Unfair tax and social for unmarried couples

Boombastic · 28-07-2013 10:05PM

Hootanany wrote: »

Tell her to wear a nice track suit sorted.

Surely your best pyjamas would be more appropriate for this occasion?

No Pants · 28-07-2013 10:11PM

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Pretend you seperated

That's what I was in the process of doing about three years ago. Fiancee was working, I wasn't. When the non means tested dole was finishing, they were going to means test me and I wasn't going to get anything. We wouldn't have been able to afford the house then. So I told them that we'd split up and the missus started staying with her folks a couple of times a week. After a few weeks, I got a job, so things went back to normal.

Czarcasm · 28-07-2013 10:31PM

Zab wrote: »

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.

The State takes in money through the Revenue Commissioners, based on figures set out by the Minister for Finance in the Budget. The Revenue Commissioners don't give out tax credits. They just decide what level of tax credits you are entitled to based on your individual circumstances, or, if you're married, your joint circumstances.

The Minister for Social Protection decides the qualifying criteria for welfare aid from the State for individuals and couples, and where the Revenue Commissioners have one way of assessing your tax liability, the DSP has another way of assessing you for social welfare income.

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

I'm 36, self employed, married and my wife is a housewife. I just haven't watched the the Simpsons in 20 years since it stopped being funny.

Zab · 28-07-2013 10:49PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

The State takes in money through the Revenue Commissioners, based on figures set out by the Minister for Finance in the Budget. The Revenue Commissioners don't give out tax credits. They just decide what level of tax credits you are entitled to based on your individual circumstances, or, if you're married, your joint circumstances.

The Minister for Social Protection decides the qualifying criteria for welfare aid from the State for individuals and couples, and where the Revenue Commissioners have one way of assessing your tax liability, the DSP has another way of assessing you for social welfare income.

You haven't said anything applicable here. Your point was that the entity that decided not to give OP's partner welfare and the entity that decided not to give OP her credits are separate, and for that reason there's no double standard. However, the Government has ultimate responsibility for both of those decisions.

I'm 36, self employed, married and my wife is a housewife. I just haven't watched the the Simpsons in 20 years since it stopped being funny.

Me neither. I'm surprised you didn't recognise it then, it was an early enough episode.

Czarcasm · 28-07-2013 11:01PM

Zab wrote: »

You haven't said anything applicable here. Your point was that the entity that decided not to give OP's partner welfare and the entity that decided not to give OP her credits are separate, and for that reason there's no double standard. However, the Government has ultimate responsibility for both of those decisions.

But the Revenue Commissioners are acting as agents of the State, not agents of the Government. The DSP are acting as agents of the Government. They are two separate and distinct entities that cannot be held to the same standard because they have completely different procedures to achieve two totally different aims.

Me neither. I'm surprised you didn't recognise it then, it was an early enough episode.

I'm lucky if I can remember 20 minutes ago, let alone 20 years ago! Help me out here

3DataModem · 28-07-2013 11:08PM

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

My opinion is that the system is fair. What exactly are you hoping to hear other than "get married"?

TheGunns · 28-07-2013 11:10PM

It's not really unfair, you have the option to get married. If they allowed it then people who aren't together at all would try to take advantage.

Zab · 28-07-2013 11:10PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

But the Revenue Commissioners are acting as agents of the State, not agents of the Government. The DSP are acting as agents of the Government. They are two separate and distinct entities that cannot be held to the same standard because they have completely different procedures to achieve two totally different aims.

Both follow the rules set down by the Government. The Government decided that people co-habiting should get means tested together for social welfare and the Government decided that people co-habiting shouldn't get taxed together. As such it's exactly the same entity that's ultimately making both decisions.

I'm lucky if I can remember 20 minutes ago, let alone 20 years ago! Help me out here

It was the same episode where Homer is walking out of The Empire Strikes Back past the queue of people waiting for the next showing and he loudly says he can't believe that Vader is Luke's dad. It doesn't matter anyway.

Boombastic · 28-07-2013 11:14PM

UCDVet wrote: »

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.

No it wouldn't have affected it, unless the department determined that you were cohabiting /in a relationship

Czarcasm · 28-07-2013 11:25PM

Zab wrote: »

Both follow the rules set down by the Government. The Government decided that people co-habiting should get means tested together for social welfare and the Government decided that people co-habiting shouldn't get taxed together. As such it's exactly the same entity that's ultimately making both decisions.

But both decisions apply to different cases!

In one case, you are asking the State for money through a social welfare payment, in the other case, you are liable to the State for tax, money you owe to the State.

Sulla Felix · 28-07-2013 11:27PM

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?

