Individualisation is here

M

Madonna

Guest
I'm absolutely hopping mad, I feel like burning my bra'.:mad

I'm goin' to keep editing this post so as to keep it top of the pile. In the end AAM contributors will be treated to the full strip show, unless the Taliban Moderators intervene.:(


Remember all the furore about individualisation?

Well, Charlie wasn't goin' to let that stop him.

Indvidualisation is here <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START-->big time.<!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END-->:mad

Two dinkies get €56,000 at standard rate.
A responsible family oriented single income couple get €37,000 at standard and oh, I almost forgot, €770 for the hubby minding the kids.

Where is Angel Expert Connell now? I though he was against this assault on family values.

Has anybody noticed that Charlie, nearly losing his job over this one, has got his way in the end?

The fact that much of the cabinet have no respect for family values might have something to do with it.

Notice the little bit in Charlies' speech about how he does not favour the wealthy. Well, to my old fashioned mind, the only people who should be earning double incomes are those that can't afford to live on a single income. But individualistaion does nothing for these as they are below the top rate of tax anyway.

Remember the argument for Individualisation. The Tiger needed menfolk to get back into the workforce. The Tiger is DEAD. Charlie seems to be in denial.


How many of the Cabinet benefit from Individualisation?

What about Mary and her newly acquired Home Carer?

When Fianna Fail call to your door next year don't slam it in their face before you ask them one or more of the following questions.

Why are you destroying the family through individualisation?

Why did you bury Kevin Barry a second time?

Why do you provide succour for Charlie (the really bad one), Rambo and Leemo?

I'm voting Sinn Fein. :mad
 
Hi Madonna,

I support individualisation and I am glad that McCreevey pursued his plan because I think a lot of people agree with him, but are afraid to speak out because it somehow makes them "anti-family".

"Two dinkies get €56,000 at standard rate. A responsible family oriented single income couple get €37,000 at standard and oh, I almost forgot, €770 for the hubby minding the kids."

What I think is sometimes forgotten is that a lot of equally responsible, equally family orientated DOUBLE income families benefit, too. But they are so busily occupied with working and bringing up their kids that they don't have time to ring Marian Finucane et al to justify their lifestyle choices.

Regards,
tedd
 
How much does individualisation cost?

Married one income and Married two incomes get the same Married person's tax credit of €3040

So a married person with one income will pay additional tax of € 3410

€ 4180 [22% of ( 56,000 - 37,000)]

less

€ 770 ( home carer's credit)

Is this correct?
 
Fuming

Yes <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Boss<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, I have now thrown my jeans into the fire.:mad
 
<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Tedd<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->,

Nearly missed your obnoxious contribution. There goes my stockings.:(

This "individualisation" thing was presented as a necessary expedient to feed the ravaging Celtic Tiger. The Tiger has totally lost its appetite. Unemployment is rising. What we need now like a hole in the head is to encourage househusbands to grab more of a ever diminishing demand for labour. The circumstances are changed - utterly changed.

Hubby had a good job in Garbage Disposal, I insisted that he give it up and look after the little blighters. Now we find ourselves cruelly discriminated against, hubby can't get a job. Garbage Disposal has moved on, techniques have changed, he is utterly unemployable.

We have been cheated.

Individualisation is selfish, greedy, evil and not even economically justified in a scenario of decaying Tiger flesh. But Charlie had to get his way - that humiliitaion of 1999 was never forgotten. Thankfully, hopefully, this is Charlie's last budget:mad
 
.

Madonna,

With your jeans, bra and stockings all in the fire I think it appropriate that Charlie introduce a new environmental tax to prevent further pollution of the air.
This tax should be levied only on single income couples.
 
Re: .

I’m with Madonna on this. Whether a couple choose for both of them to work outside the home or for just one of them to work outside the home is a choice which they should make, based on their own needs, resources and wishes. It is no business of Charlie McCreevy’s which choice they make, and he has no right to reward one choice and penalise the other through the tax system.

Individualisation is in practice an anti-woman measure. Previously, those who have the choice of working in the home or going out to work could put their tax allowances to use regardless of which choice they made. Now they only get their full tax allowances if they choose to go out to work. Clearly their freedom of choice has been constrained. Most of those who suffer in this way will be women. Why is Charlie McCreevy attacking the women of Ireland in this way? Why are the women of Ireland standing for it?

And what about those who <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> cannot<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> go out to work? The chronically ill? The disabled? Their “individualised” tax allowances can no longer be used for the benefit of the family. A one-income family now pays substantially more tax than a two-income family <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> with precisely the same family income<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. How can this possibly be a good idea? How can it even be a moral idea?

The “need to increase the pool of labour” justification was always thin and, as Madonna has pointed out, is evaporating fast. I think myself that the real reason for this stupid and ill-thought-out measure was Charlie McCreevy’s pique at being taxed for many years as a single man, unable to make use of the non-transferrable tax allowances of his non-marital partner. He feels discriminated against, and he doesn’t see why married couples should have advantages denied to him and his partner. So he’s trying to eliminate them.
 
