# Individualistation - Fair play for all



## zag (13 Dec 2001)

This topic has been moved from another thread which was beginning to degenerate

**BEGIN ORIGINAL POST***
Posted by "Individual and proud" (12/12/01 11:27:23 pm)
********************

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.


----------



## UDS (14 Dec 2001)

Hi, Individual and Proud.

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_  “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).”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

I don’t want to be picky, but if you believe that the state should ignore life choices you presumably don’t favour tax relief or other state support for childcare.

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “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 . . . we both paid taxes/prsi after all . . . 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.”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

I’m inclined to agree with you on this.  If this is an insured benefit, for which the qualifying conditions are that you have paid the requisite social insurance contributions and are unemployed, then once you meet those conditions you should get the benefit.  If the benefit is otherwise unrelated to your income and expenditure, I don’t see why it should vary depending on your domestic arrangements.

A slight difference if the benefit is means-tested.  If you get the benefit, basically, because you lack the financial resources to meet fundamental needs, then your personal circumstances are relevant.  To put it crudely, two individuals sharing a home have less outgoings in respect of basic needs – food, shelter – than two individuals maintaining two separate homes, and if the payment is needs-based this is a relevant consideration.  This is true regardless of whether the two are married, cohabiting or flatmates.

Mind you, I still don’t see why the allowance in respect of you should be paid to your boyfriend (or husband) unless it suits you both that it should be that way, and you request it.


----------



## rockflake (15 Dec 2001)

Hi UDS,

"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 don’t want to be picky, but if you believe that the state should ignore life choices you presumably don’t favour tax relief or other state support for childcare."

On the picky side, there is a real difference in that children do not have the luxury of making life choices. Surely that's the principal. In principal, as it were, I like the idea of child benefit being means-tested but in the real world of alcoholic fathers (they're mostly fathers) I'm not sure that would work. Worth a debate though.

I'm all for individualisation. Leaving provision for children aside I do think one's life choices should be your own business.

Rock


----------



## Individual and proud (15 Dec 2001)

Hi,

>I don’t want to be picky, but if you believe that the >state should ignore life choices you presumably don’t >favour tax relief or other state support for childcare.

I think that the state should also have an 'individual' relationship with everyone including children (and students). 
This should involve treating everyone on equal terms, while guaranteeing a minimum standard of living for those who can't control their own life just yet.

I think that the only way for the state to ensure that their commitment to children / students is getting passed along is to increase taxes for everyone to pay for subsidised childcare and children's healthcare for all.
(On the understanding of course that the brats pay for our pensions when the time comes!)

On childcare specifically, all childcare should be massively subsidised (but by a standard amount per child), with further FIS type full subsidies for those who would be better off not working because of the cost of childcare.

I don't believe that people should be paid to look after their own children long-term at home. However, significantly increased maternity leave could be allocated to each child born to be divided as wished between both parents. 

I also think that students should receive payments equivalent to unemployment benefit during term. I don't think this should be means tested based on the parents' income. 

It is ridiculous that the only way some people can get to college is to stop working, and go on the dole until they qualify for the (vtos?) long-term unemployed back-to-education scheme (assisstance + rent during college).

The payment I was discussing was unemployment Benefit (non-means tested). The situation is that two people sharing a house get separate (higher) payments if they say they are flatmates, but one (lower) combined payment if they admit to being 'together'. 
The social welfare people will also call around to your house to inspect your sleeping arrangements if you try to deny your love and arouse their suspicions. Apparently they are quite vigourous too (checking drawers etc.)

It's this intrusive schoolmasterly rubbish that really gets to me - having to endure some civil servant sniffing your bedsheets before you can claim what you are entitled to is a bit much.


----------



## CM (15 Dec 2001)

*Alcoholic fathers*

<!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* but in the real world of alcoholic fathers (they're mostly fathers)*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

Any chance you could back that statement up with some facts?


----------



## Freddie Kruger (15 Dec 2001)

*Re: Alcoholic fathers*

Post deleted, as head was likely to be chewed off.


----------



## CM (15 Dec 2001)

*AA*

Doesn't prove anything - how many alcoholics seek help from AA.... It seems that sweeping generalisations are a la mode on AAM lately.


----------



## UDS (17 Dec 2001)

*Individualisation*

Hi, I and P

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “I think that the state should also have an 'individual' relationship with everyone . . . treating everyone on equal terms, while guaranteeing a minimum standard of living for those who can't control their own life . . . all childcare should be massively subsidised . . . further FIS type full subsidies for those who would be better off not working because of the cost of childcare . . . I don't believe that people should be paid to look after their own children long-term at home . . . significantly increased maternity leave . . . students should receive payments . . . I don't think this should be means tested based on the parents' income . . .”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

You can’t believe all this, and still maintain that the state should “leave moralising and life choices out of the equation”.  Having a child or not is a life choice.  Using childcare services, having your child cared for by relatives or caring for your own child at home is a life choice.  Being a student is a life choice.  You are suggesting that those who make one choice when faced with these alternatives should receive state support through the tax/benefits system, but not those who make a different choice.  Don’t get me wrong – there are good arguments in support of all the policies you are suggesting.  But they are completely inconsistent with a belief that the state should ignore life choices.

