Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Single parents to lose €1650 One Parent Tax Credit.

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    womandriver wrote: »
    Would he be homeless if he didn't have a child? I doubt it so he'd still need somewhere to live regardless.

    No but he could go and rent a room in a house share or get a one bed flat.


  • Options
    #33
    womandriver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 543 ✭✭✭womandriver


    woodoo wrote: »
    No but he could go and rent a room in a house share or get a one bed flat.

    And this is his stiuation. That's life. Why do people think their life choices have to be funded by other tax payers? If I wanted to live on my own I'd have to pay for it and I wouldn't be entitled to any tax credits to help.


  • Options
    #34
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    womandriver wrote: »
    And this is his stiuation. That's life. Why do people think their life choices have to be funded by other tax payers? If I wanted to live on my own I'd have to pay for it and I wouldn't be entitled to any tax credits to help.

    Its not a desire to live alone. They are trying to provide a place for them and their children when they seperate.


  • Options
    #35
    womandriver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 543 ✭✭✭womandriver


    woodoo wrote: »
    Its not a desire to live alone. They are trying to provide a place for them and their children when they seperate.

    Which is their own responsibily, not anyone else's.


  • Options
    #36
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    womandriver wrote: »
    Would he be homeless if he didn't have a child? I doubt it so he'd still need somewhere to live regardless.

    Yes but he might get by in a studio as opposed to a 2/3 bedroomed house.

    The cost difference is significant.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    banbhaaifric
    Registered Users Posts: 245 ✭✭banbhaaifric


    woodoo wrote: »
    No but he could go and rent a room in a house share or get a one bed flat.

    The point is if the child or children stay with him for a portion of the week, then he can't rent a one bedroom flat or a bedroom in a house share. He needs somewhere for the children to stay.


  • Options
    #38
    womandriver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 543 ✭✭✭womandriver


    banbhaaifric wrote: »
    The point is if the child or children stay with him for a portion of the week, then he can't rent a one bedroom flat or a bedroom in a house share. He needs somewhere for the children to stay.

    That's a cost for him to bear same as I have a car, I must now pay car tax. Should I get a tax credit because people without cars don't have to pay car tax?


  • Options
    #39
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    womandriver wrote: »
    That's a cost for him to bear same as I have a car, I must now pay car tax. Should I get a tax credit because people without cars don't have to pay car tax?

    No, but it's a different scenario. In the case of those who seperate and divorce they lost the tax benefits of being married, yet incur greater costs, while rearing the next generation of taxpayers. It's like arguing that pre 2008 cars should not be on a seperate tax system as their emissions are not significantly different than post 2008

    I've no problem with single parent tax credits, which recognise the additional accomodation expenses etc that single parents incur, so not sure what your issue is?


  • Options
    #40
    womandriver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 543 ✭✭✭womandriver


    Stheno wrote: »
    No, but it's a different scenario. In the case of those who seperate and divorce they lost the tax benefits of being married, yet incur greater costs, while rearing the next generation of taxpayers. It's like arguing that pre 2008 cars should not be on a seperate tax system as their emissions are not significantly different than post 2008

    I've no problem with single parent tax credits, which recognise the additional accomodation expenses etc that single parents incur, so not sure what your issue is?

    Well I'm glad for you that you have no problem but how does that relate to you not knowing what my issue is? Is it for you to say if I should or should not have an issue with something which impacts on the tax I pay? And you do know there are no tax credits for being married don't you?? Or do you?


  • Options
    #41
    LegacyUser
    Registered Users Posts: 166,026 ✭✭✭✭LegacyUser


    I have to say I will find this cut hard. I have my daughter 2 nights a week and I pay her mum 300 a month. Her mum works and is my child's primary carer. The extra tax credits went a long way. With water charges on the way and a full yearly property charge it's going to be a hard year


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    returnNull
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭returnNull


    Katya wrote: »
    I agree with this, it was an unfair and widely abused tax credit. Anyone I know in receipt of maintenance only gets €40 from the father. A live in father definitely contributes more than this!

    Thats strange,3 of my friends pay in and around the 100€ mark.I myself use to pay 100€ per week in child maintaince in a minium wage job(and also went 50/50 on all the other stuff).Those tax credits made it easier.

    Im not working at the moment so am paying 35€ per week and still go 50/50 on stuff like uniforms,school books any other unforeseen events.


  • Options
    #43
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    womandriver wrote: »
    Well I'm glad for you that you have no problem but how does that relate to you not knowing what my issue is? Is it for you to say if I should or should not have an issue with something which impacts on the tax I pay? And you do know there are no tax credits for being married don't you?? Or do you?

