Sole breadwinner tax is unconstitutional

irishrebe

JCX BXC wrote: »

Lachlan Great Triangle wrote: »

, I think it's fair to say that both parents often are forced to work by economic necessity. Specifically the uneven taxation I've described often results in an "economic necessity to engage in labour" for both parents.

Yano what, I fully agree here.

We always harp on about how economically developed and well off we are nowadays compared to the last century, but just look back to the 70's, when that bill was made, and you'll find families survived with only 1 income. Try do that in most places now and you'll probably find survival very difficult. Both parents now generally have to work, especially in the GDA where house prices are....a little pricey let's say.

Can we really say this is fine, normal and simply progression from our ways in the 70's?

This is a general problem, not just for families. Single people used to be able to buy places on their own without too much bother, now it's almost impossible. You really need a partner to have any chance at buying your own place in Dublin unless you're on an incredibly good wage. I'm sure at the time people imagined that both parents being able to work would mean extra income and a great standard of living, but all that happened was that living costs then rose along with the extra household income, so you now need twice as much money (in real terms) as you did in the 70s to buy the same things. People will harp on about how expectations are too high now, but that's largely bullsh1t. Nobody had iPads and Smart Tvs then because they weren't invented. Most people DID have house phones and TVs and cars. And most importantly, a house to put them in.

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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

While I agree that this should not be the case they are separate areas. The above falls under social welfare while the tax credits falls under revenue. There are other areas where social welfare status is influenced in some way by who you live with, for example living with parents so its not confined to cohabiting couples.

Getting the social welfare aspects changed would be the route to go down rather than try to devalue the who idea of marriage by giving the same status to unmarried couples. It just doesn't make any sense really, if you want the benefits of marriage then get married why is there a need for an alternative?

LirW

June Wonderful Mutt wrote: »

While I agree that this should not be the case they are separate areas. The above falls under social welfare while the tax credits falls under revenue. There are other areas where social welfare status is influenced in some way by who you live with, for example living with parents so its not confined to cohabiting couples.

Getting the social welfare aspects changed would be the route to go down rather than try to devalue the who idea of marriage by giving the same status to unmarried couples. It just doesn't make any sense really, if you want the benefits of marriage then get married why is there a need for an alternative?

There are plenty of couples that live together for a very long time, have children, share property. It's 2018, there are couples that don't see the need of being married when they already have the above. Having children together is a bigger commitment than some ceremony will ever be. When it comes to a break-up and you aren't married you'll still have the same rights of property ownership that a married couple has after 5 or 2 years when a child is around.
Marriage in itself carrying the values were important times and times ago are outdated because women are now in the workforce, pay taxes, can vote, have many rights they didn't have back in the day when everything depended on marriage for both partners. Times have certainly changed and not tax implications for unmarried families is pretty backwards.
Why should an unmarried family that live together and she rears the kids at home not be counted the way a married woman doing the same is? Because she didn't have a wedding ceremony? Come on.

diomed

I am overtaxed. Other people should pay more.
Always good for an After Hours thread on a slow day.

sbsquarepants

techdiver wrote: »

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.

I wasn't aware of that to be honest, but looking at the link you provided it wouldn't apply to my situation anyway because I'm "single"

Sleepy

I'll be honest, the tax credits were one of the reasons myself and Mrs Sleepy got married. With two kids, Mrs Sleepy hasn't been able to work full-time since the second was born and (at the time), I remember doing the maths that as a non-married couple, renting in Dublin, any job I took had to pay over 44k before tax to break even with what we'd get were we both unemployed. Since the Civil Partners bill came in and slapped us with all the risks of being married for co-habiting (palimony etc.) it made financial sense to get married and benefit from the 3k a year extra in tax credits.

The individualisation of tax credits punishes single income families whether they're single income by choice, or due to financial necessity because of the costs of childcare.

sbsquarepants

June Wonderful Mutt wrote: »

It just doesn't make any sense really, if you want the benefits of marriage then get married why is there a need for an alternative?

And what if you want the benefits of not being married?

If I was married I'd get my missus's tax credits - I could get this carers allowance too I just found out, but I can't because I'm single. My missus can't get social welfare because she's not single. Which is it, are we single, or are we not?

I don't care which one it is, but whichever it is shouldn't change based on the department I'm talking to!

Peregrinus

sbsquarepants wrote: »

And what if you want the benefits of not being married?

If I was married I'd get my missus's tax credits - I could get this carers allowance too I just found out, but I can't because I'm single. My missus can't get social welfare because she's not single. Which is it, are we single, or are we not?

