Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sole breadwinner tax is unconstitutional

Options
  • 29-05-2018 11:54pm
    #1
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭


    A sole breadwinner pays significantly more tax on their earnings than a couple who both earn half as much.

    As well as being clearly unfair, this is not ideal for families as the literature shows benefits to the child if they have a stay at home parent in the first years.

    It also turns out to be unconstitutional, since the Irish constitution recognises the contribution of women in the home.
    In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
    The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

    https://www.google.ie/amp/www.thejournal.ie/irish-constitution-womans-place-3275347-Mar2017/%3famp=1

    There is an upcoming referendum on this in the context of it being sexist. And yes we're not in the 70s any more and a stay at home dad is just as valuable as a stay at home mom. Fully agree it should be updated.

    But personally I'm more interested in the angle that surely this means the current tax system should be changed. It does not support stay at home moms (or dads) to unfairly tax a sole breadwinner supporting them.


«134

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    slavetothegrind
    Registered Users Posts: 2,789 ✭✭✭slavetothegrind


    What?


  • Options
    #3
    Jimmy Dags
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 172 ✭✭Jimmy Dags


    What about those on the rock and roll who get the four bed house by having 3 kids?


  • Options
    #4
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    There is a tax credit for stay at home parents


  • Options
    #5
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    Try_harder wrote: »
    There is a tax credit for stay at home parents
    It does not make up the difference between sole breadwinner taxes and dual income families earning the same amount.
    Though it does explain why I've been getting a bit more in my payslip recently.


  • Options
    #6
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    Jimmy Dags wrote: »
    What about those on the rock and roll who get the four bed house by having 3 kids?
    Well I'm obviously not talking about them here.

    Pretty sure this forum has an established consensus about them already.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    slavetothegrind wrote: »
    What?
    John is a sole breadwinner who earns 60k. He and his wife get over 5k less a year than their neighbours Jane and Joe who both work and have salaries of 30k


  • Options
    #8
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Lachlan Great Triangle wrote: »
    John is a sole breadwinner who earns 60k. He and his wife get over 5k less a year than their neighbours Jane and Joe who both work and have salaries of 30k

    Jane and Joe are doing twice as much work.


  • Options
    #9
    YFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 9,717 ✭✭✭YFlyer


    Lachlan Great Triangle wrote: »
    John is a sole breadwinner who earns 60k. He and his wife get over 5k less a year than their neighbours Jane and Joe who both work and have salaries of 30k

    Jane and Joe have to pay for child support.


  • Options
    #10
    Jimmy Dags
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 172 ✭✭Jimmy Dags


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Jane and Joe are doing twice as much work.

    Jane is hot.


  • Options
    #11
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Jimmy Dags wrote: »
    Jane is hot.

    Stripping is still work.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Jane and Joe are doing twice as much work.
    No they're lazy bollixes.


  • Options
    #13
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Lachlan Great Triangle wrote: »
    No they're lazy bollixes.

    Seems to me they are working 80 hours a week between them. If they were lazy they'd work less. Or not at all.


  • Options
    #14
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Jane and Joe are doing twice as much work.
    I find looking after a baby to be more work than my actual work.


  • Options
    #15
    Jimmy Dags
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 172 ✭✭Jimmy Dags


    Lachlan Great Triangle wrote: »
    I find looking after a baby to be more work than my actual work.

    Are you a stripper by trade?


  • Options
    #16
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,483 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Lachlan Great Triangle wrote: »
    A sole breadwinner pays significantly more tax on their earnings than a couple who both earn half as much.

    As well as being clearly unfair, this is not ideal for families as the literature shows benefits to having a stay at home parent in the first years.

    It also turns out to be unconstitutional, since the Irish constitution recognises the contribution of women in the home.

    https://www.google.ie/amp/www.thejournal.ie/irish-constitution-womans-place-3275347-Mar2017/%3famp=1

    There is an upcoming referendum on this in the context of it being sexist. And yes we're not in the 70s any more and a stay at home dad is just as valuable as a stay at home mom. Fully agree it should be updated.

