# Individualisation is here



## Madonna (6 Dec 2001)

I'm absolutely hopping mad, I feel like burning my bra'.:mad 

I'm goin' to keep editing this post so as to keep it top of the pile.  In the end AAM contributors will be treated to the full strip show, unless the Taliban Moderators intervene. 


Remember all the furore about individualisation?

Well, Charlie wasn't goin' to let that stop him.

Indvidualisation is here <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START-->big time.<!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END-->:mad  

Two dinkies get €56,000 at standard rate.  
A responsible family oriented single income couple get €37,000 at standard and oh, I almost forgot, €770 for the hubby minding the kids.

Where is Angel Expert Connell now?  I though he was against this assault on family values.

Has anybody noticed that Charlie, nearly losing his job over this one, has got his way in the end?

The fact that much of the cabinet have no respect for family values might have something to do with it.

Notice the little bit in Charlies' speech about how he does not favour the wealthy.  Well, to my old fashioned mind, the only people who should be earning double incomes are those that can't afford to live on a single income.  But individualistaion does nothing for these as they are below the top rate of tax anyway.

Remember the argument for Individualisation.  The Tiger needed menfolk to get back into the workforce.  The Tiger is DEAD.  Charlie seems to be in denial.


How many of the Cabinet benefit from Individualisation?

What about Mary and her newly acquired Home Carer?

When Fianna Fail call to your door next year don't slam it in their face before you ask them one or more of the following questions.

Why are you destroying the family through individualisation?

Why did you bury Kevin Barry a second time?

Why do you provide succour for Charlie (the really bad one), Rambo and Leemo?

I'm voting Sinn Fein. :mad


----------



## tedd (6 Dec 2001)

Hi Madonna,

I support individualisation and I am glad that McCreevey pursued his plan because I think a lot of people agree with him, but are afraid to speak out because it somehow makes them "anti-family".

"Two dinkies get €56,000 at standard rate. A responsible family oriented single income couple get €37,000 at standard and oh, I almost forgot, €770 for the hubby minding the kids."

What I think is sometimes forgotten is that a lot of equally responsible, equally family orientated DOUBLE income families benefit, too. But they are so busily occupied with working and bringing up their kids that they don't have time to ring Marian Finucane et al to justify their lifestyle choices.  

Regards,
tedd


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Dec 2001)

*How much does individualisation cost?*

Married one income and Married two incomes get the same Married person's tax credit of €3040

So a married person with one income will pay additional tax of € 3410

€ 4180        [22% of ( 56,000 - 37,000)]

less

€  770         ( home carer's credit)

Is this correct?


----------



## Madonna (6 Dec 2001)

*Fuming*

Yes <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ Boss_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, I have now thrown my jeans into the fire.:mad


----------



## Madonna (6 Dec 2001)

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ Tedd_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->,

Nearly missed your obnoxious contribution.  There goes my stockings. 

This "individualisation" thing was presented as a necessary expedient to feed the ravaging Celtic Tiger.  The Tiger has totally lost its appetite.  Unemployment is rising.  What we need now like a hole in the head is to encourage househusbands to grab more of a ever diminishing demand for labour.  The circumstances are changed - utterly changed.

Hubby had a good job in Garbage Disposal, I insisted that he give it up and look after the little blighters.  Now we find ourselves cruelly discriminated against, hubby can't get a job.  Garbage Disposal has moved on, techniques have changed, he is utterly unemployable.  

We have been cheated.

Individualisation is selfish, greedy, evil and not even economically justified in a scenario of decaying Tiger flesh.  But Charlie had to get his way - that humiliitaion of 1999 was never forgotten.  Thankfully, hopefully, this is Charlie's last budget:mad


----------



## Toby (6 Dec 2001)

*.*

Madonna,

With your jeans, bra and stockings all in the fire I think it appropriate that Charlie introduce a new environmental tax to prevent further pollution of the air. 
This tax should be levied only on single income couples.


----------



## UDS (6 Dec 2001)

*Re: .*

I’m with Madonna on this.  Whether a couple choose for both of them  to work outside the home or for just one of them to work outside the home is a choice which they should make, based on their own needs, resources and wishes.  It is no business of Charlie McCreevy’s which choice they make, and he has no right to reward one choice and penalise the other through the tax system.

Individualisation is in practice an anti-woman measure.  Previously, those who have the choice of working in the home or going out to work could put their tax allowances to use regardless of which choice they made.  Now they only get their full tax allowances if they choose to go out to work.  Clearly their freedom of choice has been constrained.  Most of those who suffer in this way will be women.  Why is Charlie McCreevy attacking the women of Ireland in this way?  Why are the women of Ireland standing for it?

And what about those who <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ cannot_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> go out to work?  The chronically ill?  The disabled?  Their “individualised” tax allowances can no longer be used for the benefit of the family.  A one-income family now pays substantially more tax than a two-income family <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ with precisely the same family income_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->.  How can this possibly be a good idea?  How can it even be a moral idea?

The “need to increase the pool of labour” justification was always thin and, as Madonna has pointed out, is evaporating fast.  I think myself that the real reason for this stupid and ill-thought-out measure was Charlie McCreevy’s pique at being taxed for many years as a single man, unable to make use of the non-transferrable tax allowances of his non-marital partner.  He feels discriminated against, and he doesn’t see why married couples should have advantages denied to him and his partner.  So he’s trying to eliminate them.


----------



## Tommy (6 Dec 2001)

*Re: .*

On the other hand, before individualisation there was an inherent unfairness in the tax system in that it never recognised that an individual who goes out to work every morning (as opposed to staying at home to mind kids or whatever) faces costs such as transport, eating out, good clothes etc which are not deductible against tax. These costs are avoidable if a person decided not to work, for whatever reason.

If you choose to work outside the home, it stands to reason that the tax system compensates you, directly or indirectly, for these costs. I believe individualisation has done that.


----------



## tedd (6 Dec 2001)

*Re: Individualisation*

Sorry you find my opinion obnoxious, Madonna.

Double income couples have suffered for many years, usually the female half who is more likely to work in a lesser paid job. In practice, she has been punitively taxed on almost all of her earnings. By the time the couple pays for childcare and the expenses associated with two individuals working and then the tax hit, there was often not much left. I think this is unfair and I perceive THIS to be anti-woman.

If one member of a couple chooses to stay home and raise the children for whatever number of years, that is a lifestyle choice. I respect people who make that choice. It has a lot of value and benefits both for the children and the parents. But I don't think that justifies people who work outside the home being denied the right to be taxed fairly on what they earn. After all work outside the home is a purely ECONOMIC transaction for which they deserve to derive full economic benefit. People who choose to stay at home to raise their families are not making a purely economic choice, but one influenced by a number of other factors as well. 

regards,
tedd


----------



## UDS (6 Dec 2001)

*Re: .*

Hi Tommy

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ "If you choose to work outside the home, it stands to reason that the tax system compensates you, directly or indirectly, for these costs. I believe individualisation has done that."_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Not at all.  Individualisation has done nothing for couples who were <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ already_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> both working, and of course it does nothing for single people who work.  And it does nothing for low-income couples, or unmarried couples.  And the amount of tax which you save through individualisation is in no way related to any work-connected expenses you may have.  Nor does it pretend to be.

You are arguing, I think, for an earned income allowance, available to all who work outside the home, to compensate them for the additional expenses they incur by working - a bit like the PAYE allowance but (presumably) larger, and available to the self-employed as well.

You can argue against this.  Your <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ wages_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> should cover you for the cost of working, and the state should not subsidise employment in this way (i.e. at the expense of those not in employment).  But even if you think an earned income allowance is appropriate, individualisation of tax bands is nothing like an earned income allowance.


----------



## UDS (6 Dec 2001)

*Re: .*

Hi tedd

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “Double income couples have suffered for many years, usually the female half who is more likely to work in a lesser paid job. In practice, she has been punitively taxed on almost all of her earnings.”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Tedd, that was because she elected for joint assessment and allowed her husband to benefit from her tax allowances.  That was her choice, and if it didn’t suit her she could arrange matters differently.  She could also choose to stay at home, elect for joint assessment, and allow her husband benefit from her tax allowances – a rational choice to make since, as a non-earning spouse, she would be dependent on his earnings and therefore had an interest in maximising his earnings.

Now these choices are denied her.  If she works, she must use the tax allowance herself and if (which you concede is “more likely”) she works in a lesser paid job and does not make full use of her tax allowance, well, we punish her for that by withdrawing her right to transfer it to her spouse.  And if she stays at home, we punish her for <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ that_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> by withdrawing her right to transfer her tax allowance.  We are withdrawing her rights and limiting her choices.  We are not offering her anything new at all to compensate.  How is this a pro-woman move?

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “If one member of a couple chooses to stay home and raise the children for whatever number of years, that is a lifestyle choice. I respect people who make that choice. It has a lot of value and benefits both for the children and the parents. But I don't think that justifies people who work outside the home being denied the right to be taxed fairly on what they earn. After all work outside the home is a purely ECONOMIC transaction for which they deserve to derive full economic benefit. People who choose to stay at home to raise their families are not making a purely economic choice, but one influenced by a number of other factors as well.”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Tedd, Madonna and I agree with everything you say here.  The point is that people should be taxed under the same rules regardless of what choice they make in this regard.  That used to be the case.  It no longer is.  When individualisation was introduced McCreevy was quite frank in saying that his purpose was to encourage non-working spouses to return to the paid workforce.  He does this by taxing households more heavily if one spouse stays at home than if both go out to work. In other words, by biassing the tax system he seeks to distort the choice which couples would make, if they were to make the choice entirely with regard to their own welfare.  Far from increasing peoples freedom in decision making, he is seeking to reduce it and he is quite open about this.


----------



## Mary (6 Dec 2001)

*Hi ho Hi ho...*

Madonna said...
"Well, to my old fashioned mind, the only people who should be earning double incomes are those that can't afford to live on a single income. But individualistaion does nothing for these as they are below the top rate of tax anyway."

My family, and many others I know can't afford to live on a single income, even if that person is on the higher tax bracket.  The sociological makeup of Ireland has changed in the past 5 years, the majority of couples/families who became first time house buyers during that time must have dual incomes.  Like it or like it not, young women work outside the home.  I don't like it, I feel robbed of choice, but this is the road we, as a society have chosen to go down so I'll have to lump it.


----------



## CM (6 Dec 2001)

*Debate*

Brendan - surely this topic is one for the great debates forum given that many of the contributions seem to be based more on opinions than facts? :rolleyes


----------



## not smug (6 Dec 2001)

*married v single men and women!*

"I think myself that the real reason for this stupid and ill-thought-out measure was Charlie McCreevy’s pique at being taxed for many years as a single man, unable to make use of the non-transferrable tax allowances of his non-marital partner"

UDS, do you know for sure that his non-marital partner (your point is very smug, I shall presume therefore that you are indeed one of the smug marrieds - forgive me Brigid jones) was (a) not working and (b)that she was not earning more than him?  

Smug marrieds, we've had our fill of ye!

Single but not desperate!


----------



## CM (6 Dec 2001)

*married v single men and women!*

I had missed that contribution by UDS but am amazed by it. I presume your tongue was firmly in your cheek when you wrote that UDS?


----------



## tedd (6 Dec 2001)

*Re: married v single men and women!*

I didn't miss it, but chose to ignore it. Equally, Madonna's little jibe about Mary Harney's recent marriage was beneath a bra-burning feminist like her.

tedd


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Dec 2001)

*Re: married v single men and women!*

Hi CM

This is a great debate by any standard. However, I think it is better to leave it here as it is so Budget related.

Brendan


----------



## tedd (6 Dec 2001)

*Re: married v single men and women!*

Hi UDS,

"The point is that people should be taxed under the same rules regardless of what choice they make in this regard. That used to be the case. It no longer is."  

But my point is, I disagree with this. In my view, this policy  discriminates against double-income couples and single people who pay tax. 

tedd


----------



## UDS (6 Dec 2001)

*Re: married v single men and women!*

Hi guys

Soothing noises all round if my comments about Charlie McCreevy touched raw nerves.  It was a bit cheeky, I suppose.

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “UDS, do you know for sure that his non-marital partner . . . . was (a) not working and (b)that she was not earning more than him?”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

A fair question.  I don’t know whether she was working, and I don’t know whether she was earning more than him.  But, on the latter point, it doesn’t matter what she might have earned relative to him. What matters is that they would have been disadvantaged relative to a married couple unless they were both earning enough to make full use of their respective tax allowances and tax bands.

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “I shall presume therefore that you are indeed one of the smug marrieds”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

I’ve been on both sides of the fence here – or should I say all three sides?  My partner and I lived together unmarried for a time.  This was in pre-individualisation days, my partner wasn’t earning, and we were much more heavily taxed than a married couple would have been.  Then we married, and elected for joint assessment.  (We didn’t marry in order to be jointly assessed, I hasten to add.)  We were still a one-income family. Now my partner <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ is_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> working, and earning enough to absorb the non-transferrable allowances.  And we’re paying childcare costs, and getting no tax deduction.  So the short answer to your implied question is that I am not myself adversely affected by individualisation, and my criticism of it is not based on self-interest but on the fact that I think it’s not good public policy, it’s policitally and socially regressive, it seeks to limit personal freedom and choice and it’s discriminatory against single-income couples.

There is a point to my perhaps not quite fair comments about McCreevy’s personal experiences.  In general, I do see his tax policies as being heavily influenced by the perspectives and experiences of the middle-class self-employed professional group from which he comes.  The very low CGT rates, for example, favour those who have disposable income to invest, and the financial sophistication and confidence to invest directly in real assets.   And who are they likely to be?  The ARF provisions introduced in pension schemes were quite openly tailor-made for business proprietors, and indeed are still largely available only to that group.  Despite what he said at the time, McCreevy seems to have lost interest in making the changes to the ARF provisions which need to be made if they are to be extended to other workers.  As for individualisation of tax bands, I don’t know whether McCreevy and his partner were actually worse off under the old system than a married couple, or whether she earned enough to absorb all her tax allowances, but as an accountant and a person in a non-marital relatiionship he would have been very aware of  the issue.  The “labour market” explanation for individualisation was always thin and is getting thinner, and I cannot but feel that the changes are partly motivated by the fact that McCreevy simply disliked, for whatever reason, the old system whereby married couples could freely transfer their tax allowances between themselves.

Hi tedd

“In my view, this policy discriminates against double-income couples and single people who pay tax.”

You’ve said this before, but you don’t say <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ why_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> you think it’s discriminatory.  Under the system Madonna and I favour, a couple with a given aggregate income will pay the same tax regardless of whether they earn that income through one job or through two.  I consider that to be a system which does not discriminate between single-income and double-income couples.  You, obviously, think it does discriminate, but why?  I’m genuinely puzzled.


----------



## tedd (7 Dec 2001)

*Re: married v single men and women!*

Hi UDS,
I think it discriminates because individuals who do not pay income tax (eg people who choose not to work outside the home) are benefitting at the expense of individuals who do. I believe choosing not to work is exactly that, a choice. In recent years, I would go so far as to say that I believe it is a luxury. I don't think I, as a taxpayer, should have to subsidise their choice.

regards,
tedd


----------



## Guy Ritchie (7 Dec 2001)

*the plot thickens...*

UDS, what is the story with answering on Madonna's behalf? That's twice now. Is there something we should know? Is Maddy the new Mrs. UDS or is it just a living in sin thing? 

