Single parents to lose €1650 One Parent Tax Credit.

woodoo

A very nasty surprise in store for separated and single fathers (and some mothers) who are not the primary care giver. The One-Parent Family Tax Credit is changing to the Single Person Child Carer Tax and will only apply to the primary carer. The non primary care giver was entitled to a tax credit of €1650 per year but that is gone now in this budget 2014.

Loaded1973

Does the primary care giver then get the other parents tax credit?

woodoo

Loaded1973 wrote: »

Does the primary care giver then get the other parents tax credit?

No they just get the one.

womandriver

Bout time IMO. Tax credits for having a child is a strange one especially when only single parents eligible. Why are other parents not eligible? Not in favour of tax credits for having children in any case really.

wolfpawnat

womandriver wrote: »

Bout time IMO. Tax credits for having a child is a strange one especially when only single parents eligible. Why are other parents not eligible? Not in favour of tax credits for having children in any case really.

People get tax credits for children because it is guaranteed more of their income is going back into the economy. And of course, the country needs future tax payers to pay our pensions. You may not be in favour of it, but it makes more sense for the government to have such initiatives to make parents more willing to work.

womandriver

wolfpawnat wrote: »

People get tax credits for children because it is guaranteed more of their income is going back into the economy. And of course, the country needs future tax payers to pay our pensions. You may not be in favour of it, but it makes more sense for the government to have such initiatives to make parents more willing to work.

Why only single parents? You could use that argument for any tax credit. They'll all result in money going back in to the economy, will they not? I don't see anybody offering me additional tax credits for the good of the economy, in fact, the difference will clearly have to be made up from somewhere else as the government doesn't have a money tree. So the money that this tax credit is "putting back in to the economy" is being taken out of the economy in the form of some other tax to fund this tax credit. It's not just the children of single parents who will be contributing to future pension costs either for that matter.

Moonbeam

Their used to be a child tax credit.
I think it was because if they did not work they would get lone parents allowance so it was an extra tax credit for those that worked.

pwurple

wolfpawnat wrote: »

People get tax credits for children because it is guaranteed more of their income is going back into the economy. And of course, the country needs future tax payers to pay our pensions. You may not be in favour of it, but it makes more sense for the government to have such initiatives to make parents more willing to work.

I think the point was you don't get a tax credit for a child UNLESS you are a single parent, or the child is incapacitated. A tax credit for all parents would be awesome indeed, but it doesn't exist afaik.

woodoo

Whatever peoples opinion on it it will push single fathers on low paid jobs back towards welfare dependence and out of work. €1650 is a massive chunk of money to lose in one fell swoop.

The tax credit was only available to single parents not cohabiting. It was a great help to separated fathers now out of the family home and struggling to get by in the dingy bedsit. Working to pay maintenance and to pay his own way too. Its no walk in the park for a lot of separated fathers. Depression and suicide are big issues.

womandriver

Tax breaks for reproducing is not the answer to our economic woes so glad to see it had been at least partially changed.

ash23

womandriver wrote: »

Bout time IMO. Tax credits for having a child is a strange one especially when only single parents eligible. Why are other parents not eligible? Not in favour of tax credits for having children in any case really.

A single parent with little to no support from the other parent has one income and usually childcare to pay out of that income. If there is involvement from the other parent there are two incomes but two households. Doubling up on bills. So whichever way you look at it being a single parent is financially more draining than being in a relationship with a child.

Tax credits go a small way to helping with the added cost involved.

womandriver

woodoo wrote: »

Whatever peoples opinion on it it will push single fathers on low paid jobs back towards welfare dependence and out of work. €1650 is a massive chunk of money to lose in one fell swoop.

In what way are single fathers worse off than non single fathers that justifies this extra tax credit? Genuinely curious about that. A lot of families are struggling, single or otherwise but yet if you were a single parent both parents were entitled to this extra tax credit but non single parents weren't even if they had the same income.

woodoo

There is no popular support for single and separated fathers. Most people just thing of dead beat dads. But this will affect the co parenting fathers who are interested in being a parent to their children. Dead beat dads would not qualify. The fathers have to be involved in their childrens lives for them to qualify.

woodoo

womandriver wrote: »

In what way are single fathers worse off than non single fathers that justifies this extra tax credit? Genuinely curious about that. A lot of families are struggling, single or otherwise but yet if you were a single parent both parents were entitled to this extra tax credit but non single parents weren't even if they had the same income.

