Why do both parents have to work nowadays?

armabelle · 18-03-2016 6:12pm

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The new tech thing is a red herring. As you say every generation has new tech. And it's all cheap comparatively. A TV or a phone in 2015 might be new but they are not necessarily more expensive relative to salaries than a 70's TV or a rented phone line. In fact landline calls were incredibly expensive.

This is very true... everything has become so cheap nowdays.

armabelle · 18-03-2016 6:13pm

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

The cost of housing is a big one, not just in Ireland but throughout the world. There has been an increase in the proportion of wages that are needed to buy and maintain a house. There are increases in other items due to inflation and competition but the main increase is the biggest cost for most people which is housing.

But why has this happened though? Have people brought it upon themselves or have we been duped?

Victor · 18-03-2016 7:59pm

stefanovich wrote: »

Woman wanted the right to work. So they got that right, market was flooded and wages dropped. Moral of the story is be careful what you ask for.

That's just fabricated.

In 1993, when I was working in McDonald's I was on a basic or £2.95 (€3.74) per hour. Irish Rail level crossing gate keepers were on something like £1.75 per hour (admittedly the job typically came with a cottage). Extrapolate that back to the 1970s.

McDonald's workers are now on about €12/hour.

esforum · 18-03-2016 8:08pm

Victor wrote: »

That's just fabricated.

In 1993, when I was working in McDonald's I was on a basic or £2.95 (€3.74) per hour. Irish Rail level crossing gate keepers were on something like £1.75 per hour (admittedly the job typically came with a cottage). Extrapolate that back to the 1970s.

McDonald's workers are now on about €12/hour.

what? In 1997 I was on 2.50 an hour in Burgerking, ya rich fecker!

18-03-2016 8:11pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i think michael hudson explains it very well with the use of things such as orwellian double speak amongst other things, in order to confuse. you will have more questions the more you look into this stuff but you do discover some answers along the way to. you will start to realise its all a big scam though and it seems like to me, nobody really knows what to do about it but there are some good ideas out there

Modern life is a pyramid scheme and most people are at the bottom levels.

18-03-2016 8:29pm

pwurple wrote: »

..............

Children now require being supported until they are finished 3rd level education, plus a wedding and a house deposit after that.

........

I'm mid 30s and don't know anyone who got handed their house deposit or had their wedding paid for by the parents. I know lots of folk who got land to build on.

I doubt many parents with kids in their late teens are planning what you describe.

jester77 wrote: »

............ I'm not old and remember my parents having no central heating, no telephone, single glazing windows that leaked and let in the wind............
.

For a country that rarely gets really cold I think the modern fascination with house insulation & triple glazing etc is really strange.

the_syco · 18-03-2016 8:29pm

Another reason is that the gap of a few years is not good for one's career.

dubrov · 18-03-2016 8:31pm

LiamoSail wrote:

There's 7 that would struggle to empty water from a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel. Ban the double barrels!

armabelle wrote:

But why has this happened though? Have people brought it upon themselves or have we been duped?

If i recall right, didn't Charlie McCreevy change the tax rules to encourage couples to both work.

The sole earner used to get the full tax credits for both people. In that setup the incremental salary of the second earner was effectively taxed at the top rate meaning the incentive to work was much reduced.

It pretty much coincided with the change en masse to predominantly dual income households.

pwurple · 18-03-2016 8:51pm

Eugene Norman wrote: »

None of these are the reason why two incomes are needed since they are not universal. Your 30k car is probably a myth, but people have bought cars worth the average industrial wage for generations.

Children being supported until 21 is probably true but is only a few extra years. Financial care for the elderly is generally from the older persons own estate or by the state itself.

The mobile phone probably saved money compared to 1970. Foreign holidays are hardly a luxury these days. If two incomes are needed for a Ryanair ticket to Ibiza we are screwed.

The real reason is housing costs.

It was "cars", plural. 15k each. I don't think that's a myth by any stretch for a working family. I'm not talking about the idle rich or the idle poor. I'm talking about the working middle.

21 is a whole decade longer than one generation ago. If that's only a few years to you...

Mobile phones costing 1000 euro each are like crack. A highly functional smartphone can be bought for 1/4 of that, but people are Just Not interested.

A previous poster completely pooh poohed a 90% saving on his sky bill by switching to netflix (8.99) and freeview. To earn what they spend on advertising laden television above the other option is over 2k of their gross wages.

Who in those families goes through their tax credits and claims the correct ones?

Housing is on the same curve it always has been on. Nothing unexpected about booms and crashes time after time after time. You say it's the "real problem", and apparantly the masses agree with you. I think it's a little bit more complicated than that, and we have a lot of control over our own money.

But who am I to say? We are a dual income family and reasonably happy with the way our lives are going, especially compared to a lot of the very poor places I have seen in my life. Happiness is like a crime in Ireland. Breaking with the national hobby of misery.

pwurple · 18-03-2016 9:00pm

Augeo wrote: »

I'm mid 30s and don't know anyone who got handed their house deposit or had their wedding paid for by the parents. I know lots of folk who got land to build on.

