Individualisation is here

Re: Individualisation

Hi Dynamo

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

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

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

I feel another great debate coming on . . .

Individualisation

Hi UDS,

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

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

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

Re: Individualisation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Individualisation

This debate is starting to put years on me.

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

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

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

Re: Individualisation

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

tedd

Minister for finance

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

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

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

Minister for finance

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

How will you deal with the married closet gay people?

Re: Fairies

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

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

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

Re: Using my charms

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

answer the question Madonna.

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

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

Fair Play for All

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair play for all

I'm pro-individualisation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Fair play for all

This topic has been degenerating recently and has been closed.

The last comment has been moved here -