# Rumour that Individualisation will be challenged in the courts



## Paula_907 (24 Dec 2006)

I heard a rumour that the individualisation policy will be challenged in the courts in the New Year. My husband heard it today at work, a work colleague of his told him. About time, is all I can say. My sister is badly affected by it, she doesn't work and her husband must pay more taxation even though they have one income less! How ridiculous is that! It doesn't make any sense at all.

A friend of my sisters', who lives in England, says they had the individualisation debate in England years ago, but that over there child care is far better subsidised than it is here. Over here we have two choices: either both parents work and pay ridiculously excessive child care costs, or, one parent stays at home and consequently the family get penalised and pay more taxation. It's a joke. A total JOKE! How can it possibly be justified? Why should a one income family be treated unequally to a two-income family? Why are the current government trying to make it harder for parents to stay at home to mind their children (and don't tell me they compensate through the homecarers allowance, sure that allowance wouldn't pay for pampers for a year)


----------



## Joe1234 (24 Dec 2006)

*Re: Runour that Individualisation will be challenged in the courts*



Paula_907 said:


> . My sister is badly affected by it, she doesn't work and her husband must pay more taxation even though they have one income less! How ridiculous is that! It doesn't make any sense at all.



How does her husband pay more tax?  Can you give us examples?


----------



## Joe1234 (24 Dec 2006)

*Re: Runour that Individualisation will be challenged in the courts*



Paula_907 said:


> (and don't tell me they compensate through the homecarers allowance, sure that allowance wouldn't pay for pampers for a year)



If you have only one child in nappies, then €770 (€15 pw approx) should more than cover the cost of pampers.  I supposed it is an incentive to potty train the child earlier!


----------



## ClubMan (24 Dec 2006)

The original post is more _Letting Off Steam _than _Budget 2007 _material so has been moved. Unfortunately the original poster will not be able to contribute further until she raches 50 posts and one month's registration.


----------



## bankrupt (24 Dec 2006)

Can anyone confirm/deny this rumour?


----------



## DrMoriarty (24 Dec 2006)

Paula_907 said:


> Why are the current government trying to make it harder for parents to stay at home to mind their children?


Because from the government's point of view there are greater short-term monetary advantages — fiscal and otherwise — in having double-income families as the norm? More income tax revenue, more 'discretionary' expenditure (and therefore VAT revenue), and better-looking employment figures...

I've ranted here previously about this country's appalling record in terms of (not) supporting parents/families, so I won't rehash that. Put simply, successive Irish governments have always known that they don't need to encourage/incentivise people to have children, because for cultural reasons we tend to have plenty of them anyway.

Anyway, you'll probably soon be deluged with cries of _'why should I/we subsidise your sister's bloody sprogs? Isn't it bad enough that I have to be seated near them on_ _airplanes?'_, etc.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (27 Dec 2006)

A couple earning e80,ooo p.a. on 2 salaries are approx e14,000 better off than a family with only one earning. Individualisation is so anti-family it's untrue. It degrades the work of the stay at home mother and renders her contribution as worthless.


----------



## Amygdala (27 Dec 2006)

It will not be long before the financial burden of having children depresses the birth rate. See here for Germany's answer.


----------



## Henny Penny (28 Dec 2006)

Isn't it funny how the state sees fit to treat single income families as individuals, but when the non working member tries to avail of training (e.g. FAS) or social welfare benefits they are treated as a couple. 
A legal challange is long overdue - in recognition of the contribution and rights on non working partners in families.


----------



## Guest127 (28 Dec 2006)

I do have some sympathy with single income families. to take the tax issue to the logical conclusion is that everybody would have the same tax credits and cut off point etc. thus single income families would have two cut off points and two credits. might not be able to use the the double cut off to the extent that two earners could. tax credits would be no problem as they are always useful. probably  benefit double income families more than individualisation.


----------



## potnoodler (30 Dec 2006)

Gone Fishin' said:


> A couple earning e80,ooo p.a. on 2 salaries are approx e14,000 better off than a family with only one earning. Individualisation is so anti-family it's untrue. It degrades the work of the stay at home mother and renders her contribution as worthless.


 

I would imagine that to have a person at home to mind the fort/kids/work/calls and general being there, would be worth at very least 14k(before tax/prsi). 

IMHO it's a minority of people that would not wish the comfort of a full time home carer, not only high earners.


----------



## michaelm (2 Jan 2007)

Gone Fishin' said:


> A couple earning e80,ooo p.a. on 2 salaries are approx e14,000 better off than a family with only one earning. Individualisation is so anti-family it's untrue. It degrades the work of the stay at home mother and renders her contribution as worthless.


Individualisation is why I wont be voting for FF and I'd love to see it challenged in the courts on the basis that government is constitutionally bound to operate policies that discriminate in favour of families whereas Individualisation discriminates against families; however I must correct this e14,000 figure, upto €6k is closer to the correct figure.


----------



## Guest127 (2 Jan 2007)

remember the murphy case. nothing to do with individualism I know but if two people are working each is entitled to the same benefits and credits as the other. married or otherwise should have no bearing. if you went for an interview tomorrow would the company pay more or less if you said you were married? taxes should be the same.  family allowances, now thats a different matter altogether.


----------



## darag (3 Jan 2007)

This discussion crops up here nearly every year and despite being involved in some of the previous rounds, I still find it impossible to ignore the shrill indignation ("it's against families!", "won't anyone think of the children?") and overblown claims of some constitutional protection for joint assessment. I guess it's like Clubman re. "rip-off".

To talk about individualisation in isolation is disingenuous.  For the last few terms, the government has done one thing right and that is to move away from joint assessment and massively increase children's allowance.  This policy shift, whether either through accident or design, is to be greatly commended as a more pro-family progressive way of supporting families.  There are many advantages to this policy over old-style joint assessment.