    But there is a distinct advantage in being married if one person is on the 20% band and the other on the 41% band in that you can cojoin the bands to minimise the tax you pay.

    You do know that, don't you? And that it's worth over 300 euro a month to the most advantaged couples?

    You seem to have a problem with the fact that this credit existed which helped fathers/parents who were no longer a couple cope with the extra costs they incurred to give their children accomodation, etc, cost they would not have incurred as a couple.


  • Options
    #44
    womandriver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 543 ✭✭✭womandriver


    Stheno wrote: »
    But there is a distinct advantage in being married if one person is on the 20% band and the other on the 41% band in that you can cojoin the bands to minimise the tax you pay.

    You do know that, don't you? And that it's worth over 300 euro a month to the most advantaged couples?

    You seem to have a problem with the fact that this credit existed which helped fathers/parents who were no longer a couple cope with the extra costs they incurred to give their children accomodation, etc, cost they would not have incurred as a couple.

    You're talking nonsense. You need to read up on income tax rules.


  • Options
    #45
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    womandriver wrote: »
    You're talking nonsense. You need to read up on income tax rules.

    Eh no I'm not, if you are married to someone and one person earns less than hits the 41 percent limit, and the other does, then the person earning enough to hit 41 percent can take what remains of the persons who doesn't.

    So if one person earns 50k, and another earns 20k, and the limit is 32k where a single person hits 41% in the case of a married couple that increases up to 64k before they jointly hit the 41% limit, so compared to two single people, they are better off by up to 300e per month.

    Thats under joint assessment.


  • Options
    #46
    womandriver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 543 ✭✭✭womandriver


    Stheno wrote: »
    Eh no I'm not, if you are married to someone and one person earns less than hits the 41 percent limit, and the other does, then the person earning enough to hit 41 percent can take what remains of the persons who doesn't.

    So if one person earns 50k, and another earns 20k, and the limit is 32k where a single person hits 41% in the case of a married couple that increases up to 64k before they jointly hit the 41% limit, so compared to two single people, they are better off by up to 300e per month.

    Thats under joint assessment.

    It ONLY applies if married. It ONLY applies if the second income is low enough. Only a portion of the band is transferable. Are all non seperated parents married entitled to this? No they're not. So why are you speaking as if this is the situation for all non lone parents? It is absolutely not.


  • Options
    #47
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    womandriver wrote: »
    It ONLY applies if married. It ONLY applies if the second income is low enough. Only a portion of the band is transferable. Are all non seperated parents married entitled to this? No they're not. So why are you speaking as if this is the situation for all non lone parents? It is absolutely not.

    I'm not though and I've said that in my last two posts, so stop misinterpreting my posts.

    I've made it clear that from a tax perspective, if there is a disconnect in earning ability amongst a couple, it is financially advantageous to be married. And as a result of not being married my partner has suffered as a result of his seperating and incurring additional cost.


  • Options
    #48
    womandriver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 543 ✭✭✭womandriver


    Stheno wrote: »
    I'm not though and I've said that in my last two posts, so stop misinterpreting my posts.

    I've made it clear that from a tax perspective, if there is a disconnect in earning ability amongst a couple, it is financially advantageous to be married. And as a result of not being married my partner has suffered as a result of his seperating and incurring additional cost.

    And the full €32k is not transferable.


  • Options
    #49
    Gillo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,566 ✭✭✭Gillo


    Katya wrote: »
    I agree with this, it was an unfair and widely abused tax credit. Anyone I know in receipt of maintenance only gets €40 from the father. A live in father definitely contributes more than this!

    That's strange as most people I know pay well above that. I come out with about 2k a month and pay €450 a month. Add in clothes, presents etc and it's easily €500. That's for one daughter, for me the tax credit pretty much keeps me above water.


  • Options
    #50
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 526 ✭✭✭yoke


    womandriver: And this is his stiuation. That's life. Why do people think their life choices have to be funded by other tax payers?

    womandriver you have to realise you're a part of society, and you will constantly have to put up with the fact that other peoples life decisions will keep affecting you for as long as you're part of society.

    So, now that we've changed your question from "why should society fund some members's life choices" to "WHEN should society fund members life choices, and which ones should we fund?" - this makes more sense.

    Society should look after most things that lead to a future better society - "children" is a big part of that. Hence, in the past we had this tax break for single fathers in the hope that the extra money would be spent giving the children of the separated couple a better childhood. Now, it's gone.


  • Options
    #51
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    womandriver wrote: »
    And the full €32k is not transferable.