PS you better tell her not to be "hopping mad"....now she's burned her bra, she could injure herself!


----------



## UDS (7 Dec 2001)

*Re: the plot thickens...*

Hi tedd

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “I think it discriminates because individuals who do not pay income tax (eg people who choose not to work outside the home) are benefitting at the expense of individuals who do.”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

How can you say that the single-income couple is benefitting at the expense of the double-income couple if both pay the same tax on the same income?

(Incidentally, “individuals who do not pay income tax” and “people who choose not to work outside the home” are not the same group.  I can choose not to work outside the home but enjoy a thumping great investment income – indeed, that may be <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ why_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> I can choose not to work outside the home.  Will I be a winner or a loser under individualisation?  A winner, obvirously.  I can use my non-transferrable allowances against my investment income.)

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “I believe choosing not to work is exactly that, a choice. In recent years, I would go so far as to say that I believe it is a luxury.”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

It’s <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ usually_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> a choice.  There are those – the disabled, for example – who have no choice.

But if follows, I think you’ll agree, that choosing to work is also a choice.  Nobody is compelled to work – that’s called slavery, and it’s been outlawed in this country since 1834.  Logically, not to work cannot be a choice unless working is also a choice.  In truth, there is only one choice – between working and not working.  People choose to work, for the most part, because that is the choice which will best enable them to lead the kind of life they want to lead – they need the money to pay the mortgage, they find work socially fulfilling, they like the challenge, they want to afford two holidays a year and run two cars, whatever.  They shouldn’t have to justify their choice to anybody.  Others choose not to work because it enables <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ them_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> to lead the kind of life <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ they_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> want to lead – they want to spend more time with their young children, they want to study full-time, their partner’s work involves travelling and they have to choose between staying with their partner and taking a job, whatever. It is not for Charlie McCreevy to say which is the “right” choice for anyone (except Charlie McCreevy, of course).

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “I don't think I, as a taxpayer, should have to subsidise their choice.”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

I agree.  Nor should they have to subsidise your choice.  The only way that can be achieved is for the choice to be tax-neutral – i.e. your tax should not depend on whether you choose to be a one-income couple or a two-income couple. It is individualisation which involves those who make one choice (and those who have no choice at all) subsidsing those who make the opposite choice.

Hi, Guy Ritchie

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “Is Maddy the new Mrs. UDS”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Well, you should know!


----------



## tedd (7 Dec 2001)

*the plot thickens...*

How can you say that the single-income couple is benefitting at the expense of the double-income couple if both pay the same tax on the same income?

Because the expense involved in two people going out to work is greater than if just one does, so at the end of the month an equal salary, less the same tax and double the work-related expenses, leaves the couple in which both individuals work worse off.  


"“individuals who do not pay income tax” and “people who choose not to work outside the home” are not the same group."

I mean individuals who do not pay income tax because they choose not to work. People who work from home in some capacity which generates income "work". (I used the term "work outside the home" to indicate paid employment.) The independently wealthy with "a thumping great investment income" pay tax (or at least have a tax liability!) I do not believe it is reasonable to say that the disabled or the elderly (to give two examples) "choose" not to work, nor did I suggest this.


"The only way that can be achieved is for the choice to be tax-neutral – i.e. your tax should not depend on whether you choose to be a one-income couple or a two-income couple." 

I take it you mean MARRIED "couple"? What about unmarried couples? Single people? When single individuals and unmarried individuals have the same right as married individuals to share their tax free allowances / tax credits with another person of their choice, then you can say lifestyle choices are tax-neutral. 

tedd


----------



## Madonna (7 Dec 2001)

*Re: Investment Income*

I am deligthed that this debate was kept alive without my having to proceed any further with the garment incineration routine. 

Also, as regular AAM contributors will know, I already have a thing going with Liam D F and I am not the type of girl to two time so the fact that myself and UDS are ad idem on this one is purely at the philosophical level. 

What did fascinate me in that last posting of UDS was this possibility of getting the dinky allowances against investment income without having to put hubby out on the bins.

How does that work, UDS?:b


----------



## UDS (7 Dec 2001)

*Re: Investment Income*

Hi Madonna

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “What did fascinate me in that last posting of UDS was this possibility of getting the dinky allowances against investment income without having to put hubby out on the bins.”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Easy-peasy.  Just take your vast portfolio of income-generating assets and transfer them to his name.  (You do trust him, don’t you?)  Presto!  The income they generate is his, not yours, and he can set his non-transferrable allowances against it.

Hi tedd

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “Because the expense involved in two people going out to work is greater than if just one does, so at the end of the month an equal salary, less the same tax and double the work-related expenses, leaves the couple in which both individuals work worse off.”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

This goes back to my post earlier in this thread.  If you believe that people should get a tax deduction for work-related expenses then, obviously, they should get it if they work and not if they don’t, and it should be in some way related to likely levels of work-related expenses.  The non-transferrable standard rate band doesn’t meet these criteria.  I wouldn’t have the same difficulty with an earned income deduction offered on a uniform basis to all, but the non-transferrable tax bands don’t come anywhere near (and don’t pretend to).

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “I mean individuals who do not pay income tax because they choose not to work.”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

But then you should be unhappy with individualisation.  It gives tax benefits to the non-working spouse who chooses not to work because he has significant investment income, while penalising the non-working spouse who is unable to work because of incapacity.

I think what you’re really saying here is that the tax system ought to in some way penalise (or, shall we say, discourage) the taxpayer who can work but doesn’t, to the benefit of (a) those who can work and do, and (b) those who can’t work.  Is that a fair summary of your view?

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “When single individuals and unmarried individuals have the same right as married individuals to share their tax free allowances / tax credits with another person of their choice, then you can say lifestyle choices are tax-neutral.”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

I don’t say lifestyle choices are tax-neutral.  All I’m saying is that <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ this_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> lifestyle choice – to be a single-income couple or a double-income couple – should be tax-neutral.


----------



## Not smug (7 Dec 2001)

*married v single men and women*

There's more to it!

Colm Rapple has just suggested on 5-7 live that it would make sense for the self employed married couple to employ a spouse assuming that both are earning a minimum of £15,000 in order circumvent the tax individualisation issue.

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* Charlie! I hope you are reading this.<!--EZCODE BOLD START--> 

Please stop this madness and close off this loophole fast! 

Single but not d<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->


----------



## not smug (7 Dec 2001)

*subject above is wrong*

Should have been:

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* Self-employed V PAYE worker.*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

Injustices all around me!

When is it going to stop. I'm having a really bad day!


----------



## tedd (7 Dec 2001)

*Re: but why?*

But UDS, why should THIS lifestyle choice be different? If you favour the freedom to make individual choices on a tax-neutral basis why should this freedom apply only to single income versus double income married couples only? I'm sure some single people would love to spend a year in full-time education with the possibility (for example) of giving their partner or sibling the benefit of their "unused allowance" for that year in exchange for food and lodgings. Why can't they?  

The remainder of our disagreement I think comes down to why a "tax-free allowance" (tax credit, whatever you want to call it) exists, whether it is a right of every citizen to have one and whether it is a transferable right. I have no problem with it being a transferable right, as long as that applies to every citizen.

tedd


----------



## Liam D Ferguson (7 Dec 2001)

*Shucks...*

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* "I already have a thing going with Liam D F and I am not the type of girl to two time"*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

 

No, in fact


----------



## Madonna (7 Dec 2001)

*Re: Problem Solved*

I have agreed with my employer to take a cut in salary of €19,000.  Benjy (the other half) has been put on the payrole on a salary of €19,000.  He works from home and his primary duty is to make my lunchbox. (He knows about Liam and doesn't mind, Liam is it over between us?).

