Tax credits for non married individuals

Hopeful2016 · 03-09-2016 12:27PM

Colser wrote: »

Lots of couples could gain if credits could be transferred..

I never said otherwise but it would make no difference to many others.

Also, I haven't seen where the op has indicated that this is the case for him and his partner. Is his partner not working or low income? Because if they are neither of these, their martial status will have zero impact on their tax credits.

missblondie89 · 03-09-2016 12:38PM

The whole social welfare thing is a joke I've just become fully employed in last 2 months while my partner (cohabiting) has been cut to €29 a week as the dole say that I have enough to cover rent, bills, car and can financially look after him as well, I get paid monthly and am finding hard to make whatever money is left last for 4 weeks, yet I cannot claim any tax as we are not married??

jamesbondings · 03-09-2016 12:43PM

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

I never said otherwise but it would make no difference to many others.

Also, I haven't seen where the op has indicated that this is the case for him and his partner. Is his partner not working or low income? Because if they are neither of these, their martial status will have zero impact on their tax credits.

Partner is currently on maternity benefit. Little lad is only 6 weeks old.

Hopeful2016 · 03-09-2016 12:55PM

myshirt wrote: »

And to make things even more worse, having cohabited for that long, and having a kid, if you leave that girl or the relationship breaks down you are effectively now classified as have been married when it comes to the issues of splitting assets and paying maintenance for the girl and for the kid.

The old joke was she'd walk up the aisle with a bunch of flowers and back down with half your farm. She doesn't even need to get off her arse now.

Fine with me, but inconsistent from the state.

Also has huge implications if you had any wealth, houses, land, a farm etc as if you came to me (former solicitor, now accountant) I'd much prefer you were actually married so I could tax plan and help you the best way I could. For example, interspousal transfers are exempt from CGT, but unmarried that lady is a stranger.

myshirt wrote: »

Well if you are with a girl, no kids, is it right that on the breakdown of the relationship you have to pay her 25% of whatever your net pay is, for 10 years.

Especially if you didn't marry her, and you maybe moved on with your life and had a kid elsewhere. It's crippling.

Is it fair that she can get civil aid solicitors, and you have to pay privately (bar representing yourself and getting eaten alive) for what would outside a family court be regarded as frivolous and vexatious actions with costs being the penalty against you. Significant nuisance value there for a women with the paw out for more money, i.e you'll part with the cash somehow.

Is all this specific to women? I believe it works both ways, it's not just women who can benefit from the situation.

jamesbondings wrote: »

Partner is currently on maternity benefit. Little lad is only 6 weeks old.

State only MB or topped up by employer? All this is info relevant to your question but only disclosed 3 pages in. If she is getting MB then she must have been in employment prior to having the baby and would have been using her own tax credits up to this point. Also MB is taxable so not all of her tax credits would be available for you even if they were transferable.

jamesbondings · 03-09-2016 01:08PM

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

Is all this specific to women? I believe it works both ways, it's not just women who can benefit from the situation.

State only MB or topped up by employer? All this is info relevant to your question but only disclosed 3 pages in. If she is getting MB then she must have been in employment prior to having the baby and would have been using her own tax credits up to this point. Also MB is taxable so not all of her tax credits would be available for you even if they were transferable.

Your a bit of an arse aren't ya? How am I to know what's needed. The main point of this post was to ask if there was anything out there. A fact finding post if you will. She was in employment right up to 3 weeks before giving birth. Good aul boards. Brings the naysayers and trolls to the fore.

Hopeful2016 · 03-09-2016 01:19PM

jamesbondings wrote: »

Your a bit of an arse aren't ya? How am I to know what's needed. The main point of this post was to ask if there was anything out there. A fact finding post if you will. She was in employment right up to 3 weeks before giving birth. Good aul boards. Brings the naysayers and trolls to the fore.

How are people going to advise you of what might be out there if you don't give them the full details?
Just because you may not be entitled to something doesn't make some one a troll for stating that.