It seems to me that you <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ do_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> think that the state should favour particular life choices, and either has a right to encourage them, or a duty to support them, through the tax/benefits sytem.  I think, in fact, that most people believe this; the only differences between them are over which life choices should be supported, and how, and to what extent.

I entirely agree with you about the unemployment benefit.  I think its degrading to you and your boyfriend (and almost equally degrading to the social welfare officer) to have your private lives investigated in this way. I concede that there are some benefits where your family status is relevant – most obviously, benefits for single parents – but social insurance unemployment benefit is not one of them, and if the result of treating everybody as an individual is that the overall cost of the benefit rises somewhat, well, that is a price we should be prepared to pay for a system with a minimum of human dignity about it.


----------



## UDS (18 Dec 2001)

*Re: Individualisation*

Hi Rockflake.

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_   “On the picky side, there is a real difference in that children do not have the luxury of making life choices.”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

In this case it’s the parents who make a life choice – or rather life choices.  First, the choice whether to have a child.  Secondly, the choice whether to care for their children themselves, to have other family members care for them or to have them cared for by a commercial childcare service.  (I don’t intend “commercial” to be pejorative there, I hasten to add.)  This is a life choice both for the parents and for the children although, of course, it is the parents who actually make the choice.

It is Individual and Proud, not me, who suggests that life choices should be ignored in the tax and benefits system.  As it happens, I <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_   would_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> have reservations about the state taking a position on this particular life choice, and offering a subsidy to parents who use a commercial childcare service but not to those who make either of the alternative choices.  All three choices have their advantages and disadvantages from the parent’s point of view (and from the child’s).  Why should the state favour one over the others?

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_   “I'm all for individualisation. Leaving provision for children aside I do think one's life choices should be your own business.”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

On that basis, obviously, you oppose the PAYE allowance, mortgage interest relief for homeowners, income tax deductions for pension contributions, stamp duty and inheritance tax exemptions for spouses, the first-time buyer’s grant and (except where children are concerned) all other aspects of the tax and benefits system which encourage people to make one particular life choice rather than another?

Oh.  And the Family Law (Protection of Spouses and Children) Act in so far as it relates to spouses?  That’s the one providing for barring orders.


----------



## tedd (18 Dec 2001)

*Re: Individualisation*

I don't think it is reasonable to extrapolate people's views about individualisation as it regards taxation, social welfare and childcare to suggest that such people do not support legislation protecting personal safety.


----------



## UDS (18 Dec 2001)

*Re: Individualisation*

Hi tedd

I don’t want to make light of the problem  of domestic violence – far from it.  But I want to point out that the statements being bandied about in this discussion like 

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “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.”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

and

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ “I'm all for individualisation. Leaving provision for children aside I do think one's life choices should be your own business.”_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

are extreme libertarian statements, and those who make them would probably feel the need to qualify them fairly severely on more careful reflection.

If somebody chooses to marry or move in with a partner – the legislation applies equally in both cases – one of the unfortunate but unavoidable consequences is that they make themselves potentially more vulnerable to violence from that partner, and we recognise that in our laws by providing them with additional remedies, beyond those available in cases of violence against single people.  I think that’s right and proper, and I imagine that everyone else participating in this discussion does also.  What I’m asking them to recognise is that, notwithstanding the broad statements already made, they do not <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ really_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> believe that the state should simply ignore life choices, since here is an area where the state recognises and accepts the consequences of a life choice and treats people differently as a result, and (I presume) they think that this is right.

I would not for an instant compare domestic violence and tax equalisation, but what I am doing is suggesting that, for most people, there is an area – quite a wide area, going well beyond domestic violence – where they accept that the state <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ should_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> recognise and give effect to the life choices which people make, and another area where it is inappropriate for the state to intervene.  Drawing the line between the two areas is not easy, but it certainly cannot be done with sweeping statements like “the state should ignore life choices”.

The truth is that, most of the time, most of us <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ want_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> the community – and that includes the state - to recognise and accept our life choices, not ignore them.  Religious and moral considerations aside, the reason we marry as oppose to living together is because we want formal, social, legal, community recognition of our relationship, and the reason we live together rather than marry is because we want to keep it private – our concern and nobody else’s.  If we have children we want them to be recognised as dependent on us, because that is the reality.  And so forth.

