Unfair tax and social for unmarried couples

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 28-07-2013 06:04PM

Ellen Rose wrote: »

Yes, you qualify for child allowance, you do not get tax credit for children unless there is a disability or such.

Individualisation of tax bands was introduced in 2000 budget by Charlie McGreevey

Wrong , either or both unmarried parents of a child can recieve what is in effect a double tax allowance so long as they are neither married nor co-habitating and the child spends one overnight a year with the parent.
It is refered to as a single parent tax allowance.

truebluesac · 28-07-2013 06:09PM

Hobbes wrote: »

Why? Just get a civil union with a prenup. Unless you aren't living with her, and no one else is planning to get married to her, then what's the issue?

As said in opening post marraige or civil partnership is not on the cards we dont believe in marraige .

My point before anyone jumps on my beliefs are that in 2 separate departments of government they contradict themselfs

Boombastic · 28-07-2013 06:14PM

truebluesac wrote: »

As said in opening post marraige or civil partnership is not on the cards we dont believe in marraige .

My point before anyone jumps on my beliefs are that in 2 separate departments of government they contradict themselfs

Do you really think government departments would be capable of communicating and linking to each other? Unless it's revenue

total double standards at play here

losthorizon · 28-07-2013 06:14PM

Hobbes wrote: »

Why? Just get a civil union with a prenup. Unless you aren't living with her, and no one else is planning to get married to her, then what's the issue?

I'm sorry but its his life and he dictate his own marital circumstances.

These differences between married and unmarried couples are just a throwback to Catholic Ireland. Its just fairer to level the pitch. I dont see why anyone would have a problem with this.

truebluesac · 28-07-2013 06:21PM

We wont be getting married or a partnership . Our family situation doesnt allow for it .

It would be easier if i was scum and didnt care about the baby or my partner . We are together 12 years so not a blow in realationship .

If the government want proof ,, sure we have a morgtage together in the house we both live and pay bills . Is that not proof enough .???

Boombastic · 28-07-2013 06:24PM

truebluesac wrote: »

.....It would be easier if i was scum and didnt care about the baby or my partner . We are together 12 years so not a blow in realationship .

..
..?

Its a sad reflection on society if that's the behavior we're rewarding. You'd probably get the house free aswell, sucker

Czarcasm · 28-07-2013 06:52PM

truebluesac wrote: »

As said in opening post marraige or civil partnership is not on the cards we dont believe in marraige .

My point before anyone jumps on my beliefs are that in 2 separate departments of government they contradict themselfs

The revenue commissioners are not a government department though. Social welfare are a government department.

The double standard doesn't exist because you could be together for the next 200 years and it still wouldn't make any difference- you're still not married. You want to create a double standard by having co-habiting couples treated the same as married couples.

That's never going to happen which is why the LGBT community are striving for the right to marriage equality and will not settle for civil partnership, let alone co-habiting.

The single parent bashing either and referring to people who are on social welfare as scum is just more rabble without a clue.

UCDVet · 28-07-2013 06:59PM

Why would your income be a factor in her 'means test'?

Boombastic · 28-07-2013 07:00PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Why would your income be a factor in her 'means test'?

Because they live together

Zab · 28-07-2013 07:02PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

The revenue commissioners are not a government department though. Social welfare are a government department.

The double standard doesn't exist because you could be together for the next 200 years and it still wouldn't make any difference- you're still not married. You want to create a double standard by having co-habiting couples treated the same as married couples.

Surely you're just trolling here. If not I suggest you look up the meaning of "double standard".

UCDVet · 28-07-2013 07:05PM

Boombastic wrote: »

Because they live together

I used to pay for a bedroom in a house on Leeson street. I didn't know any of the other people in the place, we all split the bills and I had my bedroom.

Would my income prevent them from collecting social benefits? I certainly wouldn't have shared any of it with them.

I really don't have any experience with this - it just seems crazy to me.

truebluesac · 28-07-2013 07:35PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

The revenue commissioners are not a government department though. Social welfare are a government department.

The double standard doesn't exist because you could be together for the next 200 years and it still wouldn't make any difference- you're still not married. You want to create a double standard by having co-habiting couples treated the same as married couples.

That's never going to happen which is why the LGBT community are striving for the right to marriage equality and will not settle for civil partnership, let alone co-habiting.

The single parent bashing either and referring to people who are on social welfare as scum is just more rabble without a clue.

I didnt referre to people on social welfare as scum . I said it would be easier if i was scum and didnt care about my baby or partner .

I didnt bash single parents at any stage either .

The revenue commisners is the tax collection agency of the government . however I am talking solely on tax entitlements and the discrepency between differnt government department

Zab · 28-07-2013 08:03PM

truebluesac wrote: »

We wont be getting married or a partnership . Our family situation doesnt allow for it .