Re: .

On the other hand, before individualisation there was an inherent unfairness in the tax system in that it never recognised that an individual who goes out to work every morning (as opposed to staying at home to mind kids or whatever) faces costs such as transport, eating out, good clothes etc which are not deductible against tax. These costs are avoidable if a person decided not to work, for whatever reason.

If you choose to work outside the home, it stands to reason that the tax system compensates you, directly or indirectly, for these costs. I believe individualisation has done that.
 
Re: Individualisation

Sorry you find my opinion obnoxious, Madonna.

Double income couples have suffered for many years, usually the female half who is more likely to work in a lesser paid job. In practice, she has been punitively taxed on almost all of her earnings. By the time the couple pays for childcare and the expenses associated with two individuals working and then the tax hit, there was often not much left. I think this is unfair and I perceive THIS to be anti-woman.

If one member of a couple chooses to stay home and raise the children for whatever number of years, that is a lifestyle choice. I respect people who make that choice. It has a lot of value and benefits both for the children and the parents. But I don't think that justifies people who work outside the home being denied the right to be taxed fairly on what they earn. After all work outside the home is a purely ECONOMIC transaction for which they deserve to derive full economic benefit. People who choose to stay at home to raise their families are not making a purely economic choice, but one influenced by a number of other factors as well.

regards,
tedd
 
Re: .

Hi Tommy

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> "If you choose to work outside the home, it stands to reason that the tax system compensates you, directly or indirectly, for these costs. I believe individualisation has done that."<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Not at all. Individualisation has done nothing for couples who were <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> already<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> both working, and of course it does nothing for single people who work. And it does nothing for low-income couples, or unmarried couples. And the amount of tax which you save through individualisation is in no way related to any work-connected expenses you may have. Nor does it pretend to be.

You are arguing, I think, for an earned income allowance, available to all who work outside the home, to compensate them for the additional expenses they incur by working - a bit like the PAYE allowance but (presumably) larger, and available to the self-employed as well.

You can argue against this. Your <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> wages<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> should cover you for the cost of working, and the state should not subsidise employment in this way (i.e. at the expense of those not in employment). But even if you think an earned income allowance is appropriate, individualisation of tax bands is nothing like an earned income allowance.
 
Re: .

Hi tedd

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> “Double income couples have suffered for many years, usually the female half who is more likely to work in a lesser paid job. In practice, she has been punitively taxed on almost all of her earnings.”<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Tedd, that was because she elected for joint assessment and allowed her husband to benefit from her tax allowances. That was her choice, and if it didn’t suit her she could arrange matters differently. She could also choose to stay at home, elect for joint assessment, and allow her husband benefit from her tax allowances – a rational choice to make since, as a non-earning spouse, she would be dependent on his earnings and therefore had an interest in maximising his earnings.

Now these choices are denied her. If she works, she must use the tax allowance herself and if (which you concede is “more likely”) she works in a lesser paid job and does not make full use of her tax allowance, well, we punish her for that by withdrawing her right to transfer it to her spouse. And if she stays at home, we punish her for <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> that<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> by withdrawing her right to transfer her tax allowance. We are withdrawing her rights and limiting her choices. We are not offering her anything new at all to compensate. How is this a pro-woman move?

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> “If one member of a couple chooses to stay home and raise the children for whatever number of years, that is a lifestyle choice. I respect people who make that choice. It has a lot of value and benefits both for the children and the parents. But I don't think that justifies people who work outside the home being denied the right to be taxed fairly on what they earn. After all work outside the home is a purely ECONOMIC transaction for which they deserve to derive full economic benefit. People who choose to stay at home to raise their families are not making a purely economic choice, but one influenced by a number of other factors as well.”<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

Tedd, Madonna and I agree with everything you say here. The point is that people should be taxed under the same rules regardless of what choice they make in this regard. That used to be the case. It no longer is. When individualisation was introduced McCreevy was quite frank in saying that his purpose was to encourage non-working spouses to return to the paid workforce. He does this by taxing households more heavily if one spouse stays at home than if both go out to work. In other words, by biassing the tax system he seeks to distort the choice which couples would make, if they were to make the choice entirely with regard to their own welfare. Far from increasing peoples freedom in decision making, he is seeking to reduce it and he is quite open about this.
 
Hi ho Hi ho...

Madonna said...
"Well, to my old fashioned mind, the only people who should be earning double incomes are those that can't afford to live on a single income. But individualistaion does nothing for these as they are below the top rate of tax anyway."