Although I have got round it I am still hopping mad, but it has been good to get it off my chest.


----------



## Madonna (7 Dec 2001)

*Re: Removing my Bra*

(This message was left blank)


----------



## Madonna (7 Dec 2001)

*Re: Boss has Second Thoughts*

Boss got worried that paying Benjy €19,000 for fixing my lunchbox might be seen as tax evasion.

I had a blazing row with him, beat him about the head with my bra. 

We agreed a compromise.

I would incorporate as Madonna Ltd. Boss would continue to pay Madonna Ltd. my old salary on a consultancy basis.

Over to me now.

Madonna Ltd. has recruited Benji as chief lunchbox maker, salary €19,000. I get the rest. Same effect.

Let's be serious here folks. Individualisation is unsound and irrational, nowhere else in the Western World is it operated. It is a Charlie fetish. Unique nonsense. It cannot survive.  :jem


----------



## UDS (7 Dec 2001)

*.*

Hi tedd

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “But UDS, why should THIS lifestyle choice be different? If you favour the freedom to make individual choices on a tax-neutral basis why should this freedom apply only to single income versus double income married couples only? I'm sure some single people would love to spend a year in full-time education with the possibility (for example) of giving their partner or sibling the benefit of their "unused allowance" for that year in exchange for food and lodgings. Why can't they?”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Well, you raise the very interesting (and very broad) question of what recognition, if any, society should accord to marriage as opposed to other kinds of relationship.  Some libertarians argue that marriage should be purely private affair, which civil laws should simply ignore.  I don’t think that any country in the world has actually adopted that position – all give legal recognition to marriage in relation to matter such as inheritance, property rights, guardianship and custody of children, etc etc etc.  Nearly all – in fact, probably all – would give recognition to marriage in the tax code.

Of course you can go further, and give some degree of legal recognition to non-marital “marriage-type” relationships, and many countries do – although not Ireland (at least so far as tax is concerned).  I think you can justify drawing the line at marriage on the basis that married couples have a legal obligation to support one another financially, and a legal right to expect financial support from one another, and put themselves in a position where courts can reallocate their property and their income according to their respective needs without regard to which of them actually owns the property or earns the income.  None of this is true of non-marital couples.  Given this, and the economic reality of a couple who are formally and publicly committed to a permanent shared household, it is logical and consistent for the tax system to recognise their mutual interdependence, and to treat their incomes on an aggregate basis rather than as two separate incomes.  Madonna has pointed out the ludicrous tax dodges which are possible for the well-advised when the tax code fails to recognise the social and economic realities of marriage.

Actually, I don’t think I’d have a fundamental problem with a system of freely transferrable tax allowances – at least, freely transferrable to anyone with whom you shared a common household, and I can see the arguments in favour of it.  It would still be even further from the individualisation which you favour, of course.  And individual tax allowances would have to be much smaller, since many more of them would be actually used to reduce tax bills.  I, for example, would be able to use the tax allowances not just of my non-working spouse but of our seven children, two of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ their_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> partners, my mother, my spouse’s mother, my spouse’s grandfather, two retired housekeepers and an elderly woman who calls herself my great-aunt but is in fact unrelated to me, all of whom live with us.  Childless couples and single persons living alone would probably complain that the system was discriminatory.


----------



## tedd (7 Dec 2001)

*Re: now I understand....*

What I mean of course is that now I understand why you come to AAM....with all those people in the house, it must be hard to get a word in edgeways!

tedd

PS. "And individual tax allowances would have to be much smaller, since many more of them would be actually used to reduce tax bills.".....and what do you think married single income couples who use both allowances are doing????


----------



## But (7 Dec 2001)

*is a company not a separate legal entity*

I don't understand Madonna. How can individualisation be of benefit here. 

Maybe I should have asked this in the beginners section.


----------



## Observer (7 Dec 2001)

*Waiting in the long grass*

What a reaction!  One of the fastest growing threads ever, surely.  I think Fianna Fail will pay dearly for Charlie's folly and stubborness over individualisation.  Never has there been a measure which has generated such blind fury and hostility among taxpayers.  You see, its not just the money.  Now Charlie, being a hard man and all that, thinks everything is about money.  This is more fundamental - its about punishing people for a lifestyle choice.  Single income couples have usually chosen to be single income couples on the basis of making (in their eyes) a conscious decision usually based on childcare issues.  In so doing they naturally forego the income involved.  To be further penalised is just galling at a very emotional level.   I will never forget the reaction of a colleague of mine when this was first annouinced. This most mild mannered of men, whose wife looks after their handicapped child was spitting mad.  He and thousands of others are waiting in the long grass to take their anger out on Fianna Fail.  When the election comes its payback time, bigtime.   Watch out, Charlie!


----------



## UDS (7 Dec 2001)

*Re: is a company not a separate legal entity*

Hi, But

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “Is a company not a separate legal entity.  I don't understand Madonna. How can individualisation be of benefit here?”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Madonna doesn’t get up too early – all that clubbing and parties – so I’ll handle this one for her.

It works like this.  Boss used to employ Madonna at €38,000.  Now he retains Material Girl Ltd on a consultancy fee of €38,000.  Cost to Boss is unchanged.  Madonna turns up every day – well, most days - and does what she always used to do.

Material Girl Ltd employs Guy at €19,000 and Madonna at €19,000.  So total household income for Guy and Madonna is unchanged, but they have two full sets of tax allowances and tax bands to use.  So they pay less tax.  Material Girl Ltd has no profits and so pays no tax.

(There are some PRSI complications, but I’m ignoring those.  Also there is a modest cost to keeping Material Girl Ltd in existence.  The saving in tax should cover all these costs.)

Every time Charlie widens the non-transferrable standard rate band, the tax saving to be made by jumping through hoops like these gets bigger and bigger, so more and more people will do it.  Charlie’s policy, obviously, is to create work for accountants and lawyers, and Madonna and Guy are happy to help him achieve that objective.


----------



## Madonna (7 Dec 2001)

*UDS and Observer*

Haven't put my clothes on yet so decided to post unregistered. 

UDS - that's exactly it, though my salary is €56,000 and I split it with Benjy either 50/50 or even €37,000/€19,000.

In all seriousness though I agree totally with Observer's sentiments.  This is pure stubbornness on Charlie's part.

The various scams which are available to me will not be available to many who are working in large organisations or even the Civil Service.  This is unfair at almost every level.:mad


----------



## UDS (7 Dec 2001)

*Re: UDS and Observer*

Hi tedd

UDS:  <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ "And individual tax allowances would have to be much smaller, since many more of them would be actually used to reduce tax bills."_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Tedd:  <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* . . . and what do you think married single income couples who use both allowances are doing???? *<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Yes, that’s exactly what they are doing.  I was responding to your point that you have “no problem with [a tax-free credit] being a transferrable right as long as that applies to every citizen.”  Since that would be much, much worse for the single earner or the two-income couple than a system simply of credits transferrable between married couples, I think your position on freely-transferrable tax credits is inconsistent with the reasons you give for opposing transferrability between spouses.

The bottom line is that individualisation is socially regressive.  It tends to transfer the tax burden from two income families to single income families, who (for obvious reasons) are likely to have lower incomes overall. It tends to transfer the tax burden from the employed to the unemployed, who again are likely to have lower incomes overall.  It tends to transfer the tax burden from the able to the disabled.  It tends to transfer the tax burden from childless people to families with children, whose outgoings are likely to be greater.  And it’s a quite open attempt to reduce the freedom of (largely) mothers to choose between caring for their children and going out to work by penalising them financially if, for their own welfare, they make the choice which is not the one Charlie McCreevy wants them to make.