Joint assessment is inequitable.  It benefits high-income people more than lower income people.  This is regressive.  Presumably raising children is more of burden for the latter.  Child benefit is completely equitable.

Joint assessment indiscriminately rewards married couples financially even if they have no children or have grown up children.  Child benefit targets those who are actually trying to raise a family.

Joint assessment discriminates against couples raising children who forego the traditional marriage.  Cohabiting couples, single parents, etc. with children all get nothing from it.  Child benefit helps everyone raising children.

Joint assessment penalises working spouses.  There is little incentive for a spouse to pursue a career or engage in employment as they immediately incur punitive rates of tax.  And let's face it, by "spouse" this policy was designed to discourage women from working.  It is a backward policy like the old civil service policy of sacking women once they got married.  Those for a hankering for the old ways should look into moving to places like Pakistan, Alabama or Nigeria where "traditional" gender roles are considered a virtue.  Thankfully Ireland has advanced a bit in the last 30 years and we've moved towards Scandinavian levels of female workforce participation.

To sum up, individualisation and child benefit increases are far more pro-family and equitable than the old traditional joint assessment.


----------



## ajapale (3 Jan 2007)

Paula_907 said:


> I heard a rumour that the individualisation policy will be challenged in the courts in the New Year.



Has this rumour been cited elsewhere? Does anyone know on what basis the policy will be challenged?


----------



## Gone Fishin' (3 Jan 2007)

darag said:


> This discussion crops up here nearly every year and despite being involved in some of the previous rounds, I still find it impossible to ignore the shrill indignation ("it's against families!", "won't anyone think of the children?") and overblown claims of some constitutional protection for joint assessment. I guess it's like Clubman re. "rip-off".
> 
> To talk about individualisation in isolation is disingenuous.  For the last few terms, the government has done one thing right and that is to move away from joint assessment and massively increase children's allowance.  This policy shift, whether either through accident or design, is to be greatly commended as a more pro-family progressive way of supporting families.  There are many advantages to this policy over old-style joint assessment.
> 
> ...




I couldn't disagree more.

Individualisation is completely anti-family. It denigrates the work of the stay-at-home mother, who is a far better carer for children than any paid service.

Children's allowances are a red-herring. They have absolutely nothing to do with individualisation of taxation. One could also say they are grossly unfair for not being means tested.

As for 





> Joint assessment penalises working spouses. There is little incentive for a spouse to pursue a career or engage in employment as they immediately incur punitive rates of tax.


How does it penalise them? They don't suffer one penny loss by going out to work? This smacks of jealously from a career-chooising mother over a stay-at-home mother.

As for the parents who decide against wedlock? That's their choice. Children from a stable marriage are much better reared than those from an unstable union. If two people don't care enough for eachother to get married then that should be their choice, along with the financial implications. (Single parent families were already looked after, from a Social Welfare point.)

Your summation 





> To sum up, individualisation and child benefit increases are far more pro-family and equitable than the old traditional joint assessment.


 says it all , really. Completely and utterly false. This step has created a generation of children to be reared by strangers and spoilt by parents, children who will lose out in a valuable education and sense of values, children who will see their mother as being more interested in her career than her children. This effect will be passed on to the next generation when family units will have no value whatsoever.

It was a retrograde step but what would one expect from politicians with the family values of Bertie, McCreevy and Co.


----------



## DrMoriarty (3 Jan 2007)

I partly agree with Darag's assessment, and feel that a lot of the outrage vented at the time that individualisation was introduced had to do with _mná_ _sna harems'_ sense of betrayal by a government whose predecessors had for decades encouraged them to stay at home like good girls and have their husband's dinner ready for him. Hence McCreevy's pre-election 'sop' in the form of the home carers' credit.

I've argued elsewhere that — welcome though they are — the child benefit increases (forced on the Irish government by EU law, remember!) are also inequitable as long as they aren't subjected to means testing.

_[Edit: post crossed with Gone Fishin's — with whom I also partly agree, except about the moral benefits of 'wedlock'. Sure, children benefit from living with parents who are in a stable, loving relationship — but matrimonial status has very little to do with that.]_


----------



## darag (3 Jan 2007)

Gone Fishin' said:


> I couldn't disagree more.
> 
> Individualisation is completely anti-family. It denigrates the work of the stay-at-home mother, who is a far better carer for children than any paid service.


I presented a set of points which argue for individualisation and child benefit which clearly outline the benefits of the current system over the old joint assessment system.  Could you please stick with arguing the points or presenting points of your own instead of simply stating that I am wrong and that's it?


> Children's allowances are a red-herring. They have absolutely nothing to do with individualisation of taxation. One could also say they are grossly unfair for not being means tested.


How can you honestly say they are a red-herring?  We're talking about government fiscal policies which help families.  Child benefit is the central plank of the government's policy in this regard.  As far as I know this is stated policy.  The rates overall are nearly double what they were 5 years ago.  Anyone with children appreciates the importance of child benefit.


> How does it penalise them? They don't suffer one penny loss by going out to work? This smacks of jealously from a career-chooising mother over a stay-at-home mother.


If you want to go second guessing my motives, let me try the same game:  your argument smacks of lazyness and greed from a childless lady-who-lunches wife of a hospital consultant or rich barister from Foxrock who hates the idea that the government has stopped subsidising her sitting on her This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language half the day eating chocolates.   Not very conducive to rational argument is it?

If your first question was actually serious, then I don't know where to begin - it's such a simple point.  Under individualisation, a working spouse gains the benefit of their own tax credits which means that they get to take home much more of their earnings.  Under joint assessment, there was practically no incentive to work as they would be lucky to retain 55% of their earnings. 


> As for the parents who decide against wedlock? That's their choice. Children from a stable marriage are much better reared than those from an unstable union. If two people don't care enough for eachother to get married then that should be their choice, along with the financial implications. (Single parent families were already looked after, from a Social Welfare point.)


