havent seen this in any of the Budget coverage either - but unfortunately if the Finance Bill is passed you will lose  €200 a month from January.  The media might pick up this story if you can make them aware of it - or the Opposition parties?


----------



## gianni (27 Oct 2013)

Why was it there in the first place? 

I'm not asking in a snide way, I'm genuinely curious as I never knew of it's existence as I'm not in that situation.


----------



## mandelbrot (27 Oct 2013)

gianni said:


> Why was it there in the first place?
> 
> I'm not asking in a snide way, I'm genuinely curious as I never knew of it's existence as I'm not in that situation.


 
The rationale was that separated parents, who both maintain the kids, are financially in a worse position than a married/cohabiting couple, so they were both entitled to claim the one parent family tax credit. The change is that from now on, only the primary carer will be entitled to it. 

Unfortunately it was quite widely abused, as many people continued to claim it even after they had shacked up with a new partner.


----------



## supertramp (27 Oct 2013)

I can understand why people might say why was it there in the first place. And yes I am sure some people who claimed it didnt deserve it and thats why its being withdrawn. (We could say the exact same thing about childrens allowance!)

To be fair to the thousands of genuine cases who are going to be so much worse off next year -  they should ease these credits out gradually - not hit us with a net loss of €200 per month. I'm sure most people would feel very hard hit with an immediate €200 drop in monthly net pay. 

Another problem is this change is so drastic it may well force many separated / divorced people back to the courts to rearrange maintenance agreements, as these are all based on net take home pay. The thought of trying to negotiate all that over again would be extremely stressful for all parties.


Something like a 3 year phasing in period would have allowed everyone to get used to the drop in net income  - and that would be fair to all concerned.


----------



## orka (28 Oct 2013)

supertramp said:


> And yes I am sure some people who claimed it didnt deserve it and thats why its being withdrawn. (We could say the exact same thing about childrens allowance!)


There's a big difference between claiming something (children's allowance) that you might not absolutely need but are 100% entitled to, and fraudulently claiming for something that you are not entitled to...


----------



## supertramp (28 Oct 2013)

orka said:


> There's a big difference between claiming something (children's allowance) that you might not absolutely need but are 100% entitled to, and fraudulently claiming for something that you are not entitled to...



Thanks for this really helpful contribution to the debate!


----------



## STEINER (28 Oct 2013)

supertramp said:


> Something like a 3 year phasing in period would have allowed everyone to get used to the drop in net income  - and that would be fair to all concerned.



People who lose their jobs in the recession don't have 3 years to get used to the drop in net income.


----------



## Sunny (28 Oct 2013)

STEINER said:


> People who lose their jobs in the recession don't have 3 years to get used to the drop in net income.



What has that got to with anything? There are probably single fathers out there who have taken huge pay cuts and now lose this credit so really don't understand the point you were to make.


----------



## mandelbrot (28 Oct 2013)

STEINER said:


> People who lose their jobs in the recession don't have 3 years to get used to the drop in net income.



That's a ridiculous statement to make - this thread is about a Govt policy via a budget change, that's hitting separated fathers for €200 a month, not the vagaries of market forces.

There are plenty of examples of a change like that being phased in - like the rent tax credit being phased out over several years.


----------



## 110quests (28 Oct 2013)

Hi, I know a person who will be affected by this ridiculous change and noticed it on Budget day. I emailed several TDs including Minister for Finance. I got stock replies from all except one TD who was working on looking for some backtracking on it as he is involved with a group for separated and single fathers. However, as we know the finance bill was passed in Dail so no benefit came from his efforts. I also contacted RTE as I thought it had received insufficient analysis, but they said it had been discussed. I did hear a further discussion later, but the Government was not for turning, as we know. Perhaps the Press could high light it again but as the people effected by it are not a strong lobbying group I doubt anyone will pay heed. Budget policy seemed directed in this way so that there were several smaller sections of society targeted, Government knowing they are not organised to lobby or protest ie maternity leave cut, reduced relief on Health Ins, Medical card holders, pension capped subscribers, etc. To me, this alteration is a backward, last century type ruling, pushing the role of single fathers into a different era, by denying them of some assistance in their duties and responsibilities towards their children.