In so far as it succeeds in its stated objective of inducing mothers to enter to the paid workforce, it increases the already overstretched demand for childcare services while simultaneously reducing the supply of stay-at-home mothers who can and do provide much informal childcare for other people’s children. 

From almost every point of view it’s a disaster.

The only positive thing which can be said about it – and it’s not <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ very_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> positive – is that, from the self-interested point of view of a couple who, for their own welfare, both prefer to work outside the home, it rewards them for doing what they wish to do, at the expense of other couples who are doing what <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ they_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> wish to do.  But this is not a good thing unless (a) you are that couple, and you consider that you are entitled to expect others to support and reward your own self-interest at the expense of theirs, or (b) you consider that working outside the home is socially or morally more desirable than working in the home, and that one ought to be rewarded and the other penalised, regardless of the decisions couples would make for their own welfare.


----------



## sfag (7 Dec 2001)

*Everyone is being discriminated against.*

Made all these points two years ago and here they are again.
Before individualisation there was no point in the home maker working unless the job was very  highly paid because it all went on the higher rate of tax and child care. They were coherced into the home.
After Individualisation the home maker is coherced into returning to work otherwise the one income family remains behind on penal rates of tax.  
Mc Creevey used a stick to get stay at home partners out of the house. He should have used a carrot. £50,000 threshold for a single income family with an extra £30,000+ for dinkies would have done it. No one loses two much and there is an incentive to work.

Individualisation is not all bad. It is just too much of a betrayal to the system that cultivated a one income family environment for most of  the last century and then when at last we all thought taxes were going to come down - to cheat those who did stay at home. How does a woman (political correctness abandoned now) who has being minding the children for 20 years return to work place?. Would any posters here send their mothers back out of the house ?
It wont affect my voting patterns but I know from the hearsay of others there are many as hopping mad as Madonna and will not vote FF. 

Finally my single income family threshold is now only £32,000 – not as much as Madonnas. Do artists get more ???


----------



## Marion (7 Dec 2001)

Hi All

I have to say that I broadly agree with Tedd on this issue. It has indeed been a highly charged and emotive debate with some fine displays of histrionic rhetoric by posters. But, is Tax Individualisation really an anti-woman measure or indeed an anti-family measure?

I don't think that the following important issues have been addressed in the debate so far - apologies if they have. Assumptions: Non-working spouse has no investment income. He/she relies totally on working spouse.

1.  <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* Single income married couple - no children*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->
Many single income married couples have no children either by choice or as directed by nature. Should this single income couple derive a tax advantage? What added value does the stay at home spouse give to society in this instance? 

2.  <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* Single income married couple - grown-up children*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->
Many single income couples have children who no longer need to be "looked after" in the family home by the stay at home spouse. Should the taxpayer be asked to foot the bill for the spouse who chooses to stay at home because the working spouse has a very good salary and or likes the idea of his/her spouse "not having to work".

3.<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*   Single income married couple with children*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->
This is where I am a little generous, but, with one caveat: my generosity only extends to those with children who are necessarily engaged in "looking after" the children in the home. We are all aware of the great work being carried out by our fine educational establishments of international repute, whose teachers are at all times in "loco parentis".

Between the ages of 4 and 17, children are legally obliged to attend school. Should the stay-at-home spouse gain a tax advantage for a "job" which he/she is clearly not carrying out? Obviously, this point will have to be refined to take into consideration school holidays, <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* less*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> the actual holiday time which would normally be taken by the working spouse. This would ensure no discrimination between double income families with children and single income families with children who equally look after children during their holidays.

4. Final nail in the coffin for single income married couples per se. Can anyone hazard an educated guess as to who patronises the private golf couses, tennis clubs, shops, cafés, etc during the normal working week? Could we perhaps look no further than the non-working spouse with no chlidren, children at school, grown-up children for the answer?

Should my tax be abused to fund the lifestyle of the stay-at-home spouse? I think not.

I broadly agree with Tax individualisation, I think that it should be refined to fund genuine cases where a spouse elects to stay and look after children of a <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* pre-school*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> age and of course in the hardship cases of child disability. Those who cannot themselves work should also be catered for.

Regards

Marion :hat


----------



## UDS (7 Dec 2001)

Hi Marion.

Interesting stuff.  But underlying the questions you pose is that society should have a notion as to whether it is “good” or “bad” for a spouse to stay at home, and reward the spouse accordingly.

I fundamentally disagree.  Whether I work at home or go out to work is a decision which I will take having regard to my interests, my spouse’s interests, the interests of my children (if any) and our collective interest as a family.  I have no duty to anyone beyond that, and no-one else is entitled to interfere in my decision.  A generation ago women had to fight a hard battle to achieve acceptance of this principle, and they should not abandon it now.

Underlying your questions also is the assumption that, under the old system, the two income couple somehow “subsidised” the one-income couple.  For example, you talk about the stay-at-home spouse gain a tax advantage for a "job" – her work in the home.  Not at all.  She had, and could use, a personal allowance and a standard rate band regardless of whether she stayed at home or went out to work.  There was, therefore, no tax advantage to staying at home.  Two couples earning the same income paid the same tax, regardless of whether they were a single-income couple or a two-income couple.  It is individualisation which involves a tax advantage and a subsidy – a subsidy from the one-income couple to the two-income couple.   The admitted intention behind individualisation is to create a tax advantage to going out to work – in other words, those who do not work subsidise those who do.

Of course paid work is valuable to society, but its value should be reflected in the wages paid.  Distorting the tax system to create an incentive to take up paid work at the expense of those who do not take up paid work is the same thing as (and makes about as much sense as) a direct employment subsidy, paid by the unemployed.  In other words, you feel that as well as being rewarded by their employers for what they do, workers should be <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ additionally_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> rewarded by those who, for whatever reason, do not work.  And, specifically, with the individualisation system, you are saying that <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ it is only married people who should receive this employment subsidy_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->.  Put in these terms, and you can see what nonsense individualisation is.

At bottom, those whose arguments assume that going out to work is more socially useful and we should therefore encourage it are falling into a trap that, in other circumstances, they would recognise and avoid.  They are assuming that, because the stay-at-home spouse is unpaid, what she does is of no value.  They are assuming that society will be better off if more people go out to work, and we should encourage this through the tax system.  This is quite wrong; income is being confused with personal welfare.  If we coerce somebody to go out to work by distorting their choice through the tax system when, given a neutral system, they would not have done so, they will be less well-off – less happy, less able to achieve their personal goals about how they would like to spend their life.  In addition the welfare of those who stay at home will also have been reduced (because they will be poorer).  Society as a whole is therefore richer in material terms, but worse off in personal welfare terms, as a result of policies like this.  And what use is maximising society’s income if, overall, it makes us less happy?


----------



## Madonna (7 Dec 2001)

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Marion<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

Those are fine points <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ ( BTW you wouldn't have a bra to spare by any chance   )_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

What really galls Benjy is that he stayed at home all those years partly because any of his income would have been subject to higher rate tax.  But now that it is worth his while he has lost touch with modern Garbage Disposal methods - he feels badly cheated.

What really galls is seeing Dinkies earning very substantial sums, maybe £100k each.  These have been given a windfall which almost embarrasses them.   Maybe to level things up a bit, the second income should be subject to a "super" tax rate of say 50% on earnings over say £50,000.