    It used be but has changed so my figures were wrong.

    It does actually apply to civil partnerships as well as married couples.

    See here for examples


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    womandriver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 543 ✭✭✭womandriver


    Stheno wrote: »
    I'm not though and I've said that in my last two posts, so stop misinterpreting my posts.

    I've made it clear that from a tax perspective, if there is a disconnect in earning ability amongst a couple, it is financially advantageous to be married. And as a result of not being married my partner has suffered as a result of his seperating and incurring additional cost.

    We all have our hardship stories, most of us just don't expect tax credits for them.


  • Options
    #53
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    womandriver wrote: »
    We all have our hardship stories, most of us just don't expect tax credits for them.

    No most of us seem to expect the state to help us.

    What of you? Are you like me, employed and paying lots of tax to support those who are unemployed/raising children alone etc?


  • Options
    #54
    womandriver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 543 ✭✭✭womandriver


    Stheno wrote: »
    It used be but has changed so my figures were wrong.

    It does actually apply to civil partnerships as well as married couples.

    See here for examples

    The full tax band is not, and hasn't been fully transferable for a very long time.


  • Options
    #55
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    womandriver wrote: »
    The full tax band is not, and hasn't been fully transferable for a very long time.

    I can tell you that according to Revenue and the amounts I owe them due to a marriage breakdown that they did apply up to 2011

    I'm currently refunding them on a monthly basis for an erroneousunderpayment due to inaccurate assessment based on marital status, and have the documents to prove it.


  • Options
    #56
    womandriver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 543 ✭✭✭womandriver


    yoke wrote: »
    womandriver you have to realise you're a part of society, and you will constantly have to put up with the fact that other peoples life decisions will keep affecting you for as long as you're part of society.

    So, now that we've changed your question from "why should society fund some members's life choices" to "WHEN should society fund members life choices, and which ones should we fund?" - this makes more sense.

    Society should look after most things that lead to a future better society - "children" is a big part of that. Hence, in the past we had this tax break for single fathers in the hope that the extra money would be spent giving the children of the separated couple a better childhood. Now, it's gone.

    And good riddance. When are parents going to realise it's their responsibility to raise their children.


  • Options
    #57
    womandriver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 543 ✭✭✭womandriver


    Stheno wrote: »
    I can tell you that according to Revenue and the amounts I owe them due to a marriage breakdown that they did apply up to 2011

    I'm currently refunding them on a monthly basis for an erroneousunderpayment due to inaccurate assessment based on marital status, and have the documents to prove it.

    The full €32k is not transferable and was not in 2011. Fine Geal abolished that last time they were in government.


  • Options
    #58
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    womandriver wrote: »
    The full €32k is not transferable and was not in 2011. Fine Geal abolished that last time they were in government.

    Whatever, I just know that I have an enormous tax bill to pay due to the very fluid rules in this country.

    At the end of the day it makes little difference to the many parents who are now going to have to pay extra to maintain the relationship with their children due to not having this credit.

    And again I ask you, How does this impact you? Do you pay so much tax you resent it? Personally, I think it's of more benefit than e.g. the death payment that was abolished today.


  • Options
    #59
    womandriver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 543 ✭✭✭womandriver


    Stheno wrote: »
    Whatever, I just know that I have an enormous tax bill to pay due to the very fluid rules in this country.

    At the end of the day it makes little difference to the many parents who are now going to have to pay extra to maintain the relationship with their children due to not having this credit.

    And again I ask you, How does this impact you? Do you pay so much tax you resent it? Personally, I think it's of more benefit than e.g. the death payment that was abolished today.

    I'm a tax payer who doesn't believe that there should be tax credits for reproducing. If people choose to have children then it is their responsibility to raise them and there is already generous assistance in the form of child benefit.


  • Options
    #60
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 526 ✭✭✭yoke


    womandriver wrote: »
    And good riddance. When are parented going to realise it's their responsibility to raise their children.

    It's not just the parents responsibility, it's also society's responsibility to make sure that all kids in the society are well raised and go on to benefit society.

    Otherwise, we would leave all orphan kids (for example) to fend for themselves, because they would be solely their parents responsibility, and noone elses.
    womandriver wrote:
    I'm a tax payer who doesn't believe that there should be tax credits for reproducing.
    What *do* you think we should get tax credits for, and why?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    womandriver wrote: »
    I'm a tax payer who doesn't believe that there should be tax credits for reproducing. If people choose to have children than it is their responsibility to raise them and there is already generous assistance in the form of child benefit.

    Been sterilised or are completely abstinent from sex and in a 100% secure job then so, are you?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement