Unfair tax and social for unmarried couples

truebluesac

So my missus lost her job whilst pregnant on our nearly 2year old she got a year on the jobseekers and was means teasted , it was deemed i earn enough so her payments where then stopped iv no problem with this ,

The problem i have is that we are means tested as a couple yet i cannot claim her tax credits as we are not married and also i cannot claim tax credits for my daughter as we are not married and are not separated

We have no intention of getting married so dont suggest it .but It seems double standards to test us as a single income unit but treat us as separate income units for taxes .

Opinions

kneemos

truebluesac wrote: »

So my missus lost her job whilst pregnant on our nearly 2year old she got a year on the jobseekers and was means teasted , it was deemed i earn enough so her payments where then stopped iv no problem with this ,

The problem i have is that we are means tested as a couple yet i cannot claim her tax credits as we are not married and also i cannot claim tax credits for my daughter as we are not married and are not separated

We have no intention of getting married so dont suggest it .but It seems double standards to test us as a single income unit but treat us as separate income units for taxes .

Opinions

I'll keep my opinions to myself thank you very much.

Czarcasm

kneemos wrote: »

I'll keep my opinions to myself thank you very much.

Ahh kneemos, woeful stink of hypocrisy off that post in reply to someone with a tax issue when earlier on in another thread you posted this -

kneemos wrote: »

There's someone with a sex issue lets make fun of her.Juvenile morons.

It's not a double standard OP, there are numerous differences legally between co-habiting and married couples.

Revenue and social welfare are two completely different entities so they will have different assessment standards.

Zab

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's not a double standard OP, there are numerous differences legally between co-habiting and married couples.

It's completely a double standard. They're saying she can't get allowance because he's supposed to be supporting her but he can't get her credits even though he's supporting her.

I accept the fact that there are legal differences between the two, but that doesn't preclude it being a double standard.

Czarcasm

Zab wrote: »

It's completely a double standard. They're saying she can't get allowance because he's supposed to be supporting her but he can't get her credits even though he's supporting her.

I accept the fact that there are legal differences between the two, but that doesn't preclude it being a double standard.

You missed this bit -

Czarcasm wrote: »

Revenue and social welfare are two completely different entities so they will have different assessment standards.

Ellen Rose

It's the same whether married or single, tax credits were individualised afew years ago. You cannot claim any unused credit allowances for your spouse.

& you never could claim your child's credit allowance, not sure where you got that idea from

Zab

Czarcasm wrote: »

You missed this bit -

Different parts of the government? This situation is almost the dictionary definition for a double standard.

Zab

Ellen Rose wrote: »

It's the same whether married or single, tax credits were individualised afew years ago. You cannot claim any unused credit allowances for your spouse.

That's just not correct. Married couples can still be jointly assessed.

anncoates

Itc obviously not fair but I assume marriage is more of concrete proof that people are likely to be genuinely co habiting maybe?

Married couples can be assessed together or separately btw.

jlm29

Ellen Rose wrote: »

It's the same whether married or single, tax credits were individualised afew years ago. You cannot claim any unused credit allowances for your spouse.

& you never could claim your child's credit allowance, not sure where you got that idea from

If living as a one parent family, you can claim a opf tax credit.

WildRosie

Ellen Rose wrote: »

It's the same whether married or single, tax credits were individualised afew years ago. You cannot claim any unused credit allowances for your spouse.

Incorrect. You can elect for joint assessment if you wish.

Ellen Rose wrote: »

you never could claim your child's credit allowance, not sure where you got that idea from

They are referring to the home carers credit I imagine.

Celly Smunt

Pretend you seperated,tell her to get single mothers,move into a council house and both of you live there.In fact,why don't you go on the dole as well as working!






(not serious)

hobochris

This annoys me also although I have not experienced it personally.

Should one person in a cohabiting relationship lose their job the other does not bare a legal responsibility to them(morally maybe, but legally not). Someone needs to take a case against the state so that a legal precident can be set.