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> sfag<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->  I was talkin' <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* €*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->.  But I don't understand where your £32,000 comes from.:rolleyes


----------



## Hormonal Male (7 Dec 2001)

*.*

I have an idea .......... lets have a whip around for Madonna to come up with the money she looses through this individualisation caper and present it to her after she gets the rest of her kit off  .......... are you up for it Material Girl !!             :b


----------



## rainyday (7 Dec 2001)

Hi Marion - I think you're making very broad assumptions here

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>*Quote:*<hr> What added value does the stay at home spouse give to society in this instance? <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

I personally know of many cases where the 'stay at home' spouses are adding huge value to society. They are the ones taking up the slack for the dinkies when one of the kids is sick, or the man who fixes the gas oven is coming during the day. Many such spouses are actively doing charitable work (Simon community, Oxfam shops) etc etc also. 

In fact, I'd say that on average, they are adding move value to society than the dinkies, whose day-to-day activities are totally focussed on adding value to their own income, not society.

Hi sfag - <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>*Quote:*<hr> Would any posters here send their mothers back out of the house ?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

Maybe not, but I know of many cases where the mothers in the 50's simply got bored moping around the empty house and have taken up relatively unskilled work (canteen operative, bank clerk) simply to keep them off the G&T's.

Regards - RainyDay


----------



## Madonna (7 Dec 2001)

*Re: Hormanal Male*

It's a deal, HM.  You can get the full monty in the Craic Forum (I don't want to get arrested in this public place).


----------



## Observer (7 Dec 2001)

*Ministerial Bravery!*

Still think that what McCreevy has done will come back to bite him.  Suppose that he had never increased the standard rate tax band or increased it by a derisory amount.  We'd all have grumbled, moaned and generally forgot about it after a while, as we focused on his other tax reductions.  HOWEVER, he has made a fatal mistake by hugely increasing the band for one section of society and leaving it unchanged for another.  Now, not getting a sweetie is one thing; not getting a sweetie which your neighbours are conspicuously enjoying is another and much more painful experience.  Doesm't take much knowledge of human nature to figure that one out!

A further point.  This has been accepted by the "official feminists" as a good thing.  Naturally, as "official feminists" generally being single or part of a dual income household.  (Just a common sense observation - no mysogynistic feelings here I assure you)  However real feminists are a mixture of full-time employed, part time employed, homemakers, students, etc.   

AND todays full time employee is tomorrows stay at home mother and perhaps the day after's back to school student.  Such people can clearly see how McCreevy's folly narrows their choices.  I was actually amazed at how many two income couples were appalled by the individualisation proposals - I remember several letters to the Irish Times (cultural bias admitted!) in this vein.

Finally, to underline the foolishness of McCreevy's action, the people most affected are middle to upper income, educated middle class.  Exactly the demographic most likely to be classed as "floating voter" and thus must likely to inflict huge punishment on Fianna Fail.  Nor are they likely to flock to TD's clinics to give them early warning of the carnage that awaits!!

As they used to say on "Yes Minister", 'What a BRAVE proposal!'


----------



## asd (7 Dec 2001)

*Cost of working.*

Tommy wrote:
"On the other hand, before individualisation there was an inherent unfairness in the tax system in that it never recognised that an individual who goes out to work every morning (as opposed to staying at home to mind kids or whatever) faces costs such as transport, eating out, good clothes etc which are not deductible against tax. These costs are avoidable if a person decided not to work, for whatever reason."

tedd wrote:
Because the expense involved in two people going out to work is greater than if just one does, so at the end of the month an equal salary, less the same tax and double the work-related expenses, leaves the couple in which both individuals work worse off. 

Before I start, I'll state that I'm a dinky. Both of us are in our late 20's, planning to start a family a few years down the line, and when we do, the plan is that my wife will leave paid employment and work at home. And in view of that, I'm opposed to individualisation, and hope that it will have been reversed by when the time comes that it affects me.

I would dispute the above arguments as reasons to give greater tax credits to a couple with 2 incomes. Taking Tommy's "unavoidable" costs:

Transport:
Assume working spouse (WS) uses transport to commute, and incurs transport costs. WS may be able to telecommute - avoiding transport costs on days working from home.
It's equally fair to assume that stay-at-home spouse (SAHS) needs transport to bring kids to school/pick them up/go to the supermarket, etc. Transport costs are therefore unavoidable for SAHS, and may be greater than for WS (unless the intention is to make SAHS into housebound spouse).
Conclusion: It's not possible to say that transport costs are greater for WS.

Eating out:
SAHS may choose to be a "lady who lunches" (or even a "man who lunches") - eating out every day, wine with lunch etc.
WS may have a subsidised canteen, or may bring sandwiches to work.
Conclusion: It's not possible to say that eating out costs are greater for WS.

Good clothes:
WS may well work in an environment where casual dress is the norm, so no costs are involved in the purchase of "good" clothes - clothes that are worn to work can also be worn outside of work.
SAHS may well be a dedicated follower of fashion - just because she's only dropping the kids to school, doesn't mean she'll be happy to go out in a baggy tracksuit, without makeup - she'll be meeting the other parents, so she'll want to look her best  
(apologies if this can be construed as being non-PC)
Conclusion: It's not possible to say that clothing costs are greater for WS.

So on a case-by-case basis, the costs incurred by working outside the home vary with distance between home and work, mode of transport used, facilities available at work and dress code. It is not correct to assume that because both spouses are working, their expenses are doubled. Hence it is unfair to give extra tax credits to dual income couples, and it was never the reason behind individualisation.


----------



## UDS (8 Dec 2001)

*Re: Cost of working.*

Hi asd

I agree with what you say, and I'd add to it that, even if you <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ do_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> have signficant work-related expenses, it is not the responsbility of other taxpayers to meet them.  It is the responsibility of your employer either to meet them or to pay you a salary which enables you to meet them, and still be properly rewarded for the work you do.  And this is true regardless of whether you are single or married, and regardless of whether your spouse works or not.

Mentioning work-related expenses in this context is a complete red herring.


----------



## PdR (8 Dec 2001)

*Re: You ain't seen nothing yet*

Wish I had read this thread before the Dail debate on Wednesday. :\ 

Let me get this straight.  A Fat Cat insurance broker who has accummulated over the years a few residential properties and a few shares - keeps the wifey at home <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ (or on the golf course)_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> but because of the investment income he gets full use of the dinkie giveaway <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* AS WELL AS*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> the Home Carer allowance.:eek 

The average couple in my consistency are forced to both work and don't even get a smell of the great dinkie largesse.:mad 

Contrary to the title of this topic Individualisation is <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START-->NOT<!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END-->*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> here - <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* YET*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->.

Single income couples get €37,000, Dinkies get €56,000 at standard rate.  <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ Charlie's_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> grand design is to make this €37,000 and €74,000 - FULL individualisation - a tax break in the pocket of €8,140 difference between the two households.

I'm forming a new political party, what will I call it?? Ah the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ "Workers Party"_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> - that should clean up at the elections.


----------



## tedd (8 Dec 2001)

*Re: You ain't seen nothing yet*

Before this topic turns into a tedious Aer Lingus versus Ryanair style tit for tat (sorry Tharg), can I make a point?

Prior to individualisation, stay at home partners with no other income were in effect subsidised by other tax payers because they were given a legitimate means to reduce their tax as a couple which was not available to unmarried people (individuals or couples). In my view, this results in a higher rate of tax required from those who actually pay tax than would be necessary if this group of people were not given this tax break. 

Now the situation has been reversed. And the people who  benefited from this injustice for years are now complaining that the tables have turned. And they are damning anyone who does not share their lifestyle as greedy, selfish and antifamily. But they refuse to acknowledge in any way that for years other people were paying for their lifestyle choices. 

I have no objection to the State "supporting family life". UDS thinks "tax free allowances" should not be linked to employment costs. Why should they be linked to financially supporting family life (the alternative in this debate) then? If the State wants to support parent-supplied childcare, then restrict this to parents with children from 0 to whatever age. Or provide creches for parents who work and make an equivalent amount available to subsidise parents who stay home in some other way. 