I don't care which one it is, but whichever it is shouldn't change based on the department I'm talking to!

It changes based on the context in which the question is raised.

For tax purposes, the question is "how much of your earnings is the state going to take"? In answering this question, as a general rule the state is not interested in how you spend your money. You may be spending lots of it on groceries, or you may be spending lots of it on sex parties; neither is relevant. There are a very few categories of expenditure that are relevant - e.g. mortgage interest - and always on the basis of a specific tax deduction or tax credit intended to encourage that particular kind of expenditure.

So, the fact that you choose to spend it on feeding, housing, etc someone who lives with you is irrelevant. There are no tax deductions for that.

But, if you're married, you are obliged to support your spouse. That is relevant, because it's not simply a personal choice that you spend some of your money doing this; it's a legal obligation, and one you can't walk away from. That's a circumstances which the tax code has always taken into account, in varying ways, when imposing tax liablities.

With welfare, the question is not how much of your earnings the state is going to take; it's how much public money is going to be given to you. Here, the relevant issue is the extent of your need, and if in fact your are being supported by a partner (e.g. who shares accommodation costs with you) then that's relevant in assessing your need. The relevance doesn't depend on whether your partner is obliged to support you in this way, or merely chooses to; all that matters is that you are actually receiving the support.

This isn't just a marriage versus cohabitation thing; it's generally the case that your income tax liablities are generally calculated by ignoring the choices you make about how to use your income, but the calculation does look at constraints and circumstances which control the use of your income. Whereas the welfare code has always been interest simply in looking at what needs and resources you have, and has little interest in why you have them.

Skylinehead

June Wonderful Mutt wrote: »

It would totally devalue marraige if there was another way to avail of the same benefits

My answer to that would be "so what?". Who cares if marriage is devalued?

LirW

This isn't just a marriage versus cohabitation thing; it's generally the case that your income tax liablities are generally calculated by ignoring the choices you make about how to use your income, but the calculation does look at constraints and circumstances which control the use of your income. Whereas the welfare code has always been interest simply in looking at what needs and resources you have, and has little interest in why you have them.

Welfare aside though, it still does make little sense that two couples with the big difference of one being married and one being unmarried with their own biological children are assessed differently.
When you're a parent you still have the responsibility to care for your child, you're legally obliged to care for your child and this is also a responsibility that you can't walk away from. Yet the taxman definitely does see a difference in people who raise their children married or unmarried, both pay their taxes, the married couple gets a tax break for a stay-at-home, the unmarried doesn't.
I understand that this doesn't sit right with couples that don't wish to be married for their own reasons.

I get that it goals of marriage were financial and social security and conceiving children, but this is somewhat outdated because nowadays both partners work, married people decide against children, homosexual people get married that couldn't conceive children on their own (no hate there, just pointing out how outdated it is) and generally marriage is often entered because it's the next point on the checklist to make this commitment to each other.
When you already have children it's a much bigger commitment though, because you still will be involved with the parent, you have the obligation to support the children, I think you get where I'm coming from.

sbsquarepants

Peregrinus wrote: »

You may be spending lots of it on groceries, or you may be spending lots of it on sex parties;.

Mostly groceries:mad:

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, the fact that you choose to spend it on feeding, housing, etc someone who lives with you is irrelevant. There are no tax deductions for that.;.

It's not irrelevant though, because I throws you into a grey area where you aren't married, but you also aren't single. There are tax breaks for single parents but you can't avail of them if you are cohabiting

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, if you're married, you are obliged to support your spouse. That is relevant, .;.

Married or not you are obliged to support your kids - no tax break however if you are not married, but cohabiting

Peregrinus wrote: »

With welfare, the question is not how much of your earnings the state is going to take; it's how much public money is going to be given to you. .

It's pretty much the same question - if you work (PAYE anyway) the state taxes all your earnings it then hands you back some in the form of credits based on various criteria.
Tax credits are in effect you being given a wad of public money for having met some criteria the state has deemed beneficial.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Whereas the welfare code has always been interest simply in looking at what needs and resources you have, and has little interest in why you have them.

Not quite true. If that were the case un married couples could simply class themselves as living in a house share and if one of them wasn't working they'd be entitled to social welfare like any other non working single person.

For whatever reason - the state clearly favours married couples over unmarried couples.

sbsquarepants

Nixonbot wrote: »

My answer to that would be "so what?". Who cares if marriage is devalued?

I'll tell you what devalues marriage - people getting married solely for tax reasons!

LirW

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'll tell you what devalues marriage - people getting married solely for tax reasons!