One income into a household. That would not be the case if they have a new partner.

womandriver

ash23 wrote: »

A single parent with little to no support from the other parent has one income and usually childcare to pay out of that income. If there is involvement from the other parent there are two incomes but two households. Doubling up on bills. So whichever way you look at it being a single parent is financially more draining than being in a relationship with a child.

Tax credits go a small way to helping with the added cost involved.

If both parents are working and contributing to raising the child, how is it more expensive than raising a child together? The child still needs the same child care, food, clothes etc. regardless of whether the parents are together or not. And there'd still be two households if they didn't have a child, these people you refer to would still need somewhere to live with or without a child.

wolfpawnat

womandriver wrote: »

Tax breaks for reproducing is not the answer to our economic woes so glad to see it had been at least partially changed.

Seldom does a person actively elect to get pregnant to solely be a single parent. I rather a 1650 tax credit to a single parent to approximately 11,000 a year in One Parent Family Payment to be honest. We live in a society, in society, you help those who need it.

pwurple

womandriver wrote: »

Tax breaks for reproducing is not the answer to our economic woes so glad to see it had been at least partially changed.

That's not going to be too popular in a parenting forum!

womandriver

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Seldom does a person actively elect to get pregnant to solely be a single parent. I rather a 1650 tax credit to a single parent to approximately 11,000 a year in One Parent Family Payment to be honest. We live in a society, in society, you help those who need it.

And I fully agree with helping those who need it but how does being a single parent automatically make you entitled to extra tax credits irrespective of need? Is this the most needy category automatically? Personally I think the young adults on the dole who had their payments cut to €100 pw today are the ones who have taken the heaviest blow today. Have to say that's where my sympathies lie today. And no, I'm not one of them.

ash23

womandriver wrote: »

If both parents are working and contributing to raising the child, how is it more expensive than raising a child together? The child still needs the same child care, food, clothes etc. regardless of whether the parents are together or not. And there'd still be two households if they didn't have a child, these people you refer to would still need somewhere to live with or without a child.

For me if I didn't have a child and was single I could house share. My rent would be a fraction of what it is and household bills would be shared. Not usually possible when there's a child involved. Nobody wants to share with a parent and their child plus there's the risk element of sharing with a person who you don't know very well.

womandriver

pwurple wrote: »

That's not going to be too popular in a parenting forum!

I'm under no illusions there

Katya

womandriver wrote: »

If both parents are working and contributing to raising the child, how is it more expensive than raising a child together? The child still needs the same child care, food, clothes etc. regardless of whether the parents are together or not. And there'd still be two households if they didn't have a child, these people you refer to would still need somewhere to live with or without a child.

I agree with this, it was an unfair and widely abused tax credit. Anyone I know in receipt of maintenance only gets €40 from the father. A live in father definitely contributes more than this!

woodoo

Katya wrote: »

I agree with this, it was an unfair and widely abused tax credit. Anyone I know in receipt of maintenance only gets €40 from the father. A live in father definitely contributes more than this!

But a co parenting father has to have a house with a spare room and still has to feed the child, buy clothes etc too when they stay over. In addition to that they generally pay maintenance to the mother too. This credit was designed for those fathers.

Katya

woodoo wrote: »

But a co parenting father has to have a house with a spare room and still has to feed the child, buy clothes etc too when they stay over. In addition to that they generally pay maintenance to the mother too. This credit was designed for those fathers.