No matter what people on this thread think about your situation (and I obviously think it's ridiculous on the government's part), it isn't going to change the facts for you. And it appears that the only way (that I can see) that you're going to get her tax credits is if you marry her. Obviously this is a decision for yourself, but I'd suggest that you would make of it whatever you chose to. i.e. you don't have to tell your family, have a wedding or change her name and can treat it purely as a legal status change for tax purposes, which can also protect either of you in the event of a death. Of course there are other legal ramifications which you'd have to consider.

truebluesac · 28-07-2013 08:07PM

Zab wrote: »

No matter what people on this thread think about your situation (and I obviously think it's ridiculous on the government's part), it isn't going to change the facts for you. And it appears that the only way (that I can see) that you're going to get her tax credits is if you marry her. Obviously this is a decision for yourself, but I'd suggest that you would make of it whatever you chose to. i.e. you don't have to tell your family, have a wedding or change her name and can treat it purely as a legal status change for tax purposes, which can also protect either of you in the event of a death. Of course there are other legal ramifications which you'd have to consider.

Get married for tax credits . Romantic . We are covered legally by our will .

Im highlighting and venting RE the systems in place .

A Dub in Glasgo · 28-07-2013 08:18PM

There are double standards in all walks of life. I get more irate about the double standards applied to taxation with respect to PAYE, self employed, companies etc

Zab · 28-07-2013 08:22PM

truebluesac wrote: »

Get married for tax credits . Romantic

Huh? Who mentioned romance? You've even said you don't believe in marriage, but you believe it should be romantic?

. We are covered legally by our will .

Perhaps, or perhaps you break up in 10 years and you manage to get the house by proving you paid for all of the mortgage payments. To be honest I don't know much/enough about this to really discuss it, but what I'm saying is that the government applies one set of rules if you're married and another set if you aren't. If the married set of rules is more favourable to you then you should consider getting married.

Im highlighting and venting RE the systems in place .

Yeah, fair enough, and I think it's succeeded in doing so.

Czarcasm · 28-07-2013 08:33PM

truebluesac wrote: »

I didnt referre to people on social welfare as scum . I said it would be easier if i was scum and didnt care about my baby or partner .

I didnt bash single parents at any stage either .

I don't remember mentioning you specifically, but that cap must be tighter than a condom about now.

The revenue commisners is the tax collection agency of the government . however I am talking solely on tax entitlements and the discrepency between differnt government department

The revenue commissioners is the tax collection agency of The State, not the Government.

The Government only decides how much they need to increase taxes to meet their various departments budgetary requirements. The minister for social protection will put in for how much she needs, then be told how much she's getting, and will have to adjust her budget and policy accordingly.

What applies to your particular situation is not double standards, but different standards, on a number of levels.

I would agree with you though on one thing, I wouldn't encourage anyone to get married "just for the tax breaks", the Government will see you rightly shafted whichever way you choose to go and the "tax breaks" will become the last thing on your mind.

Zab · 28-07-2013 08:42PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

The revenue commissioners is the tax collection agency of The State, not the Government.

The Government only decides how much they need to increase taxes to meet their various departments budgetary requirements. The minister for social protection will put in for how much she needs, then be told how much she's getting, and will have to adjust her budget and policy accordingly.

What applies to your particular situation is not double standards, but different standards, on a number of levels.

ha ha. B+ trolling. I think you can improve.

Czarcasm · 28-07-2013 09:02PM

Zab wrote: »

ha ha. B+ trolling. I think you can improve.

Zab instead of accusations of trolling (You should report my posts if you suspect I am trolling), would you care to show me a source for which you can refute my opinion?

If you want to tell me I'm wrong, it should be fairly easy for you to point out WHY you think I'm wrong.

Zab · 28-07-2013 09:16PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Zab instead of accusations of trolling (You should report my posts if you suspect I am trolling), would you care to show me a source for which you can refute my opinion?

If you want to tell me I'm wrong, it should be fairly easy for you to point out WHY you think I'm wrong.

All you've provided is obfuscations and meaningless clarifications. For instance, while "the government" and "the state" are different things, that fact is meaningless to this discussion. The State/Government has decided that for the purposes of giving out social welfare payments OP's partner doesn't qualify due to OP's wage, whereas for the purposes of giving out tax credits OP is considered to be single. This is a double standard. You've given some reasons why the double standard exists, but nothing to show that it isn't a double standard in the first place.

Oh wait, you did have the fantastic

What applies to your particular situation is not double standards, but different standards, on a number of levels.

http://homepage.smc.edu/nestler_andrew/trapezoid.jpg

hoplon · 28-07-2013 09:32PM

truebluesac wrote: »

Get married for tax credits . Romantic . We are covered legally by our will .

