Sole breadwinner tax is unconstitutional

Malayalam

Deleted User wrote: »

And if every child minder went on strike in the morning, the Irish economy would collapse. Very few jobs are "real" and "important enough" for that to happen. And certainly not the vast majority of bureaucracy-laden bullshít office jobs. And the bureaucracy is only getting worse and more pointless in most of those "real" jobs.

And it's not just child rearing. If every single person in this country who stays at home to mind people with special needs, people with acquired brain injury, sick people, incapacitated people, people with mental breakdowns, elderly and sick relations and inlaws, the whole place would grind to a halt. And don't anyone give me the BS about how they get paid for that - the pittance they receive for truly inconceivable workloads is a disgrace.

mariaalice

techdiver wrote: »

At what point do you cut off the age for dependant children? Just because they go to school doesn't mean they don't need looking after anymore. For the first few years they are finished at 1pm. After that 3pm until they are older. These hours make it impossible to hold down full time employment without after school care also. You have couples dropping kids off to creche at 7.30 in the morning (or in some cases earlier to grandparents/neighbours who in turn drop them to crache when it opens), commuting to Dublin and arriving back in the evening barely in time to put the kids to bed. We live in a world now where children are more familiar with childcare workers than their own parents. That's bound to work out well in the long term. :rolleyes:

Tax individualisation was not done for the benefit of women despite what the government of the time want you to believe. It was part of a larger race to the bottom from a society point of view. Families and people left behind and merely become a commodity for the economy (unless of course you are a deadbeat and you are funded by this self same group that are hit by this unfair taxation system).

But as you alluded to it's not just about working or stay at home parents, if it was to be really looked at and most people don't they simply accept the norms because it's all around them, it would bring in to question everything from capitalism, property right the role of men and women in society, in fact, the whole of western society.

Malayalam

techdiver wrote: »

Tax individualisation was not done for the benefit of women despite what the government of the time want you to believe. It was part of a larger race to the bottom from a society point of view. Families and people left behind and merely become a commodity for the economy (unless of course you are a deadbeat and you are funded by this self same group that are hit by this unfair taxation system).

That's exactly what we are in the global corporate economy - tribes and societies are a thing of the past, even civilisation maybe. We are consumers, drones, commodities. Production Units. On some big global balance sheet.

coffee_cake

I didn't realise there was such a big difference or any at all, i do think if one is a stay at home parent it should work out the same given the 1x60 2x30 example

FionnB

irishrebe wrote: »

So why are you bleating about it like a martyr? There are already plenty of tax breaks and benefits for people with children.

What tax breaks are these exactly? I pay exactly the same tax whether or not I have children, so I'd love to know what you mean.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, I think that unrelenting Thatcherite fúcktard Harney and her soulmate in rightwing "No such thing as society" Thatcherism in Ireland, Charlie McCreevy, changed Irish tax law in 2000 to reward parents who abandon their children to childcare and instead go out and do "proper" work and make a "proper" contribution to society rather than do that unimportant doss joke "job" of... raising children.

I can't tel if you're trolling or you really think a parent who works is a bad parent.

Peregrinus

Grayson wrote: »

I can't tel if you're trolling or you really think a parent who works is a bad parent.

It's more that Charlie McCreevy regarded every parent who didn't work (outside the home) as a bad citizen/worker.

OK, I exaggerate, but there is a point here. Measures like GDP and national income only measure paid work. Neither should be equated with national welfare or national well-being.

If I pay you to care for my child in your home, and you pay me to care for your child in my home, we are both contributing to GDP. But if we each care for our own child in our own home, GDP will go down even though aggregate wellbeing will obviously be the same or, arguably, higher.

By introducing a tax measure designed to incentivise women to enter the paid workforce, McCreevy is elevating income over welfare or wellbeing.

s7ryf3925pivug

Grayson wrote: »

I can't tel if you're trolling or you really think a parent who works is a bad parent.

That's not how I read their post - my reading was a diatribe against the undervaluation of the contribution made by stay at home parents.

Just commenting because I thanked the post, but wouldn't support the idea that you read from it.

kylith

Do stay at home parents qualify for any SW payment? Or is it just the kick in the teeth of the pittance that is child benefit?

techdiver

kylith wrote: »

Do stay at home parents qualify for any SW payment? Or is it just the kick in the teeth of the pittance that is child benefit?

Means tested, so in essence no they don't.

s7ryf3925pivug

kylith wrote: »

Do stay at home parents qualify for any SW payment? Or is it just the kick in the teeth of the pittance that is child benefit?

Nope not if a sole breadwinner earns more than the threshold. Welfare entitlements are calculated on combined earnings. But the sole breadwinner can only use some of the stay at home parent's tax credits. I view that as inconsistent.

If they are not married then there's still no welfare for the stay at home parent, but in that case there is no tax credit transfer at all.

sbsquarepants

techdiver wrote: »

There already "is", but it's a miserable €1,100 per year. It comes nowhere close to closing the gap and it won't be put up significantly either.

There's no childrens tax credit.

There's a tax credit for lone parents? But if you are married or living with the other parent, there's nothing.