I doubt many parents with kids in their late teens are planning what you describe.

I'm also in my mid 30's and didn't get that, but my younger siblings asked (and were told f off). Apparantly their friends getmoney for weddings and deposits these days.

stefanovich · 18-03-2016 9:06pm

Victor wrote: »

McDonald's workers are now on about €12/hour.

Inflation. You didn't factor that into the equation did you.

stefanovich · 18-03-2016 9:07pm

pwurple wrote: »

I'm also in my mid 30's and didn't get that, but my younger siblings asked (and were told f off). Apparantly their friends getmoney for weddings and deposits these days.

I got **** all and right too.

ezra_pound · 18-03-2016 9:14pm

esforum wrote: »

maybe, maybe not. Its not really part of the issue, just rebutting your arguement about generations.

Who is arguing? Its a duscussion board. We are thrashing out theories. You need not be right or wrong ya know. I also dont recall saying the cost of housing was not the primary cost to households.

They have almost doubled in size overall. Also as I have said three times now, most people want 4 beds now so that Joe, John and Sammy can have their own rooms, 100 years ago that would have been a 2 bed home with the kids all sharing, 30 / 40 years ago that would have been a 3 bed with a box room for Joe the teenager and the smaller two shared.

50 years ago almost no housholds possessed two cars or went on foreign holidays. Some would have had TV's but not paid for TV or internet. A home phone compared to 2 / 3 / 4 smart phones with their own internet packages.

My point was that we spend more collectively on all of these trappings. its not one item, its the combined amount

secondly, as I said and you didnt answer, how much of a second income makes the bank? If I earn 50 grand, wife earns 20 grand, I am taking the tax credits so she is now paying 50% plus on every single penny. Now add in the costs of having a job as I said, transport, lunches, etc and finally factor in the not so cheap child minding. Sometimes that second income may only be adding 10% to the pot and I remember seeing an article thgat some people were only breaking even but would start making a profit once kids went to school or they got a promotion, etc.

I say all this based on a married father of 3 thats wife did work, doesnt work now and once lived alone in a house prior to marrying and having kids. I have seen my own wages / income and outgoing fluctuate throughout these changes.

You can't take all your wife's credits. If she earns 20k she won't be paying anything near 50% tax. She has to keep 1600 credits and she'd only be paying PAYE at 20% so she'd be paying nowhere near 50%.

ezra_pound · 18-03-2016 9:17pm

dubrov wrote: »

If i recall right, didn't Charlie McCreevy change the tax rules to encourage couples to both work.

The sole earner used to get the full tax credits for both people. In that setup the incremental salary of the second earner was effectively taxed at the top rate meaning the incentive to work was much reduced.

It pretty much coincided with the change en masse to predominantly dual income households.

Yes. I it's called tax individualisation and I posted an article about it earlier on from 2007.

Here it is again:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/tax-bias-for-double-income-couples-attacked-1.804520

Quote:
In a foreword to the report, Labour finance spokeswoman Joan Burton said: "The policy of individualisation has led to dramatic transfers from families with children to two-income households, many without dependents."
Ms Burton said: "The consequence of individualisation is to introduce a significant and growing bias against families with children where one spouse chooses to stay at home and care for children."

stefanovich · 18-03-2016 9:20pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

Yes. I it's called tax individualisation and I posted an article about it earlier on from 2007.

Here it is again:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/tax-bias-for-double-income-couples-attacked-1.804520

Quote:
In a foreword to the report, Labour finance spokeswoman Joan Burton said: "The policy of individualisation has led to dramatic transfers from families with children to two-income households, many without dependents."
Ms Burton said: "The consequence of individualisation is to introduce a significant and growing bias against families with children where one spouse chooses to stay at home and care for children."

Why did he do that? What a plonker.

armabelle · 18-03-2016 9:20pm

Eugene Norman wrote: »

It's not bigger houses either. Houses have hardly increased in size. It's not second holidays or buying phones. Nobody takes a second job got that.

Actually arent houses the same houses that were here in the 70's.. I mean they don't demolish and rebuild them every 20 or 30 years and if you are talking about new development I have to agree with you that new housing is generally smaller..not to mention poorer quality with drywall.. my god... DRYWALL. I can't believe our generation has accepted this as adequate walling in a home.

So we have more expensive new housing that is generally smaller and built with drywall that both parents can only afford. OK I think there is something wrong here.

armabelle · 18-03-2016 9:33pm

pwurple wrote: »

Happiness is like a crime in Ireland. Breaking with the national hobby of misery.

