Rumour that Individualisation will be challenged in the courts

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
80% (I would imagine) of "traditional" families are far better off
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's why I work, it's like a party all day long in my office.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that's why I work, it's like a party all day long in my office.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Whatever you were trying to be it wasn't helping your argument!
 
Ah, you mean financially.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
Your use of very emotive language clouds a reasonable point.

post crossed with ajapale
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

That is not true! I would add something but the assinine moderator interference in my previous contributions make spirited debate impossible.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top