_Kaiser_

Conservatory wrote: »

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

And yet a few years ago they changed the cohabitation rules so that in the event of a break-up, one partner may be liable for supporting the other (not talking about where kids are involved, which of course should come first).

Equally dad's who are involved in their child's life can no longer avail of the single parent tax credit even if the mother isn't working unless she agrees (which may not be the case).

And yes the tax application discrepancy between married and unmarried couples needs serious review.

As it stands it's all of the responsibility/liability, but none of the benefits. Can't have it both ways.

Mr. teddywinkles

Why can't the partner not working claim Dole. Claw your tax back that way

tea and coffee

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Why can't the partner not working claim Dole. Claw your tax back that way

Because it is means tested. If your spouse earns over the threshold you don't get anything

kylith

Jesus bloody Christ.

So there is really no incentive to not have a complete stranger raise my child?

sbsquarepants

Lachlan Great Triangle wrote: »

Nope not if a sole breadwinner earns more than the threshold. Welfare entitlements are calculated on combined earnings. But the sole breadwinner can only use some of the stay at home parent's tax credits. I view that as inconsistent.

If they are not married then there's still no welfare for the stay at home parent, but in that case there is no tax credit transfer at all.

This is what really pisses me off.

My missus stays at home and minds the kids - we've 4 small kids, she'd love to work but with the cost of childcare it would likely cost us money for her to do so. We're not married - so I can't get any of her tax credits "because I'm single" She can't claim any social welfare "because she's not single" I can't claim tax relief for the kids "because I'm not single"

I don't really care if the state wants to class me as single or not single - but I would like them to be consistent, as it is they just chop and change to suit themselves!

kylith

tea and coffee wrote: »

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Why can't the partner not working claim Dole. Claw your tax back that way

Because it is means tested. If your spouse earns over the threshold you don't get anything

what’s the threshold?

Conservatory

Conservatory wrote: »

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

Why on earth should two people who have made no legal commitment whatsoever be able to avail of shared tax credits?

There is a very simple solution it's called getting married, so if you want the benefits of marraige then get over whatever silly reason you are "against" marraige and get married. Otherwise stop complaining and continue to pay more tax by your own choice.

It would totally devalue marraige if there was another way to avail of the same benefits and it simply isn't going to happen.

mariaalice

sbsquarepants wrote: »

This is what really pisses me off.

My missus stays at home and minds the kids - we've 4 small kids, she'd love to work but with the cost of childcare it would likely cost us money for her to do so. We're not married - so I can't get any of her tax credits "because I'm single" She can't claim any social welfare "because she's not single" I can't claim tax relief for the kids "because I'm not single"

I don't really care if the state wants to class me as single or not single - but I would like them to be consistent, as it is they just chop and change to suit themselves!

That why a decent tax credit for children would be a brilliant idea it wouldn't matter if you were married or single as long as you were supporting children that you were living with. It would mean your take-home salary would be higher than a person with no child dependent who is on the salary.

_Kaiser_

June Wonderful Mutt wrote: »

Why on earth should two people who have made no legal commitment whatsoever be able to avail of shared tax credits?

There is a very simple solution it's called getting married, so if you want the benefits of marraige then get over whatever silly reason you are "against" marraige and get married. Otherwise stop complaining and continue to pay more tax by your own choice.

It would totally devalue marraige if there was another way to avail of the same benefits and it simply isn't going to happen.

Because, as I said above, they are treated as though they ARE married for some things (eg: spousal support after a breakup, or welfare entitlement assessments) when it comes to liability but without the corresponding benefits

techdiver

sbsquarepants wrote: »

There's no childrens tax credit.

There's a tax credit for lone parents? But if you are married or living with the other parent, there's nothing.

That's incorrect. There is an €1,100 home carers tax credit available to all stay at home parent looking after children.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/income_tax_credits_and_reliefs/home_carers_tax_credit.html

It's not even close to being enough to bridge the gap for the loss of shared tax credits and standard rate cut off that was lost in 2000 though.

Geuze

A study was published this year of the effects of the partial introduction of income tax individualisation in 1999/2000.

https://www.esri.ie/news/tax-reform-increased-the-number-of-married-women-in-employment/

ESRI press release:

"Budget 2000 introduced a radical reform of the tax treatment of Irish couples which was anticipated to increase the labour supply of women. There was considerable debate and controversy at the time, with differing views as to how great the increase in married women’s participation would be. Analysis by Dr. Karina Doorley (ESRI) now shows that the employment rate of married women increased by about 5 percentage points as a result of the reform.

Up to 2000, Ireland had a system of joint taxation, which allowed a working spouse to use the tax allowances, credits and bands of a non-working spouse. This imposed a higher tax rate on the non-earning spouse if they joined the labour market, making it less likely that they would take up employment. Budget 2000 partly individualised Ireland’s income taxation system through the introduction of a non-transferable element of the standard rate band. This increased the financial incentive for non-working spouses (typically women) to work. There was a clear response, as identified in this paper, indicating the potential of tax reform to address labour supply issues.

The international trend in recent decades has been to move towards individualised taxation systems. This research provides policymakers with evidence of how a previous reform of this type affected labour supply.