You've quite a narrow world view.  I know of one couple who have been living together for 20 years and reared kids without getting married.  Their relationship is far more stable than some other couples I know who are married.  You may not like the idea but Ireland today is de facto secular and government policy reflects this.  Whether is should be or not is a far broader argument - and not one I particularly want to get into.


> Your summation  says it all , really. Completely and utterly false.


You have not refuted any of my points except to repeat the claim that what I've said is false.


> This step has created a generation of children to be reared by strangers and spoilt by parents, children who will lose out in a valuable education and sense of values, children who will see their mother as being more interested in her career than her children. This effect will be passed on to the next generation when family units will have no value whatsoever.


I resent this.  Both my parents worked for significant periods of my childhood.  You're generalisations and value judgements are simply expressions of prejudice.


> It was a retrograde step but what would one expect from politicians with the family values of Bertie, McCreevy and Co.


Your message is full of value judgements, emotional outbusts and blanket refusals to even argue the points I presented ("Completely and utterly false").  We're not going to get anywhere unless you actually attempt to refute the simple points I made.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (3 Jan 2007)

The thread was about individualisation. You introduced the notion of child benefits being related to individualisation, which they are not. 

Child benefit was a reaction of the FF Govt, not a central Plank in their policy, as you put it. The current Govt is most definitely not pro-family. 

As for the rest of your4 arguments? I don't agree with them. They are far from convincing of the argument for mothers to leave home and let someone else rear their children.

Children who are reared in their own home, by their own parents, are much better off than those reared by strangers. This is not borne out of prejudice, as you say, but from significant evidence, evidence that children reared by strangers lose out by the lack of contact from their own parents. For many working mothers it's a purely selfish move to go out to work, sometimes for practically very little extra monetary reqard. Individualisation has eased their consience, it hasn't improved the quality of like of their children.

Individualisation of tax allowances has created a culture of greed, where childrens' needs are definitely lowered in priority. Throwing a few euro, in child benefit, is a token effort. (Giving the same benefit to children living outside Ireland, whose parent(s) are employed here, is a complete joke.)


----------



## Guest127 (3 Jan 2007)

take someone who works  married or single, male or female. black or white, protestant or catholic. tax take should make absolutely no difference. you get  paid for doing the work. the government take their share of tax and social welfare.  
I do however think that there should be tax credits for children. in the case of stay at home spouses these could take the form of tax refunds.


----------



## Purple (4 Jan 2007)

Gone Fishin' said:


> Children who are reared in their own home, by their own parents, are much better off than those reared by strangers. This is not borne out of prejudice, as you say, but from significant evidence, evidence that children reared by strangers lose out by the lack of contact from their own parents Individualisation has eased their consience, it hasn't improved the quality of like of their children.


 The idea that children should be raised by a stay at home mother in the relative isolation of a family home is a recent one. For most of the last few thousand years we have lived in agrarian societies were mothers worked full time and once babies were weaned they were kept in groups were older women and older children minded them. 
Most children are minded in the grey economy be sisters, grandmothers, aunts or neighbours. These people are not strangers. 



Gone Fishin' said:


> For many working mothers it's a purely selfish move to go out to work, sometimes for practically very little extra monetary reqard.


And for many it is an economic necessity.



Gone Fishin' said:


> Individualisation of tax allowances has created a culture of greed, where childrens' needs are definitely lowered in priority.


 What leads you to that conclusion?



Gone Fishin' said:


> (Giving the same benefit to children living outside Ireland, whose parent(s) are employed here, is a complete joke.)


 So you think that people who’s children live outside Ireland (and so do not use resources in out health or educational services despite that fact that their parents taxes pay for those services) should not have the same rights as those who’s children live in Ireland? If they pay their taxes here why should they not receive the same benefits? I’m afraid you show your biases quite clearly with your last comment.

For the record I agree 100% with Darag’s comments.
I also agree that child benefit should be means tested (in which case Ms Purple and I would not get it).


----------



## podgerodge (4 Jan 2007)

why should I/we subsidise your sister's bloody sprogs? Isn't it bad enough that I have to be seated near them on airplanes?, etc.


----------



## ajapale (4 Jan 2007)

has anyone got any details concerning the rumoured court challenge to the policy of individualisation?


----------



## Vanilla (4 Jan 2007)

> For many working mothers it's a purely selfish move to go out to work, sometimes for practically very little extra monetary reqard. Individualisation has eased their consience, it hasn't improved the quality of like of their children.


 
What about the fathers?


----------



## Purple (4 Jan 2007)

Vanilla said:


> What about the fathers?


How dare you not conform to the traditional stereotype, you bad parent you!


----------



## ramble (4 Jan 2007)

Women (and men) have always worked, in the home, outside the home.  The image of the stay at home mother caring for children and making a comfortable home is a relatively recent one brought about by increasing incomes and encouraged by governments in times of high unemployment.  The current economic system is one based on growth, more money, more profits, more workers.  The govenment has seen fit to encourage as many people as possible to work to keep the growth going.  The rewards for working are substantial, for both men and women alike compared to the rewards 100 years ago where both parents working just about fed a  (much larger)family.

To attack anyone as selfish for working makes no sense.  We all must exist in the society in which we live and if necessary make efforts to change the values of the society to accord with our beilfs, attacking the choices made by individuals is not helpful.  Attack the assumptions on which policy is based by all means but there is no need to make people feel guilty for making choices over which, in reality, they have very little control.

If you are concerned about the welfare of children look at the quality of childcare, education, library services, playgrounds, support for parents, make sure all children have adequate food and housing.  The difference of a few thousand euro a year to a relatively well off family does not have a major impact on the welfare of children in general, the family with one spouse at home can easily make up the difference in money not spent on commuting, work related training, clothing, food, time to diy etc.


----------



## DrMoriarty (4 Jan 2007)

ajapale said:


> has anyone got any details concerning the rumoured court challenge to the policy of individualisation?


