Rumour that Individualisation will be challenged in the courts

P

Paula_907

Guest
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)
 
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.
Click to expand...

How does her husband pay more tax? Can you give us examples?
 
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)
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
Paula_907 said:
Why are the current government trying to make it harder for parents to stay at home to mind their children?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
It will not be long before the financial burden of having children depresses the birth rate. See here for Germany's answer.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 


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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.]
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
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.
Click to expand...
You have not refuted any of my points except to repeat the claim that what I've said is false.
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.)
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register