----------



## supertramp (28 Oct 2013)

Thanks 110quests
I agree with all your comments - I will organize some reminders out to the media this week as even the journalists who gave it some very little coverage didnt get  the facts right.  The Irish Times and Indo both said single fathers would lose 1650 tax credit but didnt mention if you happened to be a high rate tax payer you will be hit with an additional 840 loss. Now lets face it you dont have to earn much in this country to be a high rate tax payer -  yet the lowest paid high rate tax payer stands to lose €2,490. 
A single budget measure like this should not target a small group of people with such a massive hit in one go.


----------



## Purple (29 Oct 2013)

mandelbrot said:


> The rationale was that separated parents, who both maintain the kids, are financially in a worse position than a married/cohabiting couple, so they were both entitled to claim the one parent family tax credit. The change is that from now on, only the primary carer will be entitled to it.
> 
> Unfortunately it was quite widely abused, as many people continued to claim it even after they had shacked up with a new partner.



What about when the primary care giver (it seems to be assumed that its the mother) shacks up with someone else? Then the father gets nothing, even though he's single, and the mother keeps the tax credit even though she's not single. What a sexist piece of legislation. I assume ivana Bacik etc will take this up... since they are so interested in equality and all.


----------



## Dachshund (29 Oct 2013)

Purple said:


> What about when the primary care giver (it seems  to be assumed that its the mother) shacks up with someone else? Then the  father gets nothing, even though he's single, and the mother keeps the  tax credit even though she's not single.



You can't be cohabiting to avail of the tax credit. 

The revenue page has not been updated to account for the Budget but the qualifying criteria are outlined on [broken link removed].


----------



## Purple (29 Oct 2013)

Dachshund said:


> You can't be cohabiting to avail of the tax credit.
> 
> The revenue page has not been updated to account for the Budget but the qualifying criteria are outlined on [broken link removed].



And do you think that most people volunteer that information?


----------



## Dachshund (29 Oct 2013)

Purple said:


> And do you think that most people volunteer that information?



That's why cohabitants are often reported to revenue/social welfare. 

Currently the legislation is not sexist and most legislation is framed in gender neutral terms.


----------



## Purple (30 Oct 2013)

Dachshund said:


> That's why cohabitants are often reported to revenue/social welfare.
> 
> Currently the legislation is not sexist and most legislation is framed in gender neutral terms.



I think "sometimes" would be a better word herethan "often". You could add that Revenue then sometimes do something about it.

Both parents share the financial burden of looking after their children. They do this by agreement and/or through the courts. Why penalise one parent? As we all know the mother is usually the primary care giver as the courts usually favour the mother, which is sexist. Therefore this legislation is sexist in its application. So much for equality. If a piece of legislation favoured men in this way there would be uproar from women and rightly so but it seems that some are more equal than others.


----------



## orka (30 Oct 2013)

I don't understand your point.  The legislation IS gender neutral - if the primary care giver is the father, he gets the allowance.  The fact that courts (and very often couples themselves) decide that the mother is the primary care giver seems to be your issue - but that is independent of this legislation.  The couple/courts decide the finances so there will probably be a reallocation of the impact of the change - there's no legislation or rules to say that the non-primary care giver must take the full net impact of this.


----------



## supertramp (30 Oct 2013)

orka said:


> The couple/courts decide the finances so there will probably be a reallocation of the impact of the change - there's no legislation or rules to say that the non-primary care giver must take the full net impact of this.



Not sure what you mean - the Finance Act has never distinguished between primary and secondary carer until now. Of course the non-primary carer will take the full impact and in most cases that will be the fathers. 

This will drive couples back to the courts as most people affected by this are men - you cant expect the primary carer (who in most cases will be the mother) to reduce her net pay and give up some of her income because her ex has been screwed by this ridiculous legislation. And why should she ?