Ellen Rose

You can claim a single parent allowance, widow allowance etc, but you cannot claim your spouses unused tax credits, 'individualisation of tax bands'

WildRosie

Ellen Rose wrote: »

You can claim a single parent allowance, widow allowance etc, but you cannot claim your spouses unused tax credits, 'individualisation of tax bands'

Really?

corktina

my Wife has most if not all my credits as I have no income

Ellen Rose

WildRosie wrote: »

Incorrect. You can elect for joint assessment if you wish.



They are referring to the home carers credit I imagine.

Only if the child has a disability

For years a married couple could elect to be single, separate or jointly assessed.
Single assesment meant that they could not use their spouses unused tax credit,
Separate assessment, each kept their own credit allowance but could transfer any unused to the other spouse, husband or wife.
Joint assessment, one spouse had both credits, thus were assessed as one person. The other spouse, if working, were taxed at the higher rate straight away.


The individualisation of tax credits was introduced in a budget approx 8 years ago, can't remember the exact year, it was during the boom years

Stheno

Ellen Rose wrote: »

Only if the child has a disability

For years a married couple could elect to be single, separate or jointly assessed.
Single assesment meant that they could not use their spouses unused tax credit,
Separate assessment, each kept their own credit allowance but could transfer any unused to the other spouse, husband or wife.
Joint assessment, one spouse had both credits, thus were assessed as one person. The other spouse, if working, were taxed at the higher rate straight away.


The individualisation of tax credits was introduced in a budget approx 8 years ago, can't remember the exact year, it was during the boom years

Would you please read the links, you are incorrect, the system is still joint or seperate assessment. It has not changed.




http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it2.html#section4

Joint Assessment
What is Joint Assessment?

Joint Assessment is usually the most favourable basis of assessment for couples in a marriage or civil partnership. It is automatically given by your local Revenue office once you have advised them of your marriage or civil partnership registration, but this doesn't prevent you from electing for either of the other options.

Under Joint Assessment, the tax credits and standard rate band can be allocated between spouses or civil partners to suit their circumstances. For example:

If only one spouse or civil partner has taxable income, all tax credits and the standard rate band will be given to that individual
If both spouses or civil partners have taxable income, they can decide which spouse or civil partner of them is to be the assessable spouseor nominated civil partner and request their local Revenue office to allocate the tax credits and standard rate band between them in whatever way they wish. [PAYE tax credit, employment expenses and the basic standard rate band of €23,800 are non transferable.]

Where the Revenue office does not receive a request for the allocation of tax credits and reliefs in a particular way, it will normally give all the tax credits (other than the other spouse's or civil partner's PAYE and expense tax credits) to the assessable spouse or nominated civil partner. See section on standard rate band for information.

The assessable spouse must complete the return of income for the couple and is chargeable to tax on the joint income of the couple.

Ellen Rose

Yes......

. [PAYE tax credit, employment expenses and the basic standard rate band of €23,800 are non transferable]



If I'm incorrect please explain this, copied from your link 'non transferable'

WildRosie

Ellen Rose wrote: »

Only if the child has a disability

Incorrect.
Dependent Person

1. Must not be a spouse or civil partner
2. Is a child for whom Department of Social Protection Child Benefit is payable
3. Is a person aged 65 years or over
4. Is a person who is permanently incapacitated by reason of mental/physical infirmity.

Ellen Rose wrote: »

For years a married couple could elect to be single, separate or jointly assessed.
Single assesment meant that they could not use their spouses unused tax credit,
Separate assessment, each kept their own credit allowance but could transfer any unused to the other spouse, husband or wife.
Joint assessment, one spouse had both credits, thus were assessed as one person. The other spouse, if working, were taxed at the higher rate straight away.


The individualisation of tax credits was introduced in a budget approx 8 years ago, can't remember the exact year, it was during the boom years

Read the link I posted earlier.

downonthefarm

I may be wide of the mark here and don't want to insult anyone but in my experience the only way to get ahead is to play the system. it seems you are rewarded in Ireland for being a slapper with numerous baby daddies. where the ones who stay together and try to create proper family ect are punished and get it up the ass at every hands turn

Ellen Rose

Yes, you qualify for child allowance, you do not get tax credit for children unless there is a disability or such.