This, I really think Irish people need to get over marriage being a big deal. I've numerous American friends in their twenties who are married. Purely for tax reasons. Some of them might end up still married and settled down with that person, plenty of them won't as divorces are easy enough as long as it's mutual and the prenup is cast iron.

Zab · 28-07-2013 11:28PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

But both decisions apply to different cases!

In one case, you are asking the State for money through a social welfare payment, in the other case, you are liable to the State for tax, money you owe to the State.

Yep, and they're applying a double standard by considering her to be supported by him for welfare purposes but not for tax purposes.

Czarcasm · 28-07-2013 11:41PM

Zab wrote: »

Yep, and they're applying a double standard by considering her to be supported by him for welfare purposes but not for tax purposes.

But they are two different entities that are held to two different standards, the standards are not double, they are different, incomparable. DSP are a Government entity, Revenue are a State entity.

I know it may look like I'm fcuking about with word play, but there is a difference between Government and State.

Zab · 28-07-2013 11:50PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

But they are two different entities that are held to two different standards, the standards are not double, they are different, incomparable. DSP are a Government entity, Revenue are a State entity.

I know it may look like I'm fcuking about with word play, but there is a difference between Government and State.

I thought we'd cleared up this State vs Government debate. Both these decisions are made by the Government. You haven't argued against this or given a reason why it matters who enacts the decision.

You seem to be concentrating on there being two different standards rather than a double standard, but I think you need to rethink this. For this kind of double standard to exist there has to be two different standards, otherwise it would be impossible for there to be a double standard as the assessment would be the same in both cases.

Czarcasm · 29-07-2013 12:23AM

Zab wrote: »

I thought we'd cleared up this State vs Government debate. Both these decisions are made by the Government. You haven't argued against this or given a reason why it matters who enacts the decision.

You seem to be concentrating on there being two different standards rather than a double standard, but I think you need to rethink this. For this kind of double standard to exist there has to be two different standards, otherwise it would be impossible for there to be a double standard as the assessment would be the same in both cases.

But they are two totally different scenarios! A double standard would at least require some similarity between scenarios before you could say one were treated differently than the other, but being assessed for your obligation to pay tax is not the same as being assessed for your entitlement to social welfare.

Zab · 29-07-2013 12:38AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

But they are two totally different scenarios! A double standard would at least require some similarity between scenarios before you could say one were treated differently than the other, but being assessed for your obligation to pay tax is not the same as being assessed for your entitlement to social welfare.

My opinion is that with the welfare payment the government has decided that OP's parter is being supported by OP and therefore shouldn't be getting welfare as she doesn't need it. However, when it comes to paying tax they're suddenly saying that they need to be "married" if they want to avail of the positive aspects of the fact that he's supporting her. I'm saying this is a double standard as both are attempting to provide relief based on who is supporting who and the negative one applies but the positive doesn't. I'm also saying that they could easily have just let the same standard cover both, and it seems perfectly valid and fair to allow somebody take your tax credits if they're the sole reason that you're being denied welfare.

Czarcasm · 29-07-2013 12:52AM

Zab wrote: »

My opinion is that with the welfare payment the government has decided that OP's parter is being supported by OP and therefore shouldn't be getting welfare as she doesn't need it. However, when it comes to paying tax they're suddenly saying that they need to be "married" if they want to avail of the positive aspects of the fact that he's supporting her. I'm saying this is a double standard as both are attempting to provide relief based on who is supporting who and the negative one applies but the positive doesn't. I'm also saying that they could easily have just let the same standard cover both, and it seems perfectly valid and fair to allow somebody take your tax credits if they're the sole reason that you're being denied welfare.

Social welfare means testing assesses the total income available in the household, whereas revenue takes no account of the total income in the household, but the income of the individual, or if they are married they can be jointly assessed.

Now if you were to say that the tax system is discriminatory in favor of married couples you'd have a point. It is, because the government has a duty under the constitution to promote the institution of marriage.

Social welfare though, is entirely a different concept.

Zab · 29-07-2013 01:12AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Social welfare means testing assesses the total income available in the household, whereas revenue takes no account of the total income in the household, but the income of the individual, or if they are married they can be jointly assessed.

Now if you were to say that the tax system is discriminatory in favor of married couples you'd have a point. It is, because the government has a duty under the constitution to promote the institution of marriage.

Social welfare though, is entirely a different concept.

Well, I don't even know if you believe what you're writing anymore or if you're just writing it to support the position you originally took and now feel the need to support to the bitter end. All you've done there is to catalogue the processes under which the double standard exists, which is pointless because we obviously agree that they exist. Even if the government *had* to give an extra tax break to married couples, it wouldn't mean they had to take away welfare from the cohabiting couple. Unfortunately you seem to be in a minority that can't see the double standard.