Dunno — I've googled in vain, and Paula_907 (first-time poster) hasn't been seen since Christmas Eve. 

This thread is _sooo_ last year..!


----------



## micamaca (4 Jan 2007)

Gone Fishin' said:


> For many working mothers it's a purely selfish move to go out to work, sometimes for practically very little extra monetary reqard.


 
So if a woman spends years getting qualifications, secures a good job which she enjoys and does well, it's selfish of her to to go back to work after maternity leave...

Are you for real!

Please God, they don't all think like you! Why don't we just say women are selfish for not wanting to be chained to the kitchen sink and be done with it! 

Many women might want to go out to work so that they will still have some kind of life after children.  Is there something wrong with that?


----------



## michaelm (4 Jan 2007)

There seems to have been somewhat of an anaphylactic response to Gone Fishin’s post.  The simple fact is that due to Individualisation single-income families will pay up to circa €6k more tax per year than a double-income family; in 2007, single-income families will pay the higher rate of tax on earnings above €43k where as double-income families can earn up to €68k before having to pay tax at the higher rate.  Like it or not the constitution recognises the traditional family as the fundamental unit group of society and the government is constitutionally bound to protect same.


----------



## darag (4 Jan 2007)

> The simple fact is that due to Individualisation single-income families will pay up to circa €6k more tax per year than a double-income family; in 2007, single-income families will pay the higher rate of tax on earnings above €43k where as double-income families can earn up to €68k before having to pay tax at the higher rate. Like it or not the constitution recognises the traditional family as the fundamental unit group of society and the government is constitutionally bound to protect same.


So do you believe that a married, kids, wife-at-home, husband-out-earning couple where the income is less than 43K is "traditional"?  If you do, you can't really complain that "traditional" families are being disadvantaged, since in this case AND in the majority of cases, the family has benefitted greatly from the shift to increased child benefit and away from joint assessment.

I'm pretty sure that the constitution doesn't define "traditional family" in terms of the husband being in the top 20 percentile income-wise.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (4 Jan 2007)

micamaca said:


> So if a woman spends years getting qualifications, secures a good job which she enjoys and does well, it's selfish of her to to go back to work after maternity leave...
> 
> Are you for real!
> 
> ...



@micamaca,If you are going to take issue with something I posted then quote me correctly.

You have completely twisted what I posted.


It is an absolute certaintity some women are working for buttons, when you take into account the cost of childcare, transport etc. Are you saying this is not the case?

If this is what some women want then I think they are making a strange, selfish decision. There are many ways for mothers to express themselves and keep their identity without having to abandon their child(ren).

Individualisation is here to stay, unfortunately, and the price to be paid will not be seen for some time.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (4 Jan 2007)

Purple said:


> ............................
> So you think that people who’s children live outside Ireland (and so do not use resources in out health or educational services despite that fact that their parents taxes pay for those services) should not have the same rights as those who’s children live in Ireland? If they pay their taxes here why should they not receive the same benefits? I’m afraid you show your biases quite clearly with your last comment.
> ..................



Correct. Child benefit was declared to be a payment to help with childcare costs. If a child is living back home in Latvia, Lithuania, Poland or wherever, I feel they should not get this allowance. Why should the Irish State pay for child care in another country?

Shure, why don't we give State pensions to their parents too?


----------



## micamaca (4 Jan 2007)

Gone Fishin' said:


> @micamaca,If you are going to take issue with something I posted then quote me correctly.
> 
> You have completely twisted what I posted.
> 
> ...


 
I do think your words speak for themselves.


----------



## Purple (5 Jan 2007)

Gone Fishin' said:


> Correct. Child benefit was declared to be a payment to help with childcare costs. If a child is living back home in Latvia, Lithuania, Poland or wherever, I feel they should not get this allowance. Why should the Irish State pay for child care in another country?


 Parents in the EU claim child benefit in the state that they reside in. It applies to Irish parents living in France just as it applied to Polish parents living in Ireland. 
Emigrant workers are massive net contributors to our economy. They work here providing much needed labour and paying taxes on their income but because of their average age profile they consume very few of the resources that the state provides for it's residents. We should all be glad to see them. 




Gone Fishin' said:


> Shure, why don't we give State pensions to their parents too?


  If they make the necessary contributions over the requisite number of years then they will get the state pension. Why would you have a problem with that?


----------



## michaelm (5 Jan 2007)

darag said:


> . . in the majority of cases, the family has benefitted greatly from the shift to increased child benefit and away from joint assessment.


I understand your point however my point is that the  'fundamental unit group' should be treated as such for tax purposes regardless of whether there are one or two incomes; I would expect that you would understand this point if not agree with it.


----------



## Vanilla (5 Jan 2007)

I thought it would be interesting to reread the relevant article of the Constitution in light of this thread, so here is Article 41 of the constitution:

'1.1. The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

1.2. The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensible to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2.1 In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2.2 The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.'

The Constitution was enacted on the 1st July 1937 and I feel it is important to read it in the light of that time. 


I'm a working mother. I believe my husband and I bear equal responsibility towards the well being of our family.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (5 Jan 2007)

It would help, greatly, if some contributors to this debate would read the posts on which they are replying to correctly.


----------



## Purple (5 Jan 2007)

Good post Vanilla. As a working father with a working wife I agree with you.


----------



## ajapale (5 Jan 2007)

So perhaps the rumour is of a *constitutional* challenge to the policy?


----------



## darag (5 Jan 2007)

> I understand your point however my point is that the 'fundamental unit group' should be treated as such for tax purposes regardless of whether there are one or two incomes; I would expect that you would understand this point if not agree with it.


Well that's not exactly the point you originally expressed, was it?  You claimed that single-income families are paying more tax than they were.  I pointed out that only in a limited number of cases would that be the case.  When you take the increases in child benefit into account, I would imagine that the number of child rearing traditional families who are worse off now is very small if not insignificant.