Hahah, this is funny for me because I am a foreigner but I also see this a bit here in Dublin. I really like Irish but I do see this part of what you are saying. Like if you are very happy or great people with too much energy they have this "What the F#$% is he so happy about" face

Could be the weather or no wait.. maybe it has to do with high housing costs?

stefanovich · 18-03-2016 9:34pm

armabelle wrote: »

Hahah, this is funny for me because I am a foreigner but I also see this a bit here in Dublin. I really like Irish but I do see this part of what you are saying. Like if you are very happy or great people with too much energy they have this "What the F#$% is he so happy about" face

Could be the weather or no wait.. maybe it has to do with high housing costs?

It's called healthy cynicism. When I'm in the states with all the fake diabetic happy people I want to punch them in the face.

armabelle · 18-03-2016 9:39pm

stefanovich wrote: »

It's called healthy cynicism. When I'm in the states with all the fake diabetic happy people I want to punch them in the face.

I know how you can get that feeling. But...maybe people don't like it because everybody wants to be happy and when other people are happier it makes you question your own happiness or lack thereof. I hope that is not the reason because that is mean. Capitalism has done a lot to distance people from one another... there is a lot of hate in society and if we are being screwed by the economic system it may well be because of how distant we are form one another and competing against each other instead of being happy for one another and sticking together. Where is the love?

esforum · 18-03-2016 9:43pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

You can't take all your wife's credits. If she earns 20k she won't be paying anything near 50% tax. She has to keep 1600 credits and she'd only be paying PAYE at 20% so she'd be paying nowhere near 50%.

2007 was 9 years ago, things change.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it1.html#section1

Married person tax credit is now the exact same as 2 person single credits, its that way on purpose. So single and double income families are equal.

ezra_pound · 18-03-2016 9:53pm

esforum wrote: »

2007 was 9 years ago, things change.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it1.html#section1

Married person tax credit is now the exact same as 2 person single credits, its that way on purpose. So single and double income families are equal.

No it's not.

ezra_pound · 18-03-2016 9:54pm

esforum wrote: »

2007 was 9 years ago, things change.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it1.html#section1

Married person tax credit is now the exact same as 2 person single credits, its that way on purpose. So single and double income families are equal.

You're confused I'm afraid.

You can take all your spouse's tax credits. We still have tax individualisation.

pwurple · 18-03-2016 9:56pm

stefanovich wrote: »

It's called healthy cynicism. When I'm in the states with all the fake diabetic happy people I want to punch them in the face.

No it's not, i am the biggest cynic going. Didn't believe in elephants until I saw one face to face at the age of 26.

Cynicism doesn't prevent anyone making the best of what we have, rolling up the sleeves and getting on with it. Now that the yank comparison is over, I'll probably be accused of being a proddie now!

ezra_pound · 18-03-2016 10:04pm

esforum wrote: »

2007 was 9 years ago, things change.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it1.html#section1

Married person tax credit is now the exact same as 2 person single credits, its that way on purpose. So single and double income families are equal.

You can't take your spouse's 1600 PAYE credit. Also there is an extra 23000 standard rate band for a two income family over a one income family.

Very little has changed in nine years.

ezra_pound · 18-03-2016 10:41pm

Here's an article from 2014 attesting that tax individualisation was still extant then:

http://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/stayathome-parents-suffer-in-tax-system-30653360.html

And 2013:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/yourview/tax-individualisation-was-a-costly-mistake-241413.html

esforum · 18-03-2016 11:07pm

You are correct, I stand corrected. Well thats gone and spoilt my night

ezra_pound · 18-03-2016 11:17pm

Married single earner 75k take home €51,968.00

Married two earners 50k + 25k take home€59,409.00

The other beauty of our tax system is that the single earner could have 6 kids and the dual income family none.

esforum · 18-03-2016 11:19pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

Yes. But it would make more of a difference in this case:

Married single earner 75k take home €51,968.00

Married two earners 50k + 25k take home€59,409.00

I ran the numbers working on 100 and 50, came back at 8 grand less take home for the one income house. Thats very annoying but then as my wife was unemployed before we got married its still better for me being married than one income, classified as single.

Of course if we were single she could claim the dole I suppose.

bb12 · 18-03-2016 11:28pm

it's simply transference of wealth from the poorer and working classes to the wealthy. our standards of living have been steadily decreasing; people now have to work longer and harder than ever before and our children and grandchildren will have it even worse. this documentary gives a great overview of where it all has gone wrong for the ordinary person in the street.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3mfkD6Ky5o

ezra_pound · 18-03-2016 11:35pm

esforum wrote: »

I ran the numbers working on 100 and 50, came back at 8 grand less take home for the one income house. Thats very annoying but then as my wife was unemployed before we got married its still better for me being married than one income, classified as single.

Of course if we were single she could claim the dole I suppose.

The maximum difference should be about 6430 I think. Either way the government don't like the idea of stay at home parents. It would be interesting to see a model of the property bubble adjusted for non tax individualisation. I'd doubt it would have been boomy enough for bbbb Bertie.

Why do both parents have to work nowadays?

Comments