Rumour that Individualisation will be challenged in the courts

Purple said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that taxing families as a unit rather than as individuals would amount to a sell out. I suspect that many of those at whom the sop is aimed wouldn't traditionally be Labour voters and that FG are more likely to hoover up such votes given that they are making similar noises on this issue.
 
I agree that this is FG ground but I'm surprised that Labour would associate with the Iona Institute.
 
Purple said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure that the , head honcho of the Iona institute qualifies as 'no voice'.

For the record, the extent of the 'Labour involvement' was actually the writing of a forward and participation in the launch by Joan Burton. Given that this initiative by Iona coincides completely with Labour policy in this area, surely it would hypocritical NOT to have participated.
 
Given that this initiative by Iona coincides completely with Labour policy in this area, surely it would hypocritical NOT to have participated.
Click to expand...
And hardly too surprising given the demographic of Labour party membership in the country. Implementing this policy which will reward some of their solidly middle/upper middle class support (people earning over 55k a year - the average worker/family will get nothing from this policy) which can be wrapped in a populist message about "looking after families". Meanwhile the Iona institute get to push for a tax environment where a woman returning to work is facing marginal rates of tax straight off the bat. I originally typed "spouse" instead of "woman" in the above sentence but let's face it, the policy is designed to support the "traditional" middle class family - i.e. wife doing the housework and cooking, husband out working for a salary wether there are children to be looked after or not. I've never given FF a first preference in my life but Labour and FG's policies are forcing my hand in the upcoming election.
 
beaten docket on this. surely everyone is entitled to the same tax credits and tax cut of point regardless of married, single or whatever. a court case taken by a 'spouse' ( with an income) would almost certainly be upheld.
 
Darag’s implication that this policy is targeted at families with one earner whose income exceeds €55k is incorrect. The impact of individualisation kicks in at the modest level of just €43k, where a single income couple with children will pay just under €1k more tax than a double-income couple with children. Let’s not pretend that families with one or more children on a combined income of €43k suit the image of lazy ladies who lunch painted by Darag. €43k is a fairly modest income these days. Any civil service at HEO level or above, or local authority officer at Grade VI or above will break into this salary level. Darag’s claim that ‘woman returning to work is facing marginal rates of tax straight off the bat’ is of course a red herring, unless all these women are feeble-minded bimbos with no understanding of the tax credit system.

But Darag conveniently ignores the social reality of these single income families. These are the families who realised there was something slightly unnatural with not seeing their kids in daylight between October and April. These are the families who having spent 90+ minutes each way commuting from south Wicklow or east Westmeath found they had a better relationship with George Hook than with their own kids. These are the families where one partner (yes, usually the wife) may well be caring for a disabled child or an elderly parent (without the cushion of a carers allowance, given the current means testing policy). From personal experience, they are also the people who keep the communities vacated by the working mums on track during the working day – stepping in as emergency backup to mind the sick child refused entry to the crèche, or to take delivery of the new sofa.

For the record, here’s what Joan Burton actually proposed in her forward to the [broken link removed];


But Darag & others may wish to continue McCreevy’s attempts to support his buddies in IBEC by ensuring a steady supply of cheap labour for their call centres and offices.
 
Winning debating strategy there Rainyday; roll out a whole load of unrelated but emotionally powerful images - long commuting times, parent's lack of time with their children, carers not being supported to look after disabled relatives, sick children being looked after by neighbours, evil employers exploiting "cheap labour", etc. I'm surprised you stopped where you did; what about the problem of teenage drug and drink abuse, overcrowding in prisons, the state of the health service, the deplorable weather many people have to put up with in Ireland?

The simple reality is that if Labour wanted to help families with children, they could simply have a policy of increasing child benefit. Unfortunately this would benefit people earning average industrial wages or worse the "lumpen proletariat" working in low paid employment. This policy, happily for the well paid demographic labour is targetting, is regressive; the less you earn the less you get to help raise a family. Because of this I only see cynical political opportunism here - increasing child benefit has been FF policy so Labour have to try to offer something else even if the primary beneficiaries are the relatively wealthy - and the more you earn the more you benefit.

In the topsy turvy world of Irish politics, no wonder Bertie Ahearn can make the laughable claim that he's a socialist. He's no more a socialist than Maggie Thacher is but if Labour can claim to be socialist while their main "family supporting" policy only benefits the top 25% of earners, then you can't really complain.
 
I'm not quite sure if you are complimenting me or poking fun with your reference to 'emotionally powerful images'. Regardless, this is the reality of life for families bringing up their kids today.

Your suggestions regarding a policy on child benefit increases are a little too late. Labour's [broken link removed] from late last year addresses this issue, and (contradicting your unsupported claims of targeting top earners only), recommends a specific focus on families with low incomes:

But perhaps you are more interested in taking potshots than actually moving forward with some positive policy improvements?
 