Why should the 'fundamental unit group' be treated as such for tax purposes?  The constitution makes no reference to the method of assessing income tax for families but does refer to economic necessity in general.  To claim that the move towards individualisation for income tax assessment is a blow to the traditional family is at best disingenious given that at least 80% (I would imagine) of "traditional" families are far better off than they were with the changes in the way the government provides economic support for families.


----------



## michaelm (5 Jan 2007)

Vanilla said:


> The Constitution was enacted on the 1st July 1937 and I feel it is important to read it in the light of that time.


My hippocampus suggests that you move in legal circles so I am disinclined to cross swords with you on matters legal but none the less I'm not sure how 'important' or relevant is is to 'read it in the light of the time'. The Constitution is a super document and is as relevant and insightful today as it was in 1937. The Constitution is continually under review, most recently the APOCC looked that 'The Family' and found no appetite for anything but cosmetic changes to Article 41.





Vanilla said:


> I'm a working mother. I believe my husband and I bear equal responsibility towards the well being of our family.


Of course you bear equal responsibility. All anyone can do is what they think is best for their family. IMHO if parents with young children both work full-time when not financially necessary then they are making a mistake. Individualisation doesn't effect you at the moment but it may do if your situation changes and one of you needs or want to work in the home.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (5 Jan 2007)

> 80% (I would imagine) of "traditional" families are far better off



Ah, you mean financially.

Too many children only see Mom and Dad for a few hours a day, and at weekends. Are these "better off" ? Mom and Dad might have the price of a foreign holiday out of their extra efforts but please don't tell me these children are better off.


----------



## Guest127 (5 Jan 2007)

the bottom line in all this is. should a working wife be screwed (regularly and well is probably the answer) for tax on her income just because she is married? and I know it can be the hubby who earns less, just using the majority situation as an example.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (5 Jan 2007)

It's about being pragmatic and looking at the "real" amount she is earning. Previously she did not have to go out to work to earn her tax free allowance, now she must seek employment to get this tax-free allowance.

I remember many couples where the wife would insist on taking half the TFA to make it look like she was earning a "proper" wage, when, in effect, she was working for very little net gain. If the main bread-winner (usually the husband) took all the allowances she would see her actual earnings in her take-home pay. For many, their time at work was nothin much more than a social outing, with a small net financial benefit.


----------



## Vanilla (5 Jan 2007)

michaelm- The first amendment to the constitution was in 1939. Here is a link for you to view some of the amendments made since:

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/html files/Constitution of Ireland (Eng)Nov2004.htm

There are bills for more proposed amendments pending. The Constitution, in order to remain valid, must change with the times. We should not be too precious about something which defined this country in 1937, we've changed considerably since.



> For many, their time at work was nothin much more than a social outing, with a small net financial benefit.


 

Yes, that's why I work, it's like a party all day long in my office.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (5 Jan 2007)

> Yes, that's why I work, it's like a party all day long in my office.



Yet again a complete, deliberate, misinterpretation.

As a social outing, to meet other people and to get out of the house. As for "party"? You are simply being disingenuous and facetious..


You don't help your agrument by deliberately distorting what was posted.


----------



## Vanilla (5 Jan 2007)

> You are simply being disingenuous and facetious..


 
Great, I thought I was just being sarcastic, but I'm happy enough with those too.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (5 Jan 2007)

Whatever you were trying to be it wasn't helping your argument!


----------



## darag (5 Jan 2007)

> Ah, you mean financially.


I think I can safely accuse you of being facetious.  I wouldn't normally bother but you seem happy to accuse others of such behaviour.  You seem intent on personalising the discussion and second-guessing peoples' motives.  I don't want to patronise you but I think you might do far better to convince others that there is some merit in your point of view if you tried to argue your point without acting in this manner.  Most of the other pro-joint assessment people seem to be able to argue their point of view without losing their cool.



> Too many children only see Mom and Dad for a few hours a day, and at weekends. Are these "better off" ? Mom and Dad might have the price of a foreign holiday out of their extra efforts but please don't tell me these children are better off.


I simply have no idea what point you think you are responding to here.  For someone who is hyper-sensitive about others "properly reading", I'd like to see you do the same or at least quote the claim of mine that you feel you are rebutting.  In case I didn't express it clearly enough for you, my previous message simply stated that the majority of single earning "traditional" child-rearing families have NOT been adversly affected finacially by the move to individualisation.  So yes, these children ARE BETTER OFF; with no change to the employment status of either spouse, the government is providing them with more financial support.


----------



## ajapale (5 Jan 2007)

GF,

Please discuss the issue and refrain from personalised remarks directed at other posters.

.

aj



> The core purpose of Askaboutmoney is to ask and answer questions. Posts which are aggressive or uncivil or which do not ask or answer a question are liable to be deleted.
> 
> Askaboutmoney is run by volunteers. We do not have the time to discuss our moderation decisions, so please do not post questions or messages as to why your post was deleted.


----------



## Purple (5 Jan 2007)

Gone Fishin' said:


> I am not shallow enough to think that my children would be better off purely because there is a few extra euro coming into the household, you <darag>, on the other hand, are telling us all that children are "better off"  because there is more moeny in the household. Your argument that thechildren of working parents are better off because of increased child benefit, or tax allowances, is ridiculous. How can a child be "better off" bacause Mom or Dad have more money. A child's welfare is not as dependent on money as you make it out to be.


Clearly aif more money is coming into the house the child will be better off. This is irrefutably obvious. I think that you are implying that the darag is suggesting that the child will be relatively better off with two working parents and more money from child benefit than they would be if a parent were at home full time to mind them and they had no extra child benefit. I am open to correction (by darag) but I don’t think that this is what he is saying.   