Many fathers will lose over €200 net a month from January -  all but the very wealthy could ignore this hit.This legislation will drive many couples back to the courts or into mediation to renegotiate maintenance payments which are based on net income.  Thats why there is a lot of anger out there.


----------



## orka (30 Oct 2013)

supertramp said:


> ...Of course the non-primary carer will take the full impact and in most cases that will be the fathers. ...This legislation will drive many couples back to the courts or into mediation to renegotiate maintenance payments which are based on net income.


You're pretty much agreeing with what I said - there's no requirement for the non-primary care giver to take the full net impact of this (net here meaning after reallocation of resources between the couple).  Whether it's through mediation, the courts or by mutual agreement, the reality that the couple's combined resources are down by €200 per month will need to be reflected in revised maintenance agreements.

Would you have been happier if the allowance was halved for each person?  So the overall impact would be the same but there would be no need for messy renegotiation of maintenance etc.?


----------



## Purple (30 Oct 2013)

orka said:


> Would you have been happier if the allowance was halved for each person?  So the overall impact would be the same but there would be no need for messy renegotiation of maintenance etc.?


 yes. That would be fair and gender neutral. Legislation that will negatively impact one gender far more than the other is sexist, even if it is not gender specific.


----------



## supertramp (31 Oct 2013)

orka said:


> You're pretty much agreeing with what I said - there's no requirement for the non-primary care giver to take the full net impact of this (net here meaning after reallocation of resources between the couple). Whether it's through mediation, the courts or by mutual agreement, the reality that the couple's combined resources are down by €200 per month will need to be reflected in revised maintenance agreements.
> 
> Would you have been happier if the allowance was halved for each person? So the overall impact would be the same but there would be no need for messy renegotiation of maintenance etc.?


 
Yes - the Finance Bill should and could have split this credit. The couple are no longer a couple  - so the idea that they will somehow split a tax credit is not a runner(ie our exwives dont really think like that!)
Even if they did its probably not sustainable as the Revenue have brought in emotive terms like primary carer and secondary carers.

So not only do we find ourselves down a packet every month -  this disgraceful legislation  has rebranded  us as secondary carers! As though we dont care as much about our kids as the mothers!

Disgraceful!


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2013)

supertramp said:


> Yes - the Finance Bill should and could have split this credit. The couple are no longer a couple  - so the idea that they will somehow split a tax credit is not a runner(ie our exwives dont really think like that!)
> Even if they did its probably not sustainable as the Revenue have brought in emotive terms like primary carer and secondary carers.
> 
> So not only do we find ourselves down a packet every month -  this disgraceful legislation  has rebranded  us as secondary carers! As though we dont care as much about our kids as the mothers!
> ...



Men are second class citizens when it comes to family law issues. There is hardly a even a token veneer of equality in theory and none in practice.


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2013)

orka said:


> I don't understand your point.  The legislation IS gender neutral - if the primary care giver is the father, he gets the allowance.  The fact that courts (and very often couples themselves) decide that the mother is the primary care giver seems to be your issue - but that is independent of this legislation.  The couple/courts decide the finances so there will probably be a reallocation of the impact of the change - there's no legislation or rules to say that the non-primary care giver must take the full net impact of this.



Legislation that is framed in a gender neutral way but impacts disproportionately on one gender is sexist.

If legislation was introduced which negatively impacted on people who lived in caravans it would have a disproportionate impact on members of the travelling community, even if they were not specifically mentioned in that legislation.
There was a time in Northern Ireland when only property owners could  vote in local elections. While not sectarian in theory it was in practice. You see the pattern?


----------



## supertramp (4 Nov 2013)

I mailed a number of Ministers last week and received the following positive reply from one senior Minister who seemed to understand the injustice :

_I have expressed concerns to my colleague Michael Noonan TD, that the change as now proposed could have the unintended consequence of excluding availability of the tax credit entirely to separated/single parent families, for example where the parent paying child support is not the primary carer and the parent who is does not have a taxable income. I understand that he is now considering appropriate amendments to the Finance Bill.  I am passing on to him your communication to me for his information. _

So we shall await the Finance Act..............