I've one, which I've offered before in these pages, although in a different context — means-test Child Benefit. Families with over e.g. €100K pa income, which are not so numerous as to make the cost of assessment prohibitive, get reduced benefit or none at all.

I reckon it'd be a great vote-winner...
 

I wouldn't have an objection in principle to this approach, but I would wonder about the practicalities. Any such policy would mean that ALL CB applications would need to be means tested. How much would the implementation of such a means testing system cost? How long would initial CB payments would be delayed? How much would be saved through this means testing?
 
I deal in lofty principles, not practicalities.

Surely the Government should be able to work out something? It can't be all that much more costly or complicated than, say, devising a system of electronic voting. (Whoops! Forgot...)
 
Speaking as a parent with a household income well over the €100K mark I agree completely with your idea. I would use the money saved to increase the child benefit for those who really need it.
I would also introduce 3rd level fees for the well off (like me) and get rid of the registration fees that continue to disenfranchise poorer students.
By EU standards we have low income tax in this country, particularly for the well off (I pay a lower proportion of my income in tax now than I did 10 years ago). So why should the well off be further advantaged by giving them the same level of direct financial support that the working poor get?
I do not read policy statements by the political parties but I do read the newspapers and watch and listen to current affairs programmes on TV and radio and all I hear from the Labour party is pandering to middle income floating voters. The populist rubbish on Joan Burtons website (pointed out by Dr.M) is a case in point.
 
Let us not pretend that there are no supports for the low paid e.g. Social and Affordable Housing, Medical Cards, FIS and the Community Welfare Officer among other things. The crux of the argument is that the State should not use the tax system to penalise single-income families. In any case the Labour/FG proposals seem like window dressing; they have no real issue with individualisation in principle, they are just offering to halt it's creep. If the snippet I read in the Indo is true, that FG also want to abolish the Early Childcare Supplement, then many single-income families will be in a net worse position. Sometimes I wonder about the opposition, whenever they have FF at point-blank range they still manage to shoot themselves in the foot.
 
Purple said:
. . Labour party is pandering to middle income floating voters.
Click to expand...
Methinks that the middle-income people are those whom pay most of the income tax in this country, with single-income middle-income paying more again.
 
lets take the children and child minding etc out of this for a moment.
husband at work say earning around the 40/50k mark. Spouse also at work say earning €25,000. currently 'he' would pay tax at 41% on everything over 43,000 and 'she' would pay tax at 20% on anything under the €25,000 threshold. If she earns less than €25k she cannot transfer any 'balance' to her spouse but equally if she earns more than €25k she has to pay tax @41% wheras in an equal society she would not have to pay tax at that rate until see too exceeded the 43k limit.
can't understand if everyone is equal under the constitution how you can have two different rates like this. equally a stay at home parent should have €43,000 of a cut of point too. (also non transferrable) whether he/she actually works shouldn't have any bearing on the situation whatsoever. however in order to level the field for stay at home spouses perhaps the government should consider a straight allowance for stay at home parents for children under 18. can't see why a stay at home parent with grown up children can expect to receive a payment for not working. maybe it's just me but I can't see how the government can discriminate against a 2nd earner just because they are married. In case anyone thinks I have a personal issue here I would like to state that Mrs Cu works part time and earns just under €24,000 so she doen't pay tax at the top rate nor does she pay the health levy. but I still think that even if she earned €34,000 that it should be at the 20% rate. as thats the rate a single person would be taxed at earning up to €43,000. so why discriminate against a married person?
stay at home parents should definitely be given an allowance during the school going years though. and a substantial allowance at that.
 
May well be reading the last post incorrectly, but

"but I still think that even if she earned €34,000 that it should be at the 20% rate. as thats the rate a single person would be taxed at earning up to €43,000. so why discriminate against a married person?"
Click to expand...
seems wrong.

My understanding was that the single income payer pays 41% over 34k, two spouses working pay 41% at 68k, one spouse working pays 41% for income over 43k. [broken link removed] has better details.
 
Apologies; you are correct Ashambles and I am totally wrong. Two earning effectively have twice the single limit. invididualisation in effect doubles the single persons COP for a married couple both working.(provided that the lesser earner can reach the €25,000 limit) I didn't realise this was the case and I am happy to stand corrected.
cheers
 

Not very many people around here admit it when they make a mistake. It is to your credit that you have.
 
DrMoriarty said:
I deal in lofty principles, not practicalities.

Surely the Government should be able to work out something? It can't be all that much more costly or complicated than, say, devising a system of electronic voting. (Whoops! Forgot...)
Click to expand...


Ha ha ha. Best post for a long time. Clever and witty and very funny. Bravo Dr.M!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register