    But personally I'm more interested in the angle that surely this means the current tax sustem should be changed. It does not support stay at home moms (or dads) to unfairly tax a sole breadwinner supporting them.

    So when are you in the high court to argue this? I could do with a laugh.


  • Options
    #17
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Lachlan Great Triangle wrote: »
    I find looking after a baby to be more work than my actual work.

    Quit and find an employer to pay you for doing a job so.

    Jobs pay money. Raising your own kids doesn't. Such is life.

    What if a couple has no kids and one is just a layabout?


  • Options
    #18
    irishrebe
    Registered Users Posts: 612 ✭✭✭irishrebe


    Lachlan Great Triangle wrote: »
    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Jane and Joe are doing twice as much work.
    I find looking after a baby to be more work than my actual work.
    Who forced you to have one?


  • Options
    #19
    Jimmy Dags
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 172 ✭✭Jimmy Dags


    irishrebe wrote: »
    Who forced you to have one?

    Accidents happen in bed.


  • Options
    #20
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    irishrebe wrote: »
    Who forced you to have one?
    What are you on about. I have a good job. Sometimes I look after my kid too.


  • Options
    #21
    368100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,067 ✭✭✭368100


    Jimmy Dags wrote: »
    Accidents happen in bed.

    Theres special pants for that ;-)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Conservatory
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,194 ✭✭✭Conservatory


    People “living in sin” but who have families together also can’t avail of these tax credits which annoys the hell out of me.


  • Options
    #23
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,414 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Jane and Joe are doing twice as much work.


    John.
    Who's Joe now?


  • Options
    #24
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,134 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »

    What if a couple has no kids and one is just a layabout?

    If they are both happy with the setup then so what? Not everyone wants to or is able to work.


  • Options
    #25
    Peatys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Peatys


    Lachlan Great Triangle wrote: »
    I find looking after a baby to be more work than my actual work.

    What were you doing before? Anything you can do in your pj's can't be that hard.

    Don't bullshít a bullshítter, we've two kids and once they have their 3 squares and snacks during the day, they're handy to look after once you get past the first few months.

    I give you Bill Burr...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoJrMaFlxOk


  • Options
    #26
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,174 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Lachlan Great Triangle wrote: »
    John is a sole breadwinner who earns 60k. He and his wife get over 5k less a year than their neighbours Jane and Joe who both work and have salaries of 30k
    That's because tax is assessed per individual, not per household.

    It's a feature of having a progressive income tax (i.e. one in which tax rates go up, the more you earn). With such a system it will always be the case that an individual (or a group of individuals) earning a given amount will pay more tax than a larger groups of individuals who, between them, earn the same amount.


  • Options
    #27
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    That's because tax is assessed per individual, not per household.

    It's a feature of having a progressive income tax (i.e. one in which tax rates go up, the more you earn). With such a system it will always be the case that an individual (or a group of individuals) earning a given amount will pay more tax than a larger groups of individuals who, between them, earn the same amount.
    Spouses are usually jointly assessed though, so it is in fact two people being assessed whether or not both are working.


  • Options
    #28
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,174 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Lachlan Great Triangle wrote: »
    Spouses are usually jointly assessed though, so it is in fact two people being assessed whether or not both are working.
    Yes, but there are in fact two of them.

    Are you asking for a single person to be assessed as though he were two people?


  • Options
    #29
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Yes, but there are in fact two of them.

    Are you asking for a single person to be assessed as though he were two people?
    A couple are jointly assessed. Ie two people are assessed together. What bit are you not getting here because I can't put it more simply


  • Options
    #30
    Accidentally
    Registered Users Posts: 257 ✭✭Accidentally


    Jane should dump Joe for John.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    WoollyRedHat
    Registered Users Posts: 10,462 ✭✭✭✭WoollyRedHat


    Brexit means brexit. The rule is bread tomorrow and bread yeasterday bit never bread today. Now what was the question again?


Advertisement