Czarcasm · 29-07-2013 01:32AM

Zab wrote: »

Unfortunately you seem to be in a minority that can't see the double standard.

Unfortunately you seem to be in the majority that doesn't see that you cannot apply the principle of double standards to two completely different scenarios -

A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations, or by two different people in the same situation. A double standard may take the form of an instance in which certain concepts (often, for example, a word, phrase, social norm, or rule) are perceived as acceptable to be applied by one group of people, but are considered unacceptable—taboo—when applied by another group.

Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard

Zab · 29-07-2013 01:38AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations

Situation: deciding who should get what based on their status as a couple.
Principles: one says you can be just cohabiting to be considered a couple, the other says you must be married.
Conclusion: double standard.

Czarcasm · 29-07-2013 01:47AM

Zab wrote: »

Situation: deciding who should get what based on their status as a couple.
Principles: one says you can be just cohabiting to be considered a couple, the other says you must be married.
Conclusion: double standard.

Situation: Unmarried couple want to be treated the same as a married couple.

Principles: In order to be treated the same as a married couple, they will have to get married. The unmarried couple doesn't want this but still wants to be treated the same as a married couple.

Conclusion: The unmarried couple only want to abide by what rules suit them and disregard those that don't.

Double standard.

Zab · 29-07-2013 01:58AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Situation: Unmarried couple want to be treated the same as a married couple.

No, they just don't want to be treated as both a couple and not a couple at the same time. It seems almost impossible to me that you still don't get this, which is why I accused you of trolling to begin with.

RDM_83 again · 29-07-2013 03:53AM

A bit of background to why this shiitty situation exists

Back in 80's there was restrictions on married woman claiming social welfare, this had to be changed, so then married couples then were treated as having as a unit with a dependent but cohabiting couples weren't, this meant that a married couple were able to take a case where they showed there was unconstitutionality against marriage/the family as it was more beneficial for them to be unmarried, so the goverment response was to change the acts relating to social welfare and consider cohabiting couples as a unit, unfortunately these acts were all social welfare ones and not revenue related so the tax credits didn't change for cohabiting couples.

clairefontaine · 29-07-2013 05:09AM

It's discrimination based on marital status on the part of revenue. I'm sure some anti discrimination league can write to some office in Brussels.

Carlos Orange · 29-07-2013 11:01AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's discrimination based on marital status on the part of revenue. I'm sure some anti discrimination league can write to some office in Brussels.

Is it age discrimination that I can not get a pension?

anncoates · 29-07-2013 11:05AM

Boombastic wrote: »

Surely your best pyjamas would be more appropriate for this occasion?

Hootanany wrote: »

Tell her to wear a nice track suit sorted.

Do you think the people that are most repsonsible for burdening Irish taxpayers with obsence debts wear tracksuits?

suicide_circus · 29-07-2013 11:10AM

shoulda put a ring on it, OP.

hoodwinked · 29-07-2013 11:28AM

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

i was in the exact same position as you with my now husband then boyfriend, when i was means tested after my stamps ran out i was entitled to nothing based on his salary, but i still had to sign on every month. he went to take my tax credits and we found the same double standard as you,

truebluesac wrote: »

and also i cannot claim tax credits for my daughter as we are not married and are not separated

yes you can, i went into the revenue offices and spoke with a girl in there, she was saying my then boyfriend couldn't claim tax credits for our daughter because he wasn't a single parent, so i asked how did they define a single parent, she responded he was living with me so we were a cohabiting couple, so i argued in that case give him my tax credits, she responded we had to be treated as single for tax purposes

, so i argued if we were single for tax purposes he had to be single for the child credit, and he got it! :pac:

truebluesac wrote: »

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

my opinion is get married? civilly you can do it for almost nothing and we are up quite a bit a month since he was able to get my credits, especially as an unmarried father its best you look into your rights in the event of the death of the mother. you'd be surprised how unprotected you are in Ireland as an unmarried couple.

Boombastic · 29-07-2013 11:42AM

anncoates wrote: »

Do you think the people that are most repsonsible for burdening Irish taxpayers with obsence debts wear tracksuits?

No but they all wear pyjamas:) please agree with me on this to avoid mental images of cowen et al asleep in the nip

anncoates · 29-07-2013 11:54AM

Boombastic wrote: »

No but they all wear pyjamas:) please agree with me on this to avoid mental images of cowen et al asleep in the nip

I have this horrible image of Gilmore in a shell suit now.

Unfair tax and social for unmarried couples

Comments