Gone Fishin' said:


> A child is only a child for a short while. Unfortunately, too many parents pay insufficient time or attention to this phase of the little peoples' lives, far too caught up in their own careers and efforts to get more money. @darag, do you feel children reared in their own home, by their own parents, are better off than those reared by strangers?


Your use of very emotive language clouds a reasonable point.

_post crossed with ajapale_


----------



## Marion (5 Jan 2007)

As a single person with no kids, I would like to give my opinion - if this is ok!

I found the comments by Vanilla and Purple to be honest, but I had to ask myself - why was it necessary for couples in a marriage to state that both parents were happy to be involved in parenting? I found this odd. I would have assumed this to be normal.

Recently, my friends and I - some parents,  some single - discussed the kids on our estate (specifically those with stay at home parents and those where both parents went out to work).  [Ok, we don't have a whole pile to do with our time - sorry!]

Our conclusion was that there were more stay at home parents whose kids were really bold. 

We inclined to the view that it  really isn't all about "stay at home parent", but parents who are interested in *parenting*.

Marion


----------



## Vanilla (8 Jan 2007)

> I found the comments by Vanilla and Purple to be honest, but I had to ask myself - why was it necessary for couples in a marriage to state that both parents were happy to be involved in parenting? I found this odd. I would have assumed this to be normal.


 
I can't speak for Purple, Marion, but I made those comments directly as a response to some of Gone Fishin's comments which singled working mothers out as being solely responsible for their childrens welfare and ignored the responsiblity of their father.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (8 Jan 2007)

Vanilla said:


> ................ I made those comments directly as a response to some of Gone Fishin's comments which singled working mothers out as being solely responsible for their childrens welfare and ignored the responsiblity of their father.



That is not true! I would add something but the assinine moderator interference in my previous contributions make spirited debate impossible.


----------



## michaelm (8 Jan 2007)

Marion said:


> Recently, my friends and I - some parents, some single - discussed the kids on our estate (specifically those with stay at home parents and those where both parents went out to work). [Ok, we don't have a whole pile to do with our time - sorry!]
> 
> Our conclusion was that there were more stay at home parents whose kids were really bold.


Doesn't quite amount to a longitudinal study.





Marion said:


> We inclined to the view that it really isn't all about "stay at home parent", but parents who are interested in *parenting*.


Ok, I'm not fully sure what your statement means; I don't know any parents who aren't interested in parenting.  There is a growing body of evidence that young children looked after by their mother (yes I wrote 'mother' and not 'parent') do better in social and emotional development, and have lower levels of stress and aggression, than those looked after by others; even if one turns a blind-eye to this I simply can't fathom how, when not financially necessary, parents chose to pay someone else to care for their young children while they both go off to work.


----------



## ice (10 Jan 2007)

The whole working mother V stay at home mother debate is always so futile ...stay at home mothers accuse working mothers of abandoning their children in the pursuit of material posessions for themselves and working mothers accuse stay at home mothers of watching opera all day and not having a brain ........... OK the extreme ends of the 'argument' but you get my drift  

The fact is there are families with stay at home spouses and there are many homes with both parents working full time.......THEN there are many combinations inbetween ...part time working, shift workers, single parent families, second marragies with childern from different relationships sharing a home etc etc...

We, as a society, need to reasses the importance of the child and the family, in its many guises, and find a way to support all children/parents in as many situations as possible.

Better part time opportunities for both mothers and fathers, better access to preschool education etc 

Individualisation says to a stay at home parent that the work they do in the home is not as valuable as the work a 'working' parent does outside the home. We need to ask ourselves if we value the work done by a parent in the home?


----------



## lab-rat (22 Jan 2007)

*depressed- small tax refund*

Hi all,
Surely this is unfair!!
Myself and my partner are together for 10 years, I am pregnant at the moment with our first child. We are not married, but it is becoming increasing obvious that our co habiting status is effecting us financially.

Due to pregnancy complications we decided to go Private and take the high cost hit. So far this year we forked out 2.5k on medical expenses.
I got notice from the tax office that I will get 500 back (med 1) We still have to fork out another 1.5klater on this year.

If we were married we could have claimed against his tax, he has a higher salary and therefore pays more at 42%. I am annoyed that the state favours married couples.

Depressed at the moment. (probably hormonal) Sorry rant over  
lab-rat


----------



## RainyDay (22 Jan 2007)

I have a vague memory of reading something in one of the Sunday papers a few weeks ago about some conservative pressure group (possibly named Iona-something) were behind the proposed challenge, but I can't find anything to confirm my memory.


----------



## RainyDay (15 Mar 2007)

See .


----------



## Purple (16 Mar 2007)

As a secular liberal I find the Iona Institute disturbing but as traditional conservative Catholics, a large proportion of this country, have no voice in national print or broadcast media it is not surprising that some of them are trying to get their message out.
I find it very disturbing that the Labour party, a very active force for positive social change under Dick Spring, is now selling out in order to garner support from floating middle-income rural voters.


----------



## michaelm (16 Mar 2007)

Purple said:


> I find it very disturbing that the Labour party, a very active force for positive social change under Dick Spring, is now selling out in order to garner support from floating middle-income rural voters.


I'm not sure that taxing families as a unit rather than as individuals would amount to a sell out.  I suspect that many of those at whom the sop is aimed wouldn't traditionally be Labour voters and that FG are more likely to hoover up such votes given that they are making similar noises on this issue.


----------



## Purple (16 Mar 2007)

michaelm said:


> I'm not sure that taxing families as a unit rather than as individuals would amount to a sell out.  I suspect that many of those at whom the sop is aimed wouldn't traditionally be Labour voters and that FG are more likely to hoover up such votes given that they are making similar noises on this issue.


 I agree that this is FG ground but I'm surprised that Labour would associate with the Iona Institute.


----------



## michaelm (16 Mar 2007)

Purple said:


> . . I'm surprised that Labour would associate with the Iona Institute.


Ditto; and vice versa.