Even if such support stretched from 0-18, it would reduce the inequity of the pre-Individualisation days. I would support making concessions to parents of young or disabled children, much has Marion has suggested. But this represents at most one half of the average working life and I disagree with subsidising the rest of it. All the "family-friendly" rhetoric is hiding the fact that for the other half of their expected working life, partners who stay at home are given a legitimate means to reduce their tax as a couple which is not available to others. Irrespective of how they decide to pass their days.

This is unjust. 

tedd

ps UDS your argument that all expenses of working should be covered by income is interesting. Why don't we try telling the self-employed that they can no longer reduce their tax liability by claiming expenses. With your theory, they should be earning enough to cover their expenses. I'd like to see the response to that!


----------



## UDS (8 Dec 2001)

*Re: You ain't seen nothing yet*

Hi PdR

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “Let me get this straight. A Fat Cat insurance broker who has accummulated over the years a few residential properties and a few shares - keeps the wifey at home (or on the golf course) but because of the investment income he gets full use of the dinkie giveaway AS WELL AS the Home Carer allowance.”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Of course.  He’s a well-to-do self-employed professional, so it stands to reason that Charlie will look after him and his lovely wife.  How did you think it would work?

Hi tedd

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “Prior to individualisation, stay at home partners with no other income were in effect subsidised by other taxpayers because they were given a legitimate means to reduce their tax as a couple which was not available to unmarried people (individuals or couples).”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Not so.  Married people, whether or not they worked, could pool their tax allowances.  Single people, whether or not they worked, could not.  Thus, if there was discrimination, it was not between one-income couples and the rest; it was between married and unmarried people.

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “And the people who benefited from this injustice for years are now complaining that the tables have turned.”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Loaded language, tedd.  You’ve yet to demonstrate that, where two couples pay the same tax on the same income, there is an injustice.

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “UDS thinks "tax free allowances" should not be linked to employment costs. Why should they be linked to financially supporting family life (the alternative in this debate) then?”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Actually, tedd, nobody (apart from yourself) suggests that the non-transferrable standard rate band is linked to employment costs.  Are you telling me that €19,000 is a reasonable guess at typical employment costs?

I don’t think it should be linked to financially supporting family life either.  I think a couple should have the same allowances and bands available to them regardless of whether one, both or neither of them work, stay at home rearing children or pass their time flower-arranging and writing terrible poetry.  There’s a basic principle here; how you choose to spend your days is none of Charlie McCreevy’s business.

So why should anyone get a personal allowance and a standard rate band?  Because it is considered wrong and unjust to tax all income at the marginal rate, for two reasons.  First, a certain amount is needed for the basic essentials of life.  Second, we consider that those whose income is (relatively) higher should pay a greater proportion of their total income in tax.  These are the reasons we have a personal allowance, a standard rate band and a higher rate band, and they hold good regardless of whether you work, and whether you are raising children.  And a married couple are allowed to pool their allowances and bands in recognition of the social reality that they have pooled their income and expenditure.  Failure to recognise this leads to the kind of artificiality which has already been highlighted.

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “UDS your argument that all expenses of working should be covered by income is interesting. Why don't we try telling the self-employed that they can no longer reduce their tax liability by claiming expenses. With your theory, they should be earning enough to cover their expenses. I'd like to see the response to that!”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Tedd, the treatment of the self-employed exactly illustrates my point.  The income of their trade or profession has to first of all cover the expenses of the business – tools, equipment, travel, whatever.  Only by deducting these can we identify the profit of the trade or profession, and this is the figure on which they should be (and are) taxed.  The self-employed <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ do_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> have to earn enough to cover their expenses; otherwise their problem is not tax - they will have no liability - but bankruptcy.

But the self-employed don’t get a tax deduction for travelling from home to work each day, for buying suits, for eating lunch, and these, I think, are the kind of expenses that you mention to justify the notion that a two income family should have greater tax allowances than a one-income family on the same income.

Bottom line; the tax a couple pay should depend on the level of income they have, and not on how they got it.


----------



## Madonna (8 Dec 2001)

*Re: Game, Set and Match*

This has been a long and divisive debate but I think the last word goes to <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_   UDS_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> who succinctly summarized the whole matter thus: <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>*Quote:*<hr>   <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*   <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->   "Bottom line; the tax a couple pay should depend on the level of income they have, and not on how they got it. "<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> I am not going to gloat over the fact that I won as I think we should move on, there is a fascinating debate about the centre of the Universe in the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ Great Debates Forum._<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> 

For those who get there kicks below the waste I have taken my kit off in the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_  Craic Forum_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->.


----------



## perfectonist (8 Dec 2001)

*waist not want not*

For those who get there kicks below <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* the waste*<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> I have taken my kit off in the Craic Forum

What utter rubbish :lol


----------



## Dogbert (8 Dec 2001)

*Individualisation*

Couldn't you equally argue - bottom line, the tax a person pays should depend on the income they have, not on anything else.


----------



## tedd (8 Dec 2001)

*Re: Individualisation*

Hi UDS,

I agree with you and your alter ego Madonna that the discussion has run its course. 

I do think it's a little unfair to accuse me of using loaded language. Yourself and Madonna were happy to implicate the personal lives of politicians to suggest they had vested interests in the support of your argument. That's pretty loaded, too. 

My view is that the previous sytem of tax was unfair to a group of people. Your view (I think) is that the current system of tax is unfair to a different group of people. I think the discussion brought out some interesting suggestions for taxation strategies that might be more acceptable to both groups. 

All the best,
tedd

PS Madonna, will you please put your clothes on?!


----------



## UDS (10 Dec 2001)

*Re: Individualisation*

Fair enough, ladies and gents.  We'll leave it here for the time being.

It's been challenging and stimulating.  Thanks to all.


----------



## Freddie Kruger (10 Dec 2001)

*Re: Individualisation*

Congratulations. I don't think I have seen another topic that has exuded the passion expressed in alot of these posts. Well done.


----------



## UDS (10 Dec 2001)

*Attempt at a Summary*

Here is my attempt at a summary of the discussion.

(NB <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ Not_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> an attempt to have the last word, and apologies in advance to anyone who feels their viewpoint is overlooked or misrepresented.)

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* In Favour of Individualisation*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

Purely self-interested concerns aside, someone might favour individualisation for either (or both) of the following reasons.

First, the view that marriage is a private affair, which ought to be ignored by the tax system.  Advocates of this view would (I think) favour a much greater degree of individualisation than we in fact have – they would argue that a married couple should be taxed in all respects like two single people.

Secondly – and probably more common – the view that participation in the paid workforce is socially desirable and/or for moral or political reasons ought to be rewarded or encouraged, and the tax system ought to give effect to this.  Some advocates of this view would add that the tax system ought to confer comparable treatement on those who cannot, or should not be expected to, participate in the paid workforce – e.g. carers, the disabled, those over pension age – so that it is only those who could participate but choose not to who are (relative to others) disadvantaged by individualisation.

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* Against Individualisation*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

Purely self-interested concerns aside, the reasons for opposing individualisation can be summarised as follows.

The view that marriage is a social and economic reality which involves the pooling of income and expenditure, and that the tax system ought to recongnise this by taxing a married couple on an aggregate basis rather than as two individuals.

The view that participation or otherwise in the paid workforce is a personal choice made for the citizen’s own welfare which the tax system ought not to seek to distort.


----------



## Dynamo (10 Dec 2001)

*Individualisation*

Sorry to add my two cents worth after you've signalled the closure of the thread, UDS, but there is one point I haven't seen mentioned anywhere which is germane to the issue.