My family, and many others I know can't afford to live on a single income, even if that person is on the higher tax bracket. The sociological makeup of Ireland has changed in the past 5 years, the majority of couples/families who became first time house buyers during that time must have dual incomes. Like it or like it not, young women work outside the home. I don't like it, I feel robbed of choice, but this is the road we, as a society have chosen to go down so I'll have to lump it.
 
Debate

Brendan - surely this topic is one for the great debates forum given that many of the contributions seem to be based more on opinions than facts? :rolleyes
 
married v single men and women!

"I think myself that the real reason for this stupid and ill-thought-out measure was Charlie McCreevy’s pique at being taxed for many years as a single man, unable to make use of the non-transferrable tax allowances of his non-marital partner"

UDS, do you know for sure that his non-marital partner (your point is very smug, I shall presume therefore that you are indeed one of the smug marrieds - forgive me Brigid jones) was (a) not working and (b)that she was not earning more than him?

Smug marrieds, we've had our fill of ye!

Single but not desperate!
 
married v single men and women!

I had missed that contribution by UDS but am amazed by it. I presume your tongue was firmly in your cheek when you wrote that UDS?
 
Re: married v single men and women!

I didn't miss it, but chose to ignore it. Equally, Madonna's little jibe about Mary Harney's recent marriage was beneath a bra-burning feminist like her.

tedd
 
Re: married v single men and women!

Hi CM

This is a great debate by any standard. However, I think it is better to leave it here as it is so Budget related.

Brendan
 
Re: married v single men and women!

Hi UDS,

"The point is that people should be taxed under the same rules regardless of what choice they make in this regard. That used to be the case. It no longer is."

But my point is, I disagree with this. In my view, this policy discriminates against double-income couples and single people who pay tax.

tedd
 
Re: married v single men and women!

Hi guys

Soothing noises all round if my comments about Charlie McCreevy touched raw nerves. It was a bit cheeky, I suppose.

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> “UDS, do you know for sure that his non-marital partner . . . . was (a) not working and (b)that she was not earning more than him?”<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

A fair question. I don’t know whether she was working, and I don’t know whether she was earning more than him. But, on the latter point, it doesn’t matter what she might have earned relative to him. What matters is that they would have been disadvantaged relative to a married couple unless they were both earning enough to make full use of their respective tax allowances and tax bands.

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> “I shall presume therefore that you are indeed one of the smug marrieds”<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->

I’ve been on both sides of the fence here – or should I say all three sides? My partner and I lived together unmarried for a time. This was in pre-individualisation days, my partner wasn’t earning, and we were much more heavily taxed than a married couple would have been. Then we married, and elected for joint assessment. (We didn’t marry in order to be jointly assessed, I hasten to add.) We were still a one-income family. Now my partner <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> is<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> working, and earning enough to absorb the non-transferrable allowances. And we’re paying childcare costs, and getting no tax deduction. So the short answer to your implied question is that I am not myself adversely affected by individualisation, and my criticism of it is not based on self-interest but on the fact that I think it’s not good public policy, it’s policitally and socially regressive, it seeks to limit personal freedom and choice and it’s discriminatory against single-income couples.

There is a point to my perhaps not quite fair comments about McCreevy’s personal experiences. In general, I do see his tax policies as being heavily influenced by the perspectives and experiences of the middle-class self-employed professional group from which he comes. The very low CGT rates, for example, favour those who have disposable income to invest, and the financial sophistication and confidence to invest directly in real assets. And who are they likely to be? The ARF provisions introduced in pension schemes were quite openly tailor-made for business proprietors, and indeed are still largely available only to that group. Despite what he said at the time, McCreevy seems to have lost interest in making the changes to the ARF provisions which need to be made if they are to be extended to other workers. As for individualisation of tax bands, I don’t know whether McCreevy and his partner were actually worse off under the old system than a married couple, or whether she earned enough to absorb all her tax allowances, but as an accountant and a person in a non-marital relatiionship he would have been very aware of the issue. The “labour market” explanation for individualisation was always thin and is getting thinner, and I cannot but feel that the changes are partly motivated by the fact that McCreevy simply disliked, for whatever reason, the old system whereby married couples could freely transfer their tax allowances between themselves.

Hi tedd

“In my view, this policy discriminates against double-income couples and single people who pay tax.”

You’ve said this before, but you don’t say <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> why<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> you think it’s discriminatory. Under the system Madonna and I favour, a couple with a given aggregate income will pay the same tax regardless of whether they earn that income through one job or through two. I consider that to be a system which does not discriminate between single-income and double-income couples. You, obviously, think it does discriminate, but why? I’m genuinely puzzled.
 
Re: married v single men and women!

Hi UDS,
I think it discriminates because individuals who do not pay income tax (eg people who choose not to work outside the home) are benefitting at the expense of individuals who do. I believe choosing not to work is exactly that, a choice. In recent years, I would go so far as to say that I believe it is a luxury. I don't think I, as a taxpayer, should have to subsidise their choice.

regards,
tedd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top