Commenting on the research, Karina Doorley stated “This analysis indicates that the partial individualisation of the Irish taxation system achieved one of its stated goals, to increase the incentive for spouses to join the labour market.” A broader evaluation of the impact of the reform, and the potential for any further extension of individualisation would also need to examine the associated changes in income distribution. Further research on these issues is currently under way, and will also encompass issues relating to childcare and eldercare."

LirW

Conservatory wrote: »

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

Main reason to get married here.
Can afford having me at home by living frugally but we're sinful people and had the kids out of wedlock, so no tax relief for us!

Would have done it anyway but now sooner rather than later because it makes sense in the current situation.

Cordell

The tax rates are in fact equal for everyone.
Also there are some reliefs that only applies to certain people or certain people in certain situations.
There, problem solved.

LirW

June Wonderful Mutt wrote: »

Why on earth should two people who have made no legal commitment whatsoever be able to avail of shared tax credits?

There is a very simple solution it's called getting married, so if you want the benefits of marraige then get over whatever silly reason you are "against" marraige and get married. Otherwise stop complaining and continue to pay more tax by your own choice.

It would totally devalue marraige if there was another way to avail of the same benefits and it simply isn't going to happen.

Blah blah, in front of the law you're treated equal to married couples as co-habitants, especially having children together or owning property together, which is not uncommon nowadays, but not when it comes to a tax relief.

lion_bar

King of Kings wrote: »

one
childcare costs are the remit of revenue, in favt they dont give a f what you spend the cash on once you pay the tax.
And not every couple has childcare costs.

Two
Accountants are generally useless unless you are as rich as Bono they cant save you much.
They do the books , scratch their chins saying "oh...revenue mightnt like that..ohhhhh" and never offer any advice unless you ask them a direct question to which the reply is usually..."hmmm its depends" and/or " revenue mightnt like that"..
In their defence for the average person with non-bono wealth there isnt much scope for tax avoidance in ireland.

Agree, I was hoping an accountant on here might just give a fag box estimate of how usc has impacted on the op's example. While lots of people view all monies deducted from wages as income tax, it isn't so it would be nice to have a breakdown of how the other mandatory deductions impact both couples differently (if they do)

Grayson

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's more that Charlie McCreevy regarded every parent who didn't work (outside the home) as a bad citizen/worker.

OK, I exaggerate, but there is a point here. Measures like GDP and national income only measure paid work. Neither should be equated with national welfare or national well-being.

If I pay you to care for my child in your home, and you pay me to care for your child in my home, we are both contributing to GDP. But if we each care for our own child in our own home, GDP will go down even though aggregate wellbeing will obviously be the same or, arguably, higher.

By introducing a tax measure designed to incentivise women to enter the paid workforce, McCreevy is elevating income over welfare or wellbeing.

There's a difference there. GDP is caused by money changing hands. You are creating a job when you hire someone as a child minder. When you care for your own child you're not. Not unless you think every full time stay at home parent should be paid a full wage per child they look after.

I do think some parents have a hard time. I'd be in favor or extended maternity/paternity leave. I'd love to see heavily subsided child care. There are a lot of stay at home parents who simply don't have the option to go to work because of the extortionate cost of child care. But I don't think that people should be rewarded for staying at home. It's a choice, or it should be, that they make to remove themselves from the job market.

Malayalam

Grayson wrote: »

There's a difference there. GDP is caused by money changing hands. You are creating a job when you hire someone as a child minder. When you care for your own child you're not. Not unless you think every full time stay at home parent should be paid a full wage per child they look after.

I do think some parents have a hard time. I'd be in favor or extended maternity/paternity leave. I'd love to see heavily subsided child care. There are a lot of stay at home parents who simply don't have the option to go to work because of the extortionate cost of child care. But I don't think that people should be rewarded for staying at home. It's a choice, or it should be, that they make to remove themselves from the job market.

I don't think you are grasping the full import of what Peregrinus's point was - you are equating 'society' with 'job market'. That is, you are putting the economy at the root of human interaction. That is a very deliberate political decision which seeks to describe the deep inner ethic and raison d'etre of a civilisation. I happen to find it profoundly wrong to do this.

seamus

Referring to the OP, the keywords in the article are "necessity" and "neglect". The requirement is not that non-working mothers should be financially better off than working ones, but that women shouldn't have to enter the workplace to feed & clothe their children.

So long as your family have a basic standard of living, the state is fulfilling its requirement under the constitution.

I'd personally rather see it reworded/replaced with a commitment to support the family rather than a blanket removal of the article.

Remove the article and you can potentially start deconstructing the social welfare system, cutting people off completely and leaving them on the streets.

This can be avoided if we replace it with something like;

The State recognises that by their life within the home, families give to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

The State shall, therefore, guarantee by its laws that families shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their dependents.

The definition of "family" is pretty fluid, so is pretty inclusive and doesn't require that people are married or otherwise expressly related. That is, if two lifelong friends are living together and one is the other's carer, then they would be included in this definition.

I believe this "amend not replace" strategy was also the preference of the citizen's assembly which first recommended it.