Individualisation of tax bands was introduced in 2000 budget by Charlie McGreevey

hatrickpatrick

BS in my view. You're either a couple or your not, you can't be a couple in one form of government business but not in another. Either tax and means test people as a couple or don't, but you can't do one and not the other.

Ellen Rose

downonthefarm wrote: »

I may be wide of the mark here and don't want to insult anyone but in my experience the only way to get ahead is to play the system. it seems you are rewarded in Ireland for being a slapper with numerous baby daddies. where the ones who stay together and try to create proper family ect are punished and get it up the ass at every hands turn

I'm with you.

In the UK they have now capped social benefit (inclusive) at 27k, also child support capped at 2 children.
Only a matter of time before they do similar here

Stheno

Ellen Rose wrote: »

Yes, you qualify for child allowance, you do not get tax credit for children unless there is a disability or such.


Individualisation of tax bands was introduced in 2000 budget by Charlie McGreevey

Yes but one spouse can use some of the other spouses allowance. The standard rate cut off point for a married couple with one person working is 41,800 compared to 32,800 for a single person so they pay half the tax (20 as opposed to 41%) on that 9,000 than two single people or a couple living together.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/income_tax/how_your_tax_is_calculated.html

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

BS in my view. You're either a couple or your not, you can't be a couple in one form of government business but not in another. Either tax and means test people as a couple or don't, but you can't do one and not the other.

I read somewhere once that's it's something to do with marriage and it's references in the constitution

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Zab wrote: »

It's completely a double standard. They're saying she can't get allowance because he's supposed to be supporting her but he can't get her credits even though he's supporting her.

I accept the fact that there are legal differences between the two, but that doesn't preclude it being a double standard.

it is a double standard, two organs of the same state , one says you are a couple and dependant on each other, the other says you are strangers and cannot share entitlements.

Zab

Ellen Rose wrote: »

If I'm incorrect please explain this, copied from your link 'non transferable'

The bulk of the average person's tax credits come from their Single Credit and their PAYE Credit. The PAYE credit you get for being a PAYE worker cannot be transferred, but the Single Credit can. If your partner doesn't work then they don't get a PAYE credit to transfer in the first place.

WildRosie

Ellen Rose wrote: »

Yes, you qualify for child allowance, you do not get tax credit for children unless there is a disability or such.

There is no requirement that the child be disabled, only that they be entitled to child benefit. If the child is too old to get child benefit, then they must have a disability. From Revenue:

a child for whom Social Welfare Child Benefit is payable - this includes all children under 16 and children in full-time education under 18

Can you post a link to backup your point? Here's one to back up mine.

With reference to transferring the tax credits and SRCOP between spouses, there is always an element that can't be transferred. But for non married couples, no element at all can be transferred.

DebDynamite

Completely agree OP.

But yet developers owing millions of euros can transfer assets into their wife's name so they cannot be touched.

Hobbes

We have no intention of getting married so dont suggest it .

Why? Just get a civil union with a prenup. Unless you aren't living with her, and no one else is planning to get married to her, then what's the issue?

truebluesac

Ellen Rose wrote: »

It's the same whether married or single, tax credits were individualised afew years ago. You cannot claim any unused credit allowances for your spouse.

& you never could claim your child's credit allowance, not sure where you got that idea from

A married couple can claim the other tax credits .

If i was separated and taking a child over night i can claim tax credits for the child

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Ellen Rose wrote: »

Yes, you qualify for child allowance, you do not get tax credit for children unless there is a disability or such.


Individualisation of tax bands was introduced in 2000 budget by Charlie McGreevey

Wrong , either or both unmarried parents of a child can recieve what is in effect a double tax allowance so long as they are neither married nor co-habitating and the child spends one overnight a year with the parent.
It is refered to as a single parent tax allowance.

truebluesac

Hobbes wrote: »

Why? Just get a civil union with a prenup. Unless you aren't living with her, and no one else is planning to get married to her, then what's the issue?

As said in opening post marraige or civil partnership is not on the cards we dont believe in marraige .

