supertramp
Registered User
- Messages
- 13
Why was it there in the first place?
I'm not asking in a snide way, I'm genuinely curious as I never knew of it's existence as I'm not in that situation.
There's a big difference between claiming something (children's allowance) that you might not absolutely need but are 100% entitled to, and fraudulently claiming for something that you are not entitled to...And yes I am sure some people who claimed it didnt deserve it and thats why its being withdrawn. (We could say the exact same thing about childrens allowance!)
There's a big difference between claiming something (children's allowance) that you might not absolutely need but are 100% entitled to, and fraudulently claiming for something that you are not entitled to...
Something like a 3 year phasing in period would have allowed everyone to get used to the drop in net income - and that would be fair to all concerned.
People who lose their jobs in the recession don't have 3 years to get used to the drop in net income.
People who lose their jobs in the recession don't have 3 years to get used to the drop in net income.
The rationale was that separated parents, who both maintain the kids, are financially in a worse position than a married/cohabiting couple, so they were both entitled to claim the one parent family tax credit. The change is that from now on, only the primary carer will be entitled to it.
Unfortunately it was quite widely abused, as many people continued to claim it even after they had shacked up with a new partner.
What about when the primary care giver (it seems to be assumed that its the mother) shacks up with someone else? Then the father gets nothing, even though he's single, and the mother keeps the tax credit even though she's not single.
You can't be cohabiting to avail of the tax credit.
The revenue page has not been updated to account for the Budget but the qualifying criteria are outlined on [broken link removed].
And do you think that most people volunteer that information?
That's why cohabitants are often reported to revenue/social welfare.
Currently the legislation is not sexist and most legislation is framed in gender neutral terms.
The couple/courts decide the finances so there will probably be a reallocation of the impact of the change - there's no legislation or rules to say that the non-primary care giver must take the full net impact of this.
You're pretty much agreeing with what I said - there's no requirement for the non-primary care giver to take the full net impact of this (net here meaning after reallocation of resources between the couple). Whether it's through mediation, the courts or by mutual agreement, the reality that the couple's combined resources are down by €200 per month will need to be reflected in revised maintenance agreements....Of course the non-primary carer will take the full impact and in most cases that will be the fathers. ...This legislation will drive many couples back to the courts or into mediation to renegotiate maintenance payments which are based on net income.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?