----------



## RainyDay (16 Mar 2007)

Purple said:


> as traditional conservative Catholics, a large proportion of this country, have no voice in national print or broadcast media it is not surprising that some of them are trying to get their message out.


I'm not quite sure that the , head honcho of the Iona institute qualifies as 'no voice'.

For the record, the extent of the 'Labour involvement' was actually the writing of a forward and participation in the launch by Joan Burton. Given that this initiative by Iona coincides completely with Labour policy in this area, surely it would hypocritical NOT to have participated.


----------



## darag (17 Mar 2007)

> Given that this initiative by Iona coincides completely with Labour policy in this area, surely it would hypocritical NOT to have participated.


And hardly too surprising given the demographic of Labour party membership in the country.  Implementing this policy which will reward some of their solidly middle/upper middle class support (people earning over 55k a year - the average worker/family will get nothing from this policy) which can  be wrapped in a populist message about "looking after families".  Meanwhile the Iona institute get to push for a tax environment where a woman returning to work is facing marginal rates of tax straight off the bat.  I originally typed "spouse" instead of "woman" in the above sentence but let's face it, the policy is designed to support the "traditional" middle class family - i.e. wife doing the housework and cooking, husband out working for a salary wether there are children to be looked after or not.  I've never given FF a first preference in my life but Labour and FG's policies are forcing my hand in the upcoming election.


----------



## Guest127 (17 Mar 2007)

beaten docket on this. surely everyone is entitled to the same tax credits and tax cut of point regardless of married, single or whatever. a court case taken by a 'spouse' ( with an income) would almost certainly be upheld.


----------



## RainyDay (18 Mar 2007)

Darag’s implication that this policy is targeted at families with one earner whose income exceeds €55k is incorrect. The impact of individualisation kicks in at the modest level of just €43k, where a single income couple with children will pay just under €1k more tax than a double-income couple with children. Let’s not pretend that families with one or more children on a combined income of €43k suit the image of lazy ladies who lunch painted by Darag. €43k is a fairly modest income these days. Any civil service at HEO level or above, or local authority officer at Grade VI or above will break into this salary level. Darag’s claim that ‘woman returning to work is facing marginal rates of tax straight off the bat’ is of course a red herring, unless all these women are feeble-minded bimbos with no understanding of the tax credit system.

But Darag conveniently ignores the social reality of these single income families. These are the families who realised there was something slightly unnatural with not seeing their kids in daylight between October and April. These are the families who having spent 90+ minutes each way commuting from south Wicklow or east Westmeath found they had a better relationship with George Hook than with their own kids. These are the families where one partner (yes, usually the wife) may well be caring for a disabled child or an elderly parent (without the cushion of a carers allowance, given the current means testing policy). From personal experience, they are also the people who keep the communities vacated by the working mums on track during the working day – stepping in as emergency backup to mind the sick child refused entry to the crèche, or to take delivery of the new sofa. 

For the record, here’s what Joan Burton actually proposed in her forward to the [broken link removed];



> Personally, I think individualisation has gone far enough. Reversing the policy is estimated to cost up
> to €700 million a year on an ongoing basis. However we could stop widening the penalties against
> single income families in each annual Budget. Another step would be to bring the Home Carers Credit
> which is currently €770 per annum up to the level of the PAYE credit of €1760.
> ...



But Darag & others may wish to continue McCreevy’s attempts to support his buddies in IBEC by ensuring a steady supply of cheap labour for their call centres  and offices.


----------



## darag (19 Mar 2007)

Winning debating strategy there Rainyday; roll out a whole load of unrelated but emotionally powerful images - long commuting times, parent's lack of time with their children, carers not being supported to look after disabled relatives, sick children being looked after by neighbours, evil employers exploiting "cheap labour", etc.  I'm surprised you stopped where you did; what about the problem of teenage drug and drink abuse, overcrowding in prisons, the state of the health service, the deplorable weather many people have to put up with in Ireland? 

The simple reality is that if Labour wanted to help families with children, they could simply have a policy of increasing child benefit.  Unfortunately this would benefit people earning average industrial wages or worse the "lumpen proletariat" working in low paid employment.  This policy, happily for the well paid demographic labour is targetting, is regressive; the less you earn the less you get to help raise a family.  Because of this I only see cynical political opportunism here - increasing child benefit has been FF policy so Labour have to try to offer something else even if the primary beneficiaries are the relatively wealthy - and the more you earn the more you benefit.

In the topsy turvy world of Irish politics, no wonder Bertie Ahearn can make the laughable claim that he's a socialist.  He's no more a socialist than Maggie Thacher is but if Labour can claim to be socialist while their main "family supporting" policy only benefits the top 25% of earners, then you can't really complain.


----------



## RainyDay (19 Mar 2007)

I'm not quite sure if you are complimenting me or poking fun with your reference to 'emotionally powerful images'. Regardless, this is the reality of life for families bringing up their kids today.

Your suggestions regarding a policy on child benefit increases are a little too late. Labour's [broken link removed] from late last year addresses this issue, and (contradicting your unsupported claims of targeting top earners only), recommends a specific focus on families with low incomes:


> We favour a supplementary child benefit scheme, which would top
> up child benefit for families on low incomes, subject to a generous withdrawal
> rate to reduce the possibility of poverty traps. We also favour more regular
> payment of both the primary and supplementary child benefit. The
> supplementary scheme would incorporate FIS and CDAs.



But perhaps you are more interested in taking potshots than actually moving forward with some positive policy improvements?


----------



## DrMoriarty (19 Mar 2007)

I've one, which I've offered before in these pages, although in a different context — means-test Child Benefit. Families with over e.g. €100K pa income, which are not _so _numerous as to make the cost of assessment prohibitive, get reduced benefit or none at all.

I reckon it'd be a great vote-winner...