My point before anyone jumps on my beliefs are that in 2 separate departments of government they contradict themselfs

Boombastic

truebluesac wrote: »

As said in opening post marraige or civil partnership is not on the cards we dont believe in marraige .

My point before anyone jumps on my beliefs are that in 2 separate departments of government they contradict themselfs

Do you really think government departments would be capable of communicating and linking to each other? Unless it's revenue total double standards at play here

losthorizon

Hobbes wrote: »

Why? Just get a civil union with a prenup. Unless you aren't living with her, and no one else is planning to get married to her, then what's the issue?

I'm sorry but its his life and he dictate his own marital circumstances.

These differences between married and unmarried couples are just a throwback to Catholic Ireland. Its just fairer to level the pitch. I dont see why anyone would have a problem with this.

truebluesac

We wont be getting married or a partnership . Our family situation doesnt allow for it .

It would be easier if i was scum and didnt care about the baby or my partner . We are together 12 years so not a blow in realationship .

If the government want proof ,, sure we have a morgtage together in the house we both live and pay bills . Is that not proof enough .???

Boombastic

truebluesac wrote: »

.....It would be easier if i was scum and didnt care about the baby or my partner . We are together 12 years so not a blow in realationship .

..
..?

Its a sad reflection on society if that's the behavior we're rewarding. You'd probably get the house free aswell, sucker

Czarcasm

truebluesac wrote: »

As said in opening post marraige or civil partnership is not on the cards we dont believe in marraige .

My point before anyone jumps on my beliefs are that in 2 separate departments of government they contradict themselfs

The revenue commissioners are not a government department though. Social welfare are a government department.

The double standard doesn't exist because you could be together for the next 200 years and it still wouldn't make any difference- you're still not married. You want to create a double standard by having co-habiting couples treated the same as married couples.

That's never going to happen which is why the LGBT community are striving for the right to marriage equality and will not settle for civil partnership, let alone co-habiting.

The single parent bashing either and referring to people who are on social welfare as scum is just more rabble without a clue.

UCDVet

Why would your income be a factor in her 'means test'?

Boombastic

UCDVet wrote: »

Why would your income be a factor in her 'means test'?

Because they live together

Zab

Czarcasm wrote: »

The revenue commissioners are not a government department though. Social welfare are a government department.

The double standard doesn't exist because you could be together for the next 200 years and it still wouldn't make any difference- you're still not married. You want to create a double standard by having co-habiting couples treated the same as married couples.

Surely you're just trolling here. If not I suggest you look up the meaning of "double standard".

UCDVet

Boombastic wrote: »

Because they live together

I used to pay for a bedroom in a house on Leeson street. I didn't know any of the other people in the place, we all split the bills and I had my bedroom.

Would my income prevent them from collecting social benefits? I certainly wouldn't have shared any of it with them.

I really don't have any experience with this - it just seems crazy to me.

truebluesac

Czarcasm wrote: »

The revenue commissioners are not a government department though. Social welfare are a government department.

The double standard doesn't exist because you could be together for the next 200 years and it still wouldn't make any difference- you're still not married. You want to create a double standard by having co-habiting couples treated the same as married couples.

That's never going to happen which is why the LGBT community are striving for the right to marriage equality and will not settle for civil partnership, let alone co-habiting.

The single parent bashing either and referring to people who are on social welfare as scum is just more rabble without a clue.

I didnt referre to people on social welfare as scum . I said it would be easier if i was scum and didnt care about my baby or partner .

I didnt bash single parents at any stage either .

The revenue commisners is the tax collection agency of the government . however I am talking solely on tax entitlements and the discrepency between differnt government department

Zab

truebluesac wrote: »

We wont be getting married or a partnership . Our family situation doesnt allow for it .