Im highlighting and venting RE the systems in place .

Aren't there tax thresholds in inheritance for beneficiaries other than a spouse. It might even mean a surviving partner may be entitled to less than their own children or even nothing, as they technically aren't related to them.
I dont agree that people should have to be married to avail of tax credits or social payments, if anything they should be encouraging this kind of honest declaration of status.
I'm trying to think how it could even be a disadvantage overall for the state? a married couple gets taxed moderately lower but could possibly avail of less social benefits.

truebluesac · 28-07-2013 09:37PM

Zab wrote: »

Huh? Who mentioned romance? You've even said you don't believe in marriage, but you believe it should be romantic?

.

I dont believe in getting married . But for thoes who do i believe the process of getting engaged and the day of the wedding should be romantic for thoes who choose that route .

Czarcasm · 28-07-2013 09:37PM

Zab wrote: »

All you've provided is obfuscations and meaningless clarifications. For instance, while "the government" and "the state" are different things, that fact is meaningless to this discussion. The State/Government has decided that for the purposes of giving out social welfare payments OP's partner doesn't qualify due to OP's wage, whereas for the purposes of giving out tax credits OP is considered to be single. This is a double standard. You've given some reasons why the double standard exists, but nothing to show that it isn't a double standard in the first place.

Oh wait, you did have the fantastic

http://homepage.smc.edu/nestler_andrew/trapezoid.jpg

So you agree in the first sentence that the government and the state are different entities, and then you join them back together in the next sentence to try and make your point?

I'm not sure what the relevance of that link is, but I can't see either of us coming to any sort of an understanding here.

truebluesac · 28-07-2013 09:39PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

So you agree in the first sentence that the government and the state are different entities, and then you join them back together in the next sentence to try and make your point?

I'm not sure what the relevance of that link is, but I can't see either of us coming to any sort of an understanding here.

If we all agree on a term "powers to be "

Zab · 28-07-2013 09:54PM

truebluesac wrote: »

I dont believe in getting married . But for thoes who do i believe the process of getting engaged and the day of the wedding should be romantic for thoes who choose that route .

Well, that's up to them surely. I know this wasn't the intention of your thread, and you haven't said what way you "don't believe" in marriage. I personally have no spiritual beliefs, so for me marriage is mostly just a statement of commitment and a change in legal status. I don't see any reason why other people's romantic notions or lack thereof would come into the decision.

Also, to be clear, I don't think that things should be this way at all, just that they are this way.

Czarcasm wrote: »

So you agree in the first sentence that the government and the state are different entities, and then you join them back together in the next sentence to try and make your point?

I'm not sure what the relevance of that link is, but I can't see either of us coming to any sort of an understanding here.

I said the distinction is meaningless to the discussion. Explain why it's "the state" that gives out tax credits but "the government" that gives out welfare payments.

You may be too young to recognise the link. It's from an episode of The Simpsons.

A Dub in Glasgo · 28-07-2013 09:56PM

truebluesac wrote: »

I dont believe in getting married . But for thoes who do i believe the process of getting engaged and the day of the wedding should be romantic for thoes who choose that route .

and the state does not believe you should benefit with respect to tax allowances if you are not married. Inconsisent with the state believing that you should be treated as a family for taxpayer support? Probably

mikemac1 · 28-07-2013 09:59PM

Tax year used to start in April

Before Charlie McCreevy arrived with his individualisation April was the busiest month of the year for weddings

So the parents tell me anyway

Bullseye1 · 28-07-2013 09:59PM

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Pretend you seperated,tell her to get single mothers,move into a council house and both of you live there.In fact,why don't you go on the dole as well as working!

(not serious)

The depressing thing is that the OP would actually be better off financially if they did exactly this. What sort of message is the government actually trying to send.

Hootanany · 28-07-2013 10:02PM

truebluesac wrote: »

So my missus lost her job whilst pregnant on our nearly 2year old she got a year on the jobseekers and was means teasted , it was deemed i earn enough so her payments where then stopped iv no problem with this ,

The problem i have is that we are means tested as a couple yet i cannot claim her tax credits as we are not married and also i cannot claim tax credits for my daughter as we are not married and are not separated

We have no intention of getting married so dont suggest it .but It seems double standards to test us as a single income unit but treat us as separate income units for taxes .

Opinions

Tell her to wear a nice track suit sorted.

Carlos Orange · 28-07-2013 10:03PM

truebluesac wrote: »

As said in opening post marraige or civil partnership is not on the cards we dont believe in marraige .

My point before anyone jumps on my beliefs are that in 2 separate departments of government they contradict themselfs

I don't really see any contradiction. Couples are assessed together. Married people can share tax credits. A married couple is a type of couple but that doesn't make all couples the same.

Unfair tax and social for unmarried couples

Comments