There may be some co parenting fathers that split everything 50/50 with the mother (care & cost) they deserve the tax credit. But a universal tax credit to all single non cohabiting parents is madness as many fathers (and some mothers) contribute very little financially. I know one father who when he had his child for the weekend would call to the mothers house for nappies when he ran out!! I'm not basing my opinion on one example either but many. Also I don't think the non cohabiting requirement was monitored.

woodoo

Katya wrote: »

There may be some co parenting fathers that split everything 50/50 with the mother (care & cost) they deserve the tax credit. But a universal tax credit to all single non cohabiting parents is madness as many fathers (and some mothers) contribute very little financially. I know one father who when he had his child for the weekend would call to the mothers house for nappies when he ran out!! I'm not basing my opinion on one example either but many. Also I don't think the non cohabiting requirement was monitored.

That is the difficulty. I hate the thought of fathers who aren't involved in their kids life getting this credit. If there was some way to target it better.

Stheno

womandriver wrote: »

And I fully agree with helping those who need it but how does being a single parent automatically make you entitled to extra tax credits irrespective of need? Is this the most needy category automatically? Personally I think the young adults on the dole who had their payments cut to €100 pw today are the ones who have taken the heaviest blow today. Have to say that's where my sympathies lie today. And no, I'm not one of them.

ash23 wrote: »

For me if I didn't have a child and was single I could house share. My rent would be a fraction of what it is and household bills would be shared. Not usually possible when there's a child involved. Nobody wants to share with a parent and their child plus there's the risk element of sharing with a person who you don't know very well.

What ash is saying would be my view. My OH has to have two spare bedrooms to accomodate his children every month, that costs more per year than the tax credit.

Then add in pocket money, gifts, maintenance, clothes/food, mobile phone top ups etc for older kids, and you are spending way more than the €137.5 per month net tax reduction you get as a result of this credit. My OH would spend that on his kids in a month between maintenance and pocket money alone, not to mention rent, clothes etc. That's on the 20% tax band, a couple with one on the 20% and one on the 41% tax band get over €300 a month extra in tax saved by combining their tax bands

womandriver

Stheno wrote: »

What ash is saying would be my view. My OH has to have two spare bedrooms to accomodate his children every month, that costs more per year than the tax credit.

Then add in pocket money, gifts, maintenance, clothes/food, mobile phone top ups etc for older kids, and you are spending way more than the €330 net tax reduction you get as a result of this credit. My OH would spend that on his kids in a month between maintenance and pocket money alone, not to mention rent, clothes etc. That's on the 20% tax band, a couple with one on the 20% and one on the 41% tax band get over €300 a month extra in tax saved by combining their tax bands

How does that make him worse off than a non separated couple? So other couples not have these expenses? It's not correct to say that a couple on different tax bands can combine their tax bands. That can only apply if the couple are married, the 2nd income is low enough and it is capped. So it's not accurate to say other couples save €300 per month this way as if it automatically applies to every other couple.

Stheno

womandriver wrote: »

How does that make him worse off than a non separated couple? It's not correct to say that a couple on different tax bands can combine their tax bands. That can only apply if the couple are married, the 2nd income is low enough and it is capped. So it's not accurate to say other couples save €300 per month this way as if it automatically applies to every other couple.

I meant if they were married as he is divorced, but has had to pay maintenance and support his children throughout their childhood

It's a constitutional issue that it's only married people this applies to as it protects the status of marriage.

womandriver

Stheno wrote: »

I meant if they were married as he is divorced, but has had to pay maintenance and support his children throughout their childhood

It's a constitutional issue that it's only married people this applies to as it protects the status of marriage.

Other parents support their children too and without this tax credit. He's not doing anything more than other parents so why should some get a tax break for raising their kids, which is a parents responsibility after all.

woodoo

womandriver wrote: »

Other parents support their children too and without this tax credit. He's not doing anything more than other parents so why should some get a tax break for raising their kids, which is a parents responsibility after all.

Separate houses to keep on their own. Thats expensive.

womandriver

woodoo wrote: »

Separate houses to keep on their own. Thats expensive.

Would he be homeless if he didn't have a child? I doubt it so he'd still need somewhere to live regardless.

Stheno

woodoo wrote: »

Separate houses to keep on their own. Thats expensive.

Exactly, two parents together as a couple can save money by paying e.g. €1000 in rent rather than €2000 for two houses.