You sound like a lovely guy. Hope you get everything it's looks like you're entitled to

03-09-2016 01:31PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It is pure nonsense that people who are cohabiting in committed relationships should be forced into marriage to be treated equally with other couples in the same circumstances. A marriage is no more stable than such a relationship in reality.
It is indeed yet another legacy from the Church's influence on this State but also one which our Revenue system benefits handsomely from so it's not surprising that given both, our old-guard of politicians and civil servants are in no rush to change it.

Why do people think this is unique to Ireland, it's the same everywhere.

There is no way that two people with no legal connection to each other should be allows avail of benefits such as joint assessment, it would be so open to abuse it would be crazy. There needs to be legal agreements and official documentation in place before these sorts of benefits can be opened up to people, they need to be tied to each other legally and that's what marriage is. Also as a state we should be encouraging people into marriage not offering ways to do it half arsed as it makes for a less stable family unit etc.

The jointly assessed thing for social welfare is irrelavent imo. If yiu are living at home you also would have a reduction in soclal welfare and in other living situations too it's not just a couple scenario.

jamesbondings · 03-09-2016 01:37PM

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

How are people going to advise you of what might be out there if you don't give them the full details?
Just because you may not be entitled to something doesn't make some one a troll for stating that.

You sound like a lovely guy. Hope you get everything it's looks like you're entitled to

That was meant tongue in cheek! Read it back and it reads bad. Sorry! Not intended in an offensive way.

TheThpoint I was trying to make is I don't know what info I should be including as I am only enquiring.

jamesbondings · 03-09-2016 01:39PM

Alaric Fierce Supernova wrote: »

Why do people think this is unique to Ireland, it's the same everywhere.

There is no way that two people with no legal connection to each other should be allows avail of benefits such as joint assessment, it would be so open to abuse it would be crazy. There needs to be legal agreements and official documentation in place before these sorts of benefits can be opened up to people, they need to be tied to each other legally and that's what marriage is. Also as a state we should be encouraging people into marriage not offering ways to do it half arsed as it makes for a less stable family unit etc.

The jointly assessed thing for social welfare is irrelavent imo. If yiu are living at home you also would have a reduction in soclal welfare and in other living situations too it's not just a couple scenario.

I do understand this whole point. But surely having a dependent and being on the same lease for 5 years could suffice as evidence that we are together.

CIARAN_BOYLE · 03-09-2016 01:48PM

jamesbondings wrote: »

I do understand this whole point. But surely having a dependent and being on the same lease for 5 years could suffice as evidence that we are together.

Except you have not chosen to sign the form that tells them you choose to be together.

_Kaiser_ · 03-09-2016 02:11PM

Alaric Fierce Supernova wrote: »

Why do people think this is unique to Ireland, it's the same everywhere.

There is no way that two people with no legal connection to each other should be allows avail of benefits such as joint assessment, it would be so open to abuse it would be crazy. There needs to be legal agreements and official documentation in place before these sorts of benefits can be opened up to people, they need to be tied to each other legally and that's what marriage is. Also as a state we should be encouraging people into marriage not offering ways to do it half arsed as it makes for a less stable family unit etc.

The jointly assessed thing for social welfare is irrelavent imo. If yiu are living at home you also would have a reduction in soclal welfare and in other living situations too it's not just a couple scenario.

The issue is the double-standard.. if you say it's only right that people shouldn't have access to the (financial) benefits of being married without actually being married, then nor should they be penalised or expected to "carry" a partner they have no legal or "permanent" tie to if that person loses their job, and they certainly shouldn't be potentially liable for maintenance payments to that adult if they split up.

Can't have it both ways.. yet that's exactly the current situation!

03-09-2016 02:30PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The issue is the double-standard.. if you say it's only right that people shouldn't have access to the (financial) benefits of being married without actually being married, then nor should they be penalised or expected to "carry" a partner they have no legal or "permanent" tie to if that person loses their job, and they certainly shouldn't be potentially liable for maintenance payments to that adult if they split up.

Can't have it both ways.. yet that's exactly the current situation!

But that's not unique to couples, there are many other scenarios where the household is assessed for social welfare purposes. It's a totally different thing to the tax treatment of married couples, cohabiting has nothing at all to do with it nor does having children.

Mrs OBumble · 03-09-2016 07:07PM

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Also a lot of people would dodge the means test in jsb by giving their savings to their cohabitant partner if social welfare assessed together. It would be too expensive to police for fraud.