A tolerant and progressive society does not ignore life choices – it accepts them.  And it only favours one alternative in a life choice over another where there are clear social reasons for doing so – social reasons which for the most part have nothing to do with the welfare of the people making the choice, since their welfare is best promoted by allowing them to make choices without interference.


----------



## tedd (18 Dec 2001)

*Accidental duplicate post*

(This message was left blank)


----------



## tedd (18 Dec 2001)

*Re: A debate that is no longer about "Individualisation*

UDS, 

The two comments you mention make it clear that the posters are referring to financial matters. You are extrapolating from their expressed views about financial matters to (possibly unintentionally) inferring that because they hold those views, they also hold (or should hold) a number of other views. Or inversely that because they do not hold these other allegedly "libertarian" views, their views on the financial implications of individualisation are invalid.

You have clearly expressed one point of view which supports the social recognition of marriage and its place in society. Most people would respect your strongly held beliefs, even those who do not agree with them.

But, with respect, the sort of argument which you are advancing is the sort of circuitous argument other groups campaigning on "moral" issues have used in the past, for example in some of our more divisive referenda. In such instances, people holding an opinion on either side were assumed to hold a number of other opinions. Or had these other (generally more extreme) opinions, "attributed" to them by their opponents. In my view, such debates generated a lot of heat, but not much light.   

regards,
tedd


----------



## Madonna (18 Dec 2001)

*Re: Are we not missing the plot*

This thread is altogether too philosophical for my liking.:eek  

Two points I wish to repeat which pretend to no moral force but simply to expose the Charlie scheme for what it is:

(1)  As I recall it, individualisation was justified on one ground and one ground only, the economic need to feed the Tiger with otherwise stay at home spouses.  I do not recall any high and mightly socio-behavioural justifications from Charlie.  <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*  <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->  <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START-->THE TIGER IS DEAD<!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->.  Thus the <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START-->only<!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--> reason why this was proposed in the first place is gone.  Why persist, if not out of pure arrogant stubbornness?:mad  

(2)  Any of the various systems of taxation can be "justified".   But to suddenly change course undermines a whole behavioural choice.  We (my spouse and I) chose the old fashioned route of one earning the bread, the other minding the kids, and it made tax sense as well.  Now twenty years on we are told that is not the modern way.  But my spouse  is now unemployable having not kept up with developments in his sphere in the belief that in tax terms our way of life would continue to be treated fairly. Not so.:mad  

Five questions for Fianna Fail at the next election:

(1)  Why persist with a tax strategy which has been negated by the demise of the Tiger?

(2) Why should criminals like Liam Lawlor be allowed holiday breaks in New York?

(3) Why are you so opposed to conventional marriage?

(4) Why did you bury Kevin Barry twice?

5)  Why should I vote for you bastards?
:eek


----------



## Guiseppe (18 Dec 2001)

*Re: Are we not missing the plot*

6) With 400+ people killed each year, why, 5 years after promising it, have you still not passed the penalty point legislation?


(sorry to go off topic....but this is my no 1 question for the b**tards....ooops, sorry Noel!)


----------



## UDS (18 Dec 2001)

*Re: Are we not missing the plot*

Hi tedd

What I was trying – perhaps ineptly – to say in my last post was that I know perfectly well that I and P, rockflake and others do <!--EZCODE ITALIC START-->_ not_<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> disagree with the domestic violence legislation – or, I suspect, CAT exemptions for spouses, mortgage interest relief, etc, etc.  I was asking a rhetorical question, intended to show that their earlier statements about the state ignoring life choices were unsustainably sweeping, and to challenge them to try to articulate some basis for identifying when the state should accept and recognise life choices, and when it should ignore them.

I did not think anyone would read my earlier post as an imputation that others believe that the problem of domestic violence should be ignored, but rather as an imputation that they had not thought through their positions about when the state should recognise life choices and when it should not.  Sincere apologies and an unqualified withdrawal if anybody took the first meaning from my posts.


----------



## Homer (9 Feb 2002)

*Re: Are we not missing the plot*

Sorry to revive an old topic, but I just came across this thread and its predecessor. I really enjoyed the cut and thrust of the debate and would like to add my own two cents.

Much of the fiscal legislation that has been passed in recent years appears to reflect the individual perspective of the current Minister for Finance. While I would not dream of suggesting that this is evidence that cronyism is alive and well and living in Leinster House, I find it difficult to arrive at any logical alternative explanation for what has happened in recent years.

Like many other posters, I have no intention of voting Fianna Fail in the next election, but I hate to find myself being forced to make decisions for negative rather than positive reasons. Given past histories with coalitions, I'm not even sure that whoever I vote for will not end up in a coalition with Fianna Fail, assurances to the contrary notwithstanding.

Help!

Homer


----------