The tax credit wasn't much but it was something.

woodoo

womandriver wrote: »

Would he be homeless if he didn't have a child? I doubt it so he'd still need somewhere to live regardless.

No but he could go and rent a room in a house share or get a one bed flat.

womandriver

woodoo wrote: »

No but he could go and rent a room in a house share or get a one bed flat.

And this is his stiuation. That's life. Why do people think their life choices have to be funded by other tax payers? If I wanted to live on my own I'd have to pay for it and I wouldn't be entitled to any tax credits to help.

woodoo

womandriver wrote: »

And this is his stiuation. That's life. Why do people think their life choices have to be funded by other tax payers? If I wanted to live on my own I'd have to pay for it and I wouldn't be entitled to any tax credits to help.

Its not a desire to live alone. They are trying to provide a place for them and their children when they seperate.

womandriver

woodoo wrote: »

Its not a desire to live alone. They are trying to provide a place for them and their children when they seperate.

Which is their own responsibily, not anyone else's.

Stheno

womandriver wrote: »

Would he be homeless if he didn't have a child? I doubt it so he'd still need somewhere to live regardless.

Yes but he might get by in a studio as opposed to a 2/3 bedroomed house.

The cost difference is significant.

banbhaaifric

woodoo wrote: »

No but he could go and rent a room in a house share or get a one bed flat.

The point is if the child or children stay with him for a portion of the week, then he can't rent a one bedroom flat or a bedroom in a house share. He needs somewhere for the children to stay.

womandriver

banbhaaifric wrote: »

The point is if the child or children stay with him for a portion of the week, then he can't rent a one bedroom flat or a bedroom in a house share. He needs somewhere for the children to stay.

That's a cost for him to bear same as I have a car, I must now pay car tax. Should I get a tax credit because people without cars don't have to pay car tax?

Stheno

womandriver wrote: »

That's a cost for him to bear same as I have a car, I must now pay car tax. Should I get a tax credit because people without cars don't have to pay car tax?

No, but it's a different scenario. In the case of those who seperate and divorce they lost the tax benefits of being married, yet incur greater costs, while rearing the next generation of taxpayers. It's like arguing that pre 2008 cars should not be on a seperate tax system as their emissions are not significantly different than post 2008

I've no problem with single parent tax credits, which recognise the additional accomodation expenses etc that single parents incur, so not sure what your issue is?

womandriver

Stheno wrote: »

No, but it's a different scenario. In the case of those who seperate and divorce they lost the tax benefits of being married, yet incur greater costs, while rearing the next generation of taxpayers. It's like arguing that pre 2008 cars should not be on a seperate tax system as their emissions are not significantly different than post 2008

I've no problem with single parent tax credits, which recognise the additional accomodation expenses etc that single parents incur, so not sure what your issue is?

Well I'm glad for you that you have no problem but how does that relate to you not knowing what my issue is? Is it for you to say if I should or should not have an issue with something which impacts on the tax I pay? And you do know there are no tax credits for being married don't you?? Or do you?

LegacyUser

I have to say I will find this cut hard. I have my daughter 2 nights a week and I pay her mum 300 a month. Her mum works and is my child's primary carer. The extra tax credits went a long way. With water charges on the way and a full yearly property charge it's going to be a hard year

returnNull

Katya wrote: »

I agree with this, it was an unfair and widely abused tax credit. Anyone I know in receipt of maintenance only gets €40 from the father. A live in father definitely contributes more than this!

Thats strange,3 of my friends pay in and around the 100€ mark.I myself use to pay 100€ per week in child maintaince in a minium wage job(and also went 50/50 on all the other stuff).Those tax credits made it easier.

Im not working at the moment so am paying 35€ per week and still go 50/50 on stuff like uniforms,school books any other unforeseen events.

Stheno

womandriver wrote: »

Well I'm glad for you that you have no problem but how does that relate to you not knowing what my issue is? Is it for you to say if I should or should not have an issue with something which impacts on the tax I pay? And you do know there are no tax credits for being married don't you?? Or do you?

But there is a distinct advantage in being married if one person is on the 20% band and the other on the 41% band in that you can cojoin the bands to minimise the tax you pay.