But welfare DO assess cohabitants together, irrespective of whether they are married.

Mrs OBumble · 03-09-2016 07:09PM

Alaric Fierce Supernova wrote: »

But that's not unique to couples, there are many other scenarios where the household is assessed for social welfare purposes. It's a totally different thing to the tax treatment of married couples, cohabiting has nothing at all to do with it nor does having children.

Can you name some, where adults are concerned? If you're over 25, then unemployment benefit certainly is not one of them.

Charles Babbage · 03-09-2016 07:11PM

jamesbondings wrote: »

relax carry on wrote: »

No. Joint assessment only applies to married and civil partnership cases.

I actually hate this backwards catholic country.

Thanks though much appreciated

This is neither backward nor anything to do with Catholics. The law provides a legal framework for people to come together and if they do so it offers them certain legal privileges. Why should be rest of us be subsidising you if these provisions are in place and you do not avail of them?

missblondie89 · 03-09-2016 08:21PM

People should get married because they want to make a commitment to each other, that is supposed to be the purpose?

Yet I was advised by somebody to get married to my partner to get jointly assessed for tax credits which is not at all right

I knew my income was going to be assessed by social welfare, who said I have enough money each month to look after everything and my partner is now dependent on me until he is back in work, that is fair enough.

But why the hell are we not allowed to be jointly assessed for tax credits unless we are married! I'm sorry but I don't believe that is right at all when I'm paying taxes and yet I cannot claim anything back as we are only cohabiting, it is an outdated piece of legislation because not all couples are married nowadays?

_Kaiser_ · 03-09-2016 08:23PM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This is neither backward nor anything to do with Catholics. The law provides a legal framework for people to come together and if they do so it offers them certain legal privileges. Why should be rest of us be subsidising you if these provisions are in place and you do not avail of them?

Again.. missing the point!

That's all well and good, but explain then why cohabiting but unmarried couples ARE assessed jointly for any welfare entitlements, or why one may have to make maintenance payments to the other in the event of a break-up

If they are viewed as 2 separate individuals for tax purposes, why not then in the cases above? Or if you prefer.. why is it that they are treated as a married couple would be in those instances?

missblondie89 · 03-09-2016 08:40PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Again.. missing the point!

That's all well and good, but explain then why cohabiting but unmarried couples ARE assessed jointly for any welfare entitlements, or why one may have to make maintenance payments to the other in the event of a break-up

If they are viewed as 2 separate individuals for tax purposes, why not then in the cases above? Or if you prefer.. why is it that they are treated as a married couple would be in those instances?

I totally agree with you, I would love to know why as well

CIARAN_BOYLE · 03-09-2016 09:53PM

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But welfare DO assess cohabitants together, irrespective of whether they are married.

exactly my point. if they didnt a cohabitant couple could easily massage the means test by transferring assets to their cohabitant.

mansize · 03-09-2016 09:55PM

Deagol wrote: »

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just genuinely not able to understand a rational argument?

It's fine that cohabiting people cannot get claim any tax reliefs etc but when it comes to claiming social welfare that they pay tax to receive in the first place, suddenly they are assessed on the basis they cohabit?? Talk about having your cake and eating it.....

If you are on Jobseekers Benefits- it's based on your contributions and NOT means tested

missblondie89 · 03-09-2016 10:39PM

mansize wrote: »

If you are on Jobseekers Benefits- it's based on your contributions and NOT means tested

That is actually true, they don't means test you when you are on Jobseekers Benefit, both myself and my partner were on Jobseekers Allowance before I got full-time work, he was then means tested and dropped down to €29 a week based on my payslip which is just over 2k a month

mansize · 03-09-2016 10:42PM

missblondie89 wrote: »

That is actually true, they don't means test you when you are on Jobseekers Benefit, both myself and my partner were on Jobseekers Allowance before I got full-time work, he was then means tested and dropped down to €29 a week based on my payslip which is just over 2k a month

Well then you didn't pay enough PRSI to qualify, Deagol was claiming the opposite

mansize · 03-09-2016 10:46PM

missblondie89 wrote: »

I never said anything about PRSI

The other poster claimed having paid the taxes you are denied the welfare, which isn't true.