----------



## RainyDay (19 Mar 2007)

DrMoriarty said:


> I've one, which I've offered before in these pages, although in a different context — means-test Child Benefit. Families with over e.g. €100K pa income, which are not _so _numerous as to make the cost of assessment prohibitive, get reduced benefit or none at all.
> 
> I reckon it'd be a great vote-winner...



I wouldn't have an objection in principle to this approach, but I would wonder about the practicalities. Any such policy would mean that ALL CB applications would need to be means tested. How much would the implementation of such a means testing system cost? How long would initial CB payments would be delayed? How much would be saved through this means testing?


----------



## DrMoriarty (19 Mar 2007)

I deal in lofty principles, not practicalities.  

Surely the Government should be able to work out something? It can't be all that much more costly or complicated than, say, devising a system of electronic voting. _(Whoops! Forgot...)_


----------



## Purple (20 Mar 2007)

DrMoriarty said:


> I've one, which I've offered before in these pages, although in a different context — means-test Child Benefit. Families with over e.g. €100K pa income, which are not _so _numerous as to make the cost of assessment prohibitive, get reduced benefit or none at all.
> 
> I reckon it'd be a great vote-winner...


Speaking as a parent with a household income well over the €100K mark I agree completely with your idea. I would use the money saved to increase the child benefit for those who really need it.
I would also introduce 3rd level fees for the well off (like me) and get rid of the registration fees that continue to disenfranchise poorer students. 
By EU standards we have low income tax in this country, particularly for the well off (I pay a lower proportion of my income in tax now than I did 10 years ago). So why should the well off be further advantaged by giving them the same level of direct financial support that the working poor get?
I do not read policy statements by the political parties but I do read the newspapers and watch and listen to current affairs programmes on TV and radio and all I hear from the Labour party is pandering to middle income floating voters. The populist rubbish on Joan Burtons website (pointed out by Dr.M) is a case in point.


----------



## michaelm (20 Mar 2007)

darag said:


> The simple reality is that if Labour wanted to help families with children, they could simply have a policy of increasing child benefit.  Unfortunately this would benefit people earning average industrial wages or worse the "lumpen proletariat" working in low paid employment.


Let us not pretend that there are no supports for the low paid e.g. Social and Affordable Housing, Medical Cards, FIS and the Community Welfare Officer among other things.  The crux of the argument is that the State should not use the tax system to penalise single-income families.  In any case the Labour/FG proposals seem like window dressing; they have no real issue with individualisation in principle, they are just offering to halt it's creep.  If the snippet I read in the Indo is true, that FG also want to abolish the Early Childcare Supplement, then many single-income families will be in a net worse position.  Sometimes I wonder about the opposition, whenever they have FF at point-blank range they still manage to shoot themselves in the foot.


----------



## michaelm (20 Mar 2007)

Purple said:


> . . Labour party is pandering to middle income floating voters.


Methinks that the middle-income people are those whom pay most of the income tax in this country, with single-income middle-income paying more again.


----------



## Guest127 (20 Mar 2007)

lets take the children and child minding etc out of this for a moment. 
husband at work say earning around the 40/50k mark. Spouse also at work say earning €25,000. currently 'he' would pay tax at 41% on everything over 43,000 and 'she' would pay tax at 20% on anything under the €25,000 threshold. If she earns less than €25k she cannot transfer any 'balance' to her spouse but equally if she earns more than €25k she has to pay tax @41% wheras in an equal society she would not have to pay tax at that rate until see too exceeded the 43k limit.
can't understand if everyone is equal under the constitution how you can have two different rates like this. equally a stay at home parent should have €43,000 of a cut of point too. (also non transferrable) whether he/she actually works shouldn't have any bearing on the situation whatsoever. however in order to level the field for stay at home spouses perhaps the government should consider a straight allowance for stay at home parents for children under 18. can't see why a stay at home parent with grown up children can expect to receive a payment for not working. maybe it's just me but I can't see how the government can discriminate against a 2nd earner just because they are married. In case anyone thinks I have a personal issue here I would like to state that Mrs Cu works part time and earns just under €24,000 so she doen't pay tax at the top rate nor does she pay the health levy. but I still think that even if she earned €34,000 that it should be at the 20% rate. as thats the rate a single person would be taxed at earning up to €43,000. so why discriminate against a married person? 
stay at home parents should definitely be given an allowance during the school going years though. and a substantial allowance at that.


----------



## ashambles (20 Mar 2007)

May well be reading the last post incorrectly, but 



> "but I still think that even if she earned €34,000 that it should be at the 20% rate. as thats the rate a single person would be taxed at earning up to €43,000. so why discriminate against a married person?"


seems wrong.

My understanding was that the single income payer pays 41% over 34k, two spouses working pay 41% at 68k, one spouse working pays 41% for income over 43k. [broken link removed] has better details.


----------



## Guest127 (20 Mar 2007)

Apologies;   you are correct Ashambles and I am totally wrong. Two earning effectively have twice the single limit. invididualisation in effect doubles the single persons COP for a married couple both working.(provided that the lesser earner can reach the €25,000 limit) I didn't realise this was the case and I am happy to stand corrected.
cheers


----------



## Purple (21 Mar 2007)

cuchulainn said:


> Apologies;   you are correct Ashambles and I am totally wrong. Two earning effectively have twice the single limit. invididualisation in effect doubles the single persons COP for a married couple both working.(provided that the lesser earner can reach the €25,000 limit) I didn't realise this was the case and I am happy to stand corrected.
> cheers



Not very many people around here admit it when they make a mistake. It is to your credit that you have.


----------



## Vanilla (22 Mar 2007)

DrMoriarty said:


> I deal in lofty principles, not practicalities.
> 
> Surely the Government should be able to work out something? It can't be all that much more costly or complicated than, say, devising a system of electronic voting. _(Whoops! Forgot...)_


 

Ha ha ha. Best post for a long time. Clever and witty and very funny. Bravo Dr.M!


----------