----------



## supertramp (7 Nov 2013)

As per Irish Times today -  the Finance Bill will be amended as follows:

_The budget provision relating to the one-parent family tax credit is to be amended, Minister for Finance __has said._
_He told the Dáil yesterday that he had announced its abolition and replacement with a new single parent child carer credit in the budget and section 7 of the Finance Bill, introduced yesterday, provided for the change._
_“Since the announcement was made, I have listened carefully to the views of deputies and will be bringing forward an amendment to this section at committee stage, which will allow the credit to be used by a non-primary carer in situations where the primary carer has no tax liability,” he added._

Despite this amendment I am not sure this will alleviate the situation for many fathers. Even where the mother has a tiny tax liability - the father will still be €2,490 worse off.  

This massive drop in income will force many to renegotiate maintenance payment arrangements. What a disgraceful way to treat a minority group.


----------



## kateball (8 Nov 2013)

Am not sure that you have that right - I heard they are going to change the legislation to limit the impact of this change to those people abusing the system. 
I dont think anyone will be worse off than €200 a month.  Anyway we havent seen the final version of the finance bill.


----------



## SarahMc (8 Nov 2013)

kateball said:


> Am not sure that you have that right - I heard they are going to change the legislation to limit the impact of this change to those people abusing the system.
> I dont think anyone will be worse off than €200 a month. Anyway we havent seen the final version of the finance bill.


That's my reading and hearing of it on the ground too.


----------



## munky (4 Dec 2013)

Hi all, has there been any change to this, or am I still going to be down €50 a week from January?


----------



## Nige (4 Dec 2013)

the current version of the Bill allows the non-custodian parent to get the credit if the other parent agrees to relinquish it AND the child(ren) are with them for at least 100 days a year.


----------



## stephnyc (4 Dec 2013)

Nige said:


> if the other parent agrees to relinquish it


 
well at least it has been well thought through - separated/divorced couples are well known for their amicable nature when it comes to money & children


----------



## Purple (4 Dec 2013)

stephnyc said:


> well at least it has been well thought through - separated/divorced couples are well known for their amicable nature when it comes to money & children



That's what I was thinking.


----------



## aoc (4 Dec 2013)

_the current version of the Bill allows the non-custodian parent to get  the credit if the other parent agrees to relinquish it AND the  child(ren) are with them for at least 100 days a year - 

_In relation to this point - and from reading a lot of the posts, i would like to point out that not all ex-wives are out to get what they can and that some separations are amicable....!!
I am losing my job at end of December - so will be even more reliant in part on the v. small amt of maintenance that my ex. gives me - so in this situation why would i give him my extra credits, he wont give me €5 extra...... so there are two sides to all of this....in my case he refuses to pay our mortgage, so no sorry no negotiating for me.....


----------



## chrisboy (4 Dec 2013)

aoc said:


> _the current version of the Bill allows the non-custodian parent to get  the credit if the other parent agrees to relinquish it AND the  child(ren) are with them for at least 100 days a year -
> 
> _In relation to this point - and from reading a lot of the posts, i would like to point out that not all ex-wives are out to get what they can and that some separations are amicable....!!
> I am losing my job at end of December - so will be even more reliant in part on the v. small amt of maintenance that my ex. gives me - so in this situation why would i give him my extra credits, he wont give me €5 extra...... so there are two sides to all of this....in my case he refuses to pay our mortgage, so no sorry no negotiating for me.....



And that there just typifies one the problems with this new tax credit. You're losing you're job, have no need for this credit, but refuse to give it to your ex. So it will be lost back to the govt. coffers. And yours is an amicable separation! Brilliant!


----------



## supertramp (5 Dec 2013)

i heard today this is going through with the new amendment that isnt workable between estranged couples who manage their tax affairs separately. 
Labour Party TDs will vote this through without question.They are more concerned about same sex marriage referendums than kids from separated families. 
This will see hundreds of families €2500 net worse off - yet  there were no tax increases in the Budget?