Like us sinful people, having kids out of wedlock and then marry to get favoured tax wise :pac:

sbsquarepants

LirW wrote: »

Like us sinful people, having kids out of wedlock and then marry to get favoured tax wise :pac:

You're a filthy little tax whore, that's what you are!

2 decades of the rosary and put that tax credit in the perpetual fix the church roof fund please:D

s7ryf3925pivug

seamus wrote: »

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 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.

http://www.misc.ie/home

There are a lot of families who would not have enough income from one salary to meet basic living standards, but who would be taxed more than dual earner counterparts with the same combined gross income. I would go so far as to say it is the norm for non property owners in the Dublin area.

If your argument is that they are not going hungry then I would say your definition of an acceptable basic living standard is too low.

s7ryf3925pivug

kylith wrote: »

what’s the threshold?

I think about €400 p.w. net. Not sure whether child benefit counts towards that. Anything over €100 p.w. results in a reduction afaik.

s7ryf3925pivug

techdiver wrote: »

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.

Thank you I think you just saved me €1100

studdlymurphy

Guy:Incognito wrote:

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

Paid per amount of woek they do roughly half the worknof the guy whonis paid 50. Simple

blanch152

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 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.



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.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/politics/unwed-parent-spaying-more-tax-113906.html

As far as I know, this has already been tested.

http://www.thejournal.ie/marriage-tax-reasons-3766958-Dec2017/

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/lawfully-wedded-for-richer-or-for-poorer-or-for-tax-purposes-26226515.html

Plenty of information about it around the place.

currants

LirW wrote: »

Welfare aside though, it still does make little sense that two couples with the big difference of one being married and one being unmarried with their own biological children are assessed differently.
When you're a parent you still have the responsibility to care for your child, you're legally obliged to care for your child and this is also a responsibility that you can't walk away from. Yet the taxman definitely does see a difference in people who raise their children married or unmarried, both pay their taxes, the married couple gets a tax break for a stay-at-home, the unmarried doesn't.
I understand that this doesn't sit right with couples that don't wish to be married for their own reasons.

I get that it goals of marriage were financial and social security and conceiving children, but this is somewhat outdated because nowadays both partners work, married people decide against children, homosexual people get married that couldn't conceive children on their own (no hate there, just pointing out how outdated it is) and generally marriage is often entered because it's the next point on the checklist to make this commitment to each other.
When you already have children it's a much bigger commitment though, because you still will be involved with the parent, you have the obligation to support the children, I think you get where I'm coming from.

Rubbish. People get married to make a public commitment to each other in front of their families and friends and because they want financial and emotional security for each other and their children, if they have them. It may be a point of a checklist for you but gay people fought long and hard for the right to marry and that wasn't just for a checklist. There is no legal commitment involved in having children. There obviously is commitment and meaning for you but parents often disappear, refuse to pay for their children etc. You could have somebody claiming tax allowances for two or more adult dependents if cohabittees were given it. There's no lay against living with lots of partners, there is law against having more than one spouse. If you get married you give your kids and partner better financial security and yourself greater parental rights:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/cohabiting_couples/legal_guardianship_and_unmarried_couples.html

LirW

No worries, he's a legal guardian already.
Jesus, we're talking about revenue here, it should be easy enough to assess if people live together permanently, if the children are adults already and a heap of other circumstances. You really don't wanna mess with revenue.
Fact is, that people get married for tax reasons that live together for a long time and might have children even, someone stated there would be such a devaluation of marriage when people could claim tax credits for children of unmarried parents, but the true meaning is devalued when people do marry because their tax situation would be a lot better.

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

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.

No they wouldn't, and recognition of the family in law absolutely does require that the couple are married?

I can't believe I just read that tbh, when it's pretty clearly stated in article 41 of the Irish Constitution that the legal definition of the family is founded upon marriage -


THE FAMILY


ARTICLE 41

1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.


2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.


2 1° 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.


2° 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.


3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.


It's one of the reasons why marriage equality was so important to same-sex couples so that their children would have the same rights and protections of the law as the children of married opposite-sex couples - the opportunity to marry gave same-sex couples the right marry and to be recognised as a family according to Irish law even if they never had children, and it's also one of the reasons why unmarried one parent families are not recognised as a family in Irish law, meaning that their children do not enjoy the same rights and protections in law as the children of married couples.

ZeroThreat

Lachlan Great Triangle wrote: »

No they're lazy bollixes.

Why would you assume this from your example?

s7ryf3925pivug

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Why would you assume this from your example?

Like totally bants