If you pay the PRSI LEVY sufficiently you qualify

missblondie89 · 03-09-2016 10:48PM

mansize wrote: »

Well then you didn't pay enough PRSI to qualify, Deagol was claiming the opposite

I was agreeing with you that Jsb is contributions based and Jsa is means tested thats all

mansize · 03-09-2016 10:48PM

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It gets worse: if you become unemployed then your partners income counts even if you're not working.

But for tax, it counts for naught.

If you have made enough contributions it's NOT means tested tbf

mansize · 03-09-2016 10:49PM

missblondie89 wrote: »

I was agreeing with you that Jsb is contributions based and Jsa is means tested thats all

Well yes. JSA is for those who haven't contributed sufficiently (or not at all)

missblondie89 · 03-09-2016 11:13PM

mansize wrote: »

Well yes. JSA is for those who haven't contributed sufficiently (or not at all)

Yep they changed the whole system where it now no longer matters how long you were working for, the max time of Jsb you can get is 12 months even if you were working 10 years straight in one job, then you are means tested for Jsa,

I really wish that they would possibly consider looking at the issue of cohabiting couples for tax credits, I find the whole idea of having to get married just to be assessed as joint couple a bit irritating, it doesn't seem right at all.
Also being a qualified adult on your partners claim really limits you as you do not sign on yourself, you also cannot apply for courses or things like Jobsbridge as you do not have an actual Jsa claim with your name on it. Social welfare need to do more to help qualified adults, there isn't any support to help qualified adults to get back into employment, I just got lucky in the end with a job offer

mansize · 03-09-2016 11:16PM

missblondie89 wrote: »

Yep they changed the whole system where it now no longer matters how long you were working for, the max time of Jsb you can get is 12 months even if you were working 10 years straight in one job, then you are means tested for Jsa,

I really wish that they would possibly consider looking at the issue of cohabiting couples for tax credits, I find the whole idea of having to get married just to be assessed as joint couple a bit irritating, it doesn't seem right at all.
Also being a qualified adult on your partners claim really limits you as you do not sign on yourself, you also cannot apply for courses or things like Jobsbridge as you do not have an actual Jsa claim with your name on it. Social welfare need to do more to help qualified adults, there isn't any support to help qualified adults to get back into employment, I just got lucky in the end with a job offer

12 months is quite a long time to be unemployed, they do offer courses and BTE also

missblondie89 · 03-09-2016 11:42PM

mansize wrote: »

12 months is quite a long time to be unemployed, they do offer courses and BTE also

For my partner yes he could apply for any course and BTE however I was not allowed to qualify for a course as the claim was in his name, although I was down as qualified adult I was not eligible for BTE or any courses, even free courses. I applied for a Diagio course full time through social welfare only to be told that as everything was under his name I was not allowed to do that course or any other course, I even tried to apply for Jobsbridge and was shot down for same reason

Yes 12 months may seem a longtime to be unemployed, it can be a vicious circle which is hard to get out of and believe me I never want to be on the dole again, they did nothing to advise help me to get out of the situation. According to them you don't exist when you are a QA, lucky I had a friend who made enquiries to get me a free internship (not through the dole) and I then got offered avwork position, I would have cracked up otherwise

mansize · 03-09-2016 11:54PM

missblondie89 wrote: »

For my partner yes he could apply for any course and BTE however I was not allowed to qualify for a course as the claim was in his name, although I was down as qualified adult I was not eligible for BTE or any courses, even free courses. I applied for a Diagio course full time through social welfare only to be told that as everything was under his name I was not allowed to do that course or any other course, I even tried to apply for Jobsbridge and was shot down for same reason

Yes 12 months may seem a longtime to be unemployed, it can be a vicious circle which is hard to get out of and believe me I never want to be on the dole again, they did nothing to advise help me to get out of the situation. According to them you don't exist when you are a QA, lucky I had a friend who made enquiries to get me a free internship (not through the dole) and I then got offered avwork position, I would have cracked up otherwise

Did you not qualify for JSB in your own right? At any point?

Tax credits for non married individuals

Comments