----------



## aoc (6 Dec 2013)

chrisboy said:


> And that there just typifies one the problems with this new tax credit. You're losing you're job, have no need for this credit, but refuse to give it to your ex. So it will be lost back to the govt. coffers. And yours is an amicable separation! Brilliant!




my ex has left me struggling to pay the entire mortgage and with a pittance of maintenance....... yes, i am losing my job, but if i get one in a short period of time but have given him the credit -where does that leave me!???? 
You have assumed that i will have no need for this credit....... and your attitude is exactly the reason why some women would rather let it waste than give it to an ex to be perfectly honest!


----------



## chrisboy (6 Dec 2013)

aoc said:


> my ex has left me struggling to pay the entire mortgage and with a pittance of maintenance....... yes, i am losing my job, but if i get one in a short period of time but have given him the credit -where does that leave me!????
> You have assumed that i will have no need for this credit....... and your attitude is exactly the reason why some women would rather let it waste than give it to an ex to be perfectly honest!



My attitude has nothing to do with it. Perhaps you shoud think of your kids, you've lost your job, and you are also cutting your ex's income by 200 a month on the basis that you "might" get a job! The govt. and revenue are laughing at us! In reality, your case is exactly how i believe most cases will be, it wont actually be revenue who decides on the tax allowance, its now the mother! The figures next year are going to be very interesting. What percentage of fathers will get this allowance compared to the percentage of allowances that arent actually claimed because of the spite of the mother?


----------



## aoc (6 Dec 2013)

It absolutely does - i do not consider myself spiteful, but in wont be handing over my credits  - yes I 'might' get a job as you put it, I will be trying damn hard to get one, I am the one left paying his debts!

What % of fathers pay little or nothing towards maintaining their kids - and these are 
still the ones that will be looking for the credit!!!!!!!


----------



## supertramp (8 Dec 2013)

*simple solution*

The fathers who are subject to legally enforced maintenance payments should continue to get the tax credit - thats only fair and reasonable.  And very easy for the Revenue to administer as they have all the records already.

That would ensure we dont have to go back to our ex wives begging them for a tax credit = could you imagine the response!!!?

As of now we are looking at equivalent of a 5,000 drop in gross income -not a nice thought coming up to Xmas.....................


----------



## kateball (8 Dec 2013)

aoc said:


> It absolutely does - i do not consider myself spiteful, but in wont be handing over my credits  - yes I 'might' get a job as you put it, I will be trying damn hard to get one, I am the one left paying his debts!
> 
> What % of fathers pay little or nothing towards maintaining their kids - and these are
> still the ones that will be looking for the credit!!!!!!!



AOC
We should send your replies to the Minister of Finance to prove how unworkable this legislation is - I dont know of any separated couples who want to involve each other in their tax affairs again!
If Supertramps numbers are correct, why isnt uproar about this -no one can afford to take a 5000 drop in salary. 
Will the Labour Party vote for this or has it already been passed?


----------



## ironman (9 Dec 2013)

It's not a €5,000 drop in salary. The *maximum *it can be is €2,490 for someone who pays 41% tax.   The credit is €1,650 and the additional rate band is worth €840 - i.e.  €4,000 @ additional 21% = €840.


----------



## supertramp (10 Dec 2013)

ironman said:


> It's not a €5,000 drop in salary. The *maximum *it can be is €2,490 for someone who pays 41% tax.   The credit is €1,650 and the additional rate band is worth €840 - i.e.  €4,000 @ additional 21% = €840.




Im no tax expert but if you are a high rate tax payer and you lose €2490 net of tax - is that not the same as your boss knocking 5000 off your gross salary?? No difference as far as i can see - its a massive loss for most separated dads - dont you agree??


----------



## supertramp (9 Jan 2014)

Just got my 2014 tax free allowance cert - confirmation of worst fears
Tax credit down by 1650 and standard threshold down by 4000 - equivalent loss of 5000 gross income

gonna be a tough year - what a shame  labour in government doesnt look after minorities


----------



## gonegirl (10 Jan 2014)

I got my first payslip of the year last Friday and was down €48. tried ringing Revenue but hanging on for ages.  has anyone applied for the new credit yet?


----------