No matter what people on this thread think about your situation (and I obviously think it's ridiculous on the government's part), it isn't going to change the facts for you. And it appears that the only way (that I can see) that you're going to get her tax credits is if you marry her. Obviously this is a decision for yourself, but I'd suggest that you would make of it whatever you chose to. i.e. you don't have to tell your family, have a wedding or change her name and can treat it purely as a legal status change for tax purposes, which can also protect either of you in the event of a death. Of course there are other legal ramifications which you'd have to consider.

truebluesac

Zab wrote: »

No matter what people on this thread think about your situation (and I obviously think it's ridiculous on the government's part), it isn't going to change the facts for you. And it appears that the only way (that I can see) that you're going to get her tax credits is if you marry her. Obviously this is a decision for yourself, but I'd suggest that you would make of it whatever you chose to. i.e. you don't have to tell your family, have a wedding or change her name and can treat it purely as a legal status change for tax purposes, which can also protect either of you in the event of a death. Of course there are other legal ramifications which you'd have to consider.

Get married for tax credits . Romantic . We are covered legally by our will .

Im highlighting and venting RE the systems in place .

A Dub in Glasgo

There are double standards in all walks of life. I get more irate about the double standards applied to taxation with respect to PAYE, self employed, companies etc

Zab

truebluesac wrote: »

Get married for tax credits . Romantic

Huh? Who mentioned romance? You've even said you don't believe in marriage, but you believe it should be romantic?

. We are covered legally by our will .

Perhaps, or perhaps you break up in 10 years and you manage to get the house by proving you paid for all of the mortgage payments. To be honest I don't know much/enough about this to really discuss it, but what I'm saying is that the government applies one set of rules if you're married and another set if you aren't. If the married set of rules is more favourable to you then you should consider getting married.

Im highlighting and venting RE the systems in place .

Yeah, fair enough, and I think it's succeeded in doing so.

Czarcasm

truebluesac wrote: »

I didnt referre to people on social welfare as scum . I said it would be easier if i was scum and didnt care about my baby or partner .

I didnt bash single parents at any stage either .

I don't remember mentioning you specifically, but that cap must be tighter than a condom about now.

The revenue commisners is the tax collection agency of the government . however I am talking solely on tax entitlements and the discrepency between differnt government department

The revenue commissioners is the tax collection agency of The State, not the Government.

The Government only decides how much they need to increase taxes to meet their various departments budgetary requirements. The minister for social protection will put in for how much she needs, then be told how much she's getting, and will have to adjust her budget and policy accordingly.

What applies to your particular situation is not double standards, but different standards, on a number of levels.

I would agree with you though on one thing, I wouldn't encourage anyone to get married "just for the tax breaks", the Government will see you rightly shafted whichever way you choose to go and the "tax breaks" will become the last thing on your mind.

Zab

Czarcasm wrote: »

The revenue commissioners is the tax collection agency of The State, not the Government.

The Government only decides how much they need to increase taxes to meet their various departments budgetary requirements. The minister for social protection will put in for how much she needs, then be told how much she's getting, and will have to adjust her budget and policy accordingly.

What applies to your particular situation is not double standards, but different standards, on a number of levels.

ha ha. B+ trolling. I think you can improve.

Czarcasm

Zab wrote: »

ha ha. B+ trolling. I think you can improve.

Zab instead of accusations of trolling (You should report my posts if you suspect I am trolling), would you care to show me a source for which you can refute my opinion?

If you want to tell me I'm wrong, it should be fairly easy for you to point out WHY you think I'm wrong.

Zab

Czarcasm wrote: »

Zab instead of accusations of trolling (You should report my posts if you suspect I am trolling), would you care to show me a source for which you can refute my opinion?

If you want to tell me I'm wrong, it should be fairly easy for you to point out WHY you think I'm wrong.

All you've provided is obfuscations and meaningless clarifications. For instance, while "the government" and "the state" are different things, that fact is meaningless to this discussion. The State/Government has decided that for the purposes of giving out social welfare payments OP's partner doesn't qualify due to OP's wage, whereas for the purposes of giving out tax credits OP is considered to be single. This is a double standard. You've given some reasons why the double standard exists, but nothing to show that it isn't a double standard in the first place.

Oh wait, you did have the fantastic

What applies to your particular situation is not double standards, but different standards, on a number of levels.

http://homepage.smc.edu/nestler_andrew/trapezoid.jpg