I think it is highly likely that, had the old (marriage-favouring) system been retained, it would have been subject to challenge at a European level, as discriminatory, by gay couples who cannot marry under law here. Charlie may simply have been facing that medium-term reality, as well as encouraging married women back into the workforce at a suitable time tactically, by proceeding as he did with individualisation.


----------



## UDS (10 Dec 2001)

*Re: Individualisation*

Hi Dynamo

I take your point.  From a legal point of view I'm not sure that the challenge would have a great chance of succeeding, but from a political/ethical point of view the argument for conferring legal advantages (of any kind, tax or otherwise) on married couples at the expense of unmarried people does lose its force if people are not free to marry.

Incidentally, we still have a "marriage-favouring" system in that individualisation is only partial.  A single-income couple on a given level of income will pay more tax than a dual-income couple on that level of income, but they still pay less tax than two unmarried people whose aggregate income is at that level.  So the material for a challenge is still there.

To my mind the appopriate response to this point is not to withdraw legal recognition from marriage, but to allow gay couples to marry.  But I think that's not likely any time soon.

I feel another great debate coming on . . .


----------



## Dynamo (10 Dec 2001)

*Individualisation*

Hi UDS,

I too would allow gay couples to marry, though I also favour tax individualisation. However, I have no doubt that the government (notwithstanding the firestorm that individualisation has created in this forum !) would regard changes to the tax system as far less threatening, and potentially divisive, than changes to the social system.

You're right, the tax system does still favour married couples, especially in the area of Capital Acquisitions Tax. Why should a married man be able to pass on significant wealth to his wife tax-free while an unmarried person (gay or not) cannot do similarly to his/her long-term partner ?

I think that sort of discrimination <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*  will indeed *<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> be the subject of high-level appeal unless some remedy (eg some form of civil recognition of long-term partnerships that do not involve marriage) is inculcated into the legal system, including taxation.


----------



## UDS (10 Dec 2001)

*Re: Individualisation*

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “You're right, the tax system does still favour married couples, especially in the area of Capital Acquisitions Tax.”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

And income tax (still – transferrable personal allowances, and partly transferrable standard rate band).  And stamp duty (no stamp duty on transfers between spouses).  And capital gains tax (no gain or loss on transfer between spouses, second spouse deemed to have acquired when first spouse acquired).

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “Why should a married man be able to pass on significant wealth to his wife tax-free while an unmarried person (gay or not) cannot do similarly to his/her long-term partner?”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Well, my position is that people should be free to marry, which necessarily means that they should also be free not to marry.  If they choose to marry, they should have the rights and obligations which society accords to or imposes on married people, whatever they are. If they choose not to marry then, by and large, they shouldn’t have those rights and obligations.

I would make a distinction between a heterosexual couple who could marry but choose not to, and a homosexual couple who have no choice.  If people choose not to marry, I don’t think they can complain that society treats them as unmarried.  Nor do I think that they should necessarily be able to demand the advantages of marriage (tax or otherwise) while rejecting the obligations (e.g. obligations of mutual support, public commitment to exclusive and permanent relationship, etc) which are the reason for those advantages.

I appreciate that this neat philosphical analysis tend to break down when we are faced with somebody who has married A, has been abandoned by A  and has now formed a relationship with B, but there is a principle here that marriage as a collection of rights and obligations is something which people choose rather than something which is imposed upon them because of the circumstances in which they find themselves.

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “I think that sort of discrimination will indeed be the subject of high-level appeal unless some remedy (eg some form of civil recognition of long-term partnerships that do not involve marriage) is inculcated into the legal system, including taxation.”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

It may be, but the European Convention on Human Rights clearly allows states to recognise and protect the institution of marriage through legal privileges, and all states do this to some extent, including through tax privileges.  The cases also establish, if I recall correctly, that states can confine the institution of marriage to heterosexual couples.  To be on really strong grounds I think a gay couple would need to show that they were disadvantaged by comparison with an unmarried straight couple (other than purely by the fact that they were not permitted to marry one another).


----------



## Madonna (11 Dec 2001)

*Re: Individualisation*

This debate is starting to put years on me.

Even that rock of sense <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ UDS_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> is starting to go all <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ "on the one hand, on the other hand"_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

And who introduced the complete pink herring about fairies?  If I had my way fairies would get no tax relief.:eek 

Connell, where are you, why aren't you supporting the cause?:rolleyes


----------



## tedd (11 Dec 2001)

*Re: Individualisation*

Madonna, I'm glad to see the debate put CLOTHES on you! Whatever about years. I didn't realise Peig was a material girl, too...

tedd


----------



## smokey joe (11 Dec 2001)

*Minister for finance*

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* If I had my way fairies would get no tax relief<!--EZCODE BOLD START--> 

Madonna - a trifle harsh don't you think. What about all the closet married gay people - how is your tax regime going to deal with these?

Now, put that in your pipe and smoke it <!--EZCODE BOLD END-->*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->


----------



## smokey joe (11 Dec 2001)

*Minister for finance*

Madonna:<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* If I had my way fairies would get no tax relief*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

How will you deal with the married closet gay people?


----------



## ac (11 Dec 2001)

*Re: Fairies*

Let me try again.
I accept that I know SFA about fairies.

It is also true that I have relaxed my opposition to individualisation.

You see we all have Guardian Angels. Women who go to work forego the protection of a GA because of their sin. It is therefore correct that in the secular world that they should be subsidized for the extra risks that they take on. I hope, Madonna, that explains my U-turn.:shamrock


----------



## Madonna (11 Dec 2001)

*Re: Using my charms*

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>*Quote:*<hr> <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ "How will you deal with the married closet gay people?"_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> I usually have no problem.


----------



## smokey joe (11 Dec 2001)

*answer the question Madonna.*

how is your tax regime going to deal with the closet gay married couples. And don't try and use your feminime charms to wiggle your way out of answering this question. My eyes are firmly shut.

I hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil.


----------



## The Randy Sheik (13 Dec 2001)

*Fair Play for All*

This debate seems to have been de-railed somewhat by questions about the fair treatmnet of single sex relationships.

I am sure modern Ireland will soon embrace "gay marriages".  Very liberal indeed. 

Maybe sometime in the future they will also recognise my culture and mores, which just happens to be much more prevalent in the world than single sex unions.

I am a devout muslim.  I have 10 wives.  All of these work at home, serving me in one way or another. 

As I understand <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> UDS<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, I should be entitled to a standard rate band of €280,000.  As I understand the individualisation freaks it should be €37,000.

What is my point?  Your tax system will inevitably favour a certain lifestyle.  Individualisation ala Charlie McCreevey is anti single income married couples.  It is anti gay marriage.  It is anti harem.

It is very much pro dinkie super joint earners, oops was I describing the Cabinet?:eek


----------



## Individual and proud (13 Dec 2001)

*Fair play for all*

I'm pro-individualisation.

I believe that the only fair way is for the government to deal with everyone as individuals who are responsible for their own finances and to leave moralising and life choices out of the equation.

In terms of childcare, I think the only fair way to award any allowances is at source (like vhi).

I also think that individualisation should be applied to social welfare payments. 
I was disgusted to discover that when myself and my (co-habiting) boyfriend both lost our jobs, we were to be given £139.50 to be paid to one person to support both, instead of £85.50 each. 

We have completly separate finances and I find this completly unfair, we both paid taxes/prsi after all.

When he gained employment (I was still unemployed) I could not claim unemployment benefit.

I really think this is appalling, as an independent person, the state is telling me that even though I have paid so much tax/prsi over the years, I should now start begging for money off my boyfriend.


----------



## zag (13 Dec 2001)

*Re: Fair play for all*

This topic has been degenerating recently and has been closed.

The last comment has been moved here -


----------

