Rumour that Individualisation will be challenged in the courts

[Purple]

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.

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.

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

What leads you to that conclusion?

(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]

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]

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

 

[Vanilla]

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]

What about the fathers?

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

 

[ramble]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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']

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?

@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']

............................
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]

@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).

I do think your words speak for themselves.

 

[Purple]

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.

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]

. . 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]

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']

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

 

[Purple]

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

 

[ajapale]

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

 

[darag]

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.