You do know that, don't you? And that it's worth over 300 euro a month to the most advantaged couples?

You seem to have a problem with the fact that this credit existed which helped fathers/parents who were no longer a couple cope with the extra costs they incurred to give their children accomodation, etc, cost they would not have incurred as a couple.

womandriver

Stheno wrote: »

But there is a distinct advantage in being married if one person is on the 20% band and the other on the 41% band in that you can cojoin the bands to minimise the tax you pay.

You do know that, don't you? And that it's worth over 300 euro a month to the most advantaged couples?

You seem to have a problem with the fact that this credit existed which helped fathers/parents who were no longer a couple cope with the extra costs they incurred to give their children accomodation, etc, cost they would not have incurred as a couple.

You're talking nonsense. You need to read up on income tax rules.

Stheno

womandriver wrote: »

You're talking nonsense. You need to read up on income tax rules.

Eh no I'm not, if you are married to someone and one person earns less than hits the 41 percent limit, and the other does, then the person earning enough to hit 41 percent can take what remains of the persons who doesn't.

So if one person earns 50k, and another earns 20k, and the limit is 32k where a single person hits 41% in the case of a married couple that increases up to 64k before they jointly hit the 41% limit, so compared to two single people, they are better off by up to 300e per month.

Thats under joint assessment.

womandriver

Stheno wrote: »

Eh no I'm not, if you are married to someone and one person earns less than hits the 41 percent limit, and the other does, then the person earning enough to hit 41 percent can take what remains of the persons who doesn't.

So if one person earns 50k, and another earns 20k, and the limit is 32k where a single person hits 41% in the case of a married couple that increases up to 64k before they jointly hit the 41% limit, so compared to two single people, they are better off by up to 300e per month.

Thats under joint assessment.

It ONLY applies if married. It ONLY applies if the second income is low enough. Only a portion of the band is transferable. Are all non seperated parents married entitled to this? No they're not. So why are you speaking as if this is the situation for all non lone parents? It is absolutely not.

Stheno

womandriver wrote: »

It ONLY applies if married. It ONLY applies if the second income is low enough. Only a portion of the band is transferable. Are all non seperated parents married entitled to this? No they're not. So why are you speaking as if this is the situation for all non lone parents? It is absolutely not.

I'm not though and I've said that in my last two posts, so stop misinterpreting my posts.

I've made it clear that from a tax perspective, if there is a disconnect in earning ability amongst a couple, it is financially advantageous to be married. And as a result of not being married my partner has suffered as a result of his seperating and incurring additional cost.

womandriver

Stheno wrote: »

I'm not though and I've said that in my last two posts, so stop misinterpreting my posts.

I've made it clear that from a tax perspective, if there is a disconnect in earning ability amongst a couple, it is financially advantageous to be married. And as a result of not being married my partner has suffered as a result of his seperating and incurring additional cost.

And the full €32k is not transferable.

Gillo

Katya wrote: »

I agree with this, it was an unfair and widely abused tax credit. Anyone I know in receipt of maintenance only gets €40 from the father. A live in father definitely contributes more than this!

That's strange as most people I know pay well above that. I come out with about 2k a month and pay €450 a month. Add in clothes, presents etc and it's easily €500. That's for one daughter, for me the tax credit pretty much keeps me above water.

yoke

womandriver: And this is his stiuation. That's life. Why do people think their life choices have to be funded by other tax payers?

womandriver you have to realise you're a part of society, and you will constantly have to put up with the fact that other peoples life decisions will keep affecting you for as long as you're part of society.

So, now that we've changed your question from "why should society fund some members's life choices" to "WHEN should society fund members life choices, and which ones should we fund?" - this makes more sense.

Society should look after most things that lead to a future better society - "children" is a big part of that. Hence, in the past we had this tax break for single fathers in the hope that the extra money would be spent giving the children of the separated couple a better childhood. Now, it's gone.

Stheno

womandriver wrote: »

And the full €32k is not transferable.

It used be but has changed so my figures were wrong.

It does actually apply to civil partnerships as well as married couples.

See here for examples