Indo today

madeinamerica

I may have unintentionally pulled this OT with discussion on my quote! But I meant it to highlight why I think the gov should make it easier for both parents to work (if they want), or single parents, in terms of access to creches, paternity leave, creche prices or tax credits.

Pawwed Rig

Neyite wrote: »

I found out recently that you can notify Revenue of your SAH status and PRSI /Pension contributions can continue to accrue at a zero balance, meaning there is no deemed 'break' in employment that would normally affect benefits and pension entitlements.

Only a small thing, but something that maybe not a lot of SAH parents know about.

This is a good point but a slight correction is needed in that you need to inform the department of social protection rather than Revenue and you can only claim it until the child is 12 (or any of your kids are under 12). Pre 1994 this relief did not exist
http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Homemakers-Scheme.aspx

I see all the time in my work where people have thrown away State pensions due to lack of knowledge.

Neyite

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

This is a good point but a slight correction is needed in that you need to inform the department of social protection rather than Revenue and you can only claim it until the child is 12 (or any of your kids are under 12). Pre 1994 this relief did not exist
http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Homemakers-Scheme.aspx

I see all the time in my work where people have thrown away State pensions due to lack of knowledge.

Thanks for clarifying. I heard it second hand, from someone who was also quite vague about it, so its nice to find out more.

firefish

Pwurple, I know working single mothers are better off than those who don't work - obviously - my point is if we got rid of tax individualisation they would be earning less for the same day's work than a married person with sahp. That doesn't sound fair to me.
And I know a sahp is providing crèche, cleaner services to their partner - it's true it's a benefit to their particular family, but I don't see how that is a benefit to the rest of us?
Whereas someone working outside the home is contributing tax, which does benefit the rest of us.

pwurple

firefish wrote: »

Pwurple, I know working single mothers are better off than those who don't work - obviously - my point is if we got rid of tax individualisation they would be earning less for the same day's work than a married person with sahp. That doesn't sound fair to me.

It's because the sahp is also counted as a dependant on that one salary. The single parent is feeding one less person... a partner.

And I know a sahp is providing crèche, cleaner services to their partner - it's true it's a benefit to their particular family, but I don't see how that is a benefit to the rest of us?
Whereas someone working outside the home is contributing tax, which does benefit the rest of us.

There is tax being paid in both scenarios. I don't see any situation where the tax credit is so huge that someone doesn't pay any tax. .

If you take the holistic view of irish society, then you consider all families being raised as an investment in everyone's future. Whoever looks after them and educates them is doing us all that service. Helping young people to grow up safely to be the next generation of our plumbers, engineers, teachers, builders, etc. And on in to the future. That's a sizable benefit (and responsibility).

firefish

There is more tax paid by two people than one person.
And the single parent, as you point out, is supporting just themselves and their children, but also has to pay for the childminder, cleaner etc services that the sahp is providing for the other partner. So I still don't see why they should be out of pocket, or why the married person should get away with paying so much less tax. In Ireland there are already tax breaks for married people - in the uk, for example, there are none.

meeeeh

pwurple wrote: »

It's because the sahp is also counted as a dependant on that one salary. The single parent is feeding one less person... a partner.



There is tax being paid in both scenarios. I don't see any situation where the tax credit is so huge that someone doesn't pay any tax. .

If you take the holistic view of irish society, then you consider all families being raised as an investment in everyone's future. Whoever looks after them and educates them is doing us all that service. Helping young people to grow up safely to be the next generation of our plumbers, engineers, teachers, builders, etc. And on in to the future. That's a sizable benefit (and responsibility).

Actually before the recession over 50% of people were net recipients of the state. I can't find the data for now.

iguana

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually before the recession over 50% of people were net recipients of the state. I can't find the data for now.

And how many of those were pensioners? I suspect they made up the majority and are in fact the reason why it's essential that families, of all sorts, are supported. Without at least a replacement level of children being born, we can't afford to support the elderly.

firefish

Meeh, that's right I think, i understand that before the recession a single earner family with two children, on the average wage, in receipt of child benefit, took more from the state than they put it in tax. Pretty unsustainable. And getting rid of tax individualisation would make it worse! Sorry to keep harping on, it just drives me mad in these type of threads seeing people argue for the old system. Taxes on everyone else would have to rise a lot to pay for the roll back of tax individualisation, I just think it would be so unfair.

pwurple

firefish wrote: »

There is more tax paid by two people than one person.
And the single parent, as you point out, is supporting just themselves and their children, but also has to pay for the childminder, cleaner etc services that the sahp is providing for the other partner. So I still don't see why they should be out of pocket, or why the married person should get away with paying so much less tax.

And the single parent can qualify for FIS, single parent allowance, get maintenance from the other parent, medical card, get widowers allowance etc etc etc... I don't know where you are going with this? The tax system doesn't stand on its own.

In Ireland there are already tax breaks for married people - in the uk, for example, there are none.

You have it completely backwards. What are the tax breaks for married people here? Credit-pooling is not a tax-break. There is no child tax credit here.

However in the uk... there is child tax credit:
https://www.gov.uk/child-tax-credit/overview

firefish

Child tax credit isn't aimed at married people. Here if you're jointly assessed as a married couple you can allocate tax credits and standard rate band as suits best (doesn't affect two earners on higher band but does affect the level at which a single earner starts to pay the higher rate of tax).

firefish

Also lower earning married couple can also have FIS & medical card, as I understand it.

pwurple

firefish wrote: »

Child tax credit isn't aimed at married people. Here if you're jointly assessed as a married couple you can allocate tax credits and standard rate band as suits best (doesn't affect two earners on higher band but does affect the level at which a single earner starts to pay the higher rate of tax).

So, where exactly is the tax break there?

The average industrial wage is 35k, the tax band cutoff is 32k. And pooling credits isn't a tax break by any definition... I'd love to claim this tax break when you identify it for me.

firefish wrote: »

Also lower earning married couple can also have FIS & medical card, as I understand it.

Yes. You want to take that off them too?

Neyite

firefish wrote: »

Child tax credit isn't aimed at married people. Here if you're jointly assessed as a married couple you can allocate tax credits and standard rate band as suits best (doesn't affect two earners on higher band but does affect the level at which a single earner starts to pay the higher rate of tax).

Its not a marriage credit that people are discussing here, its a tax credit applicable to all parents. (having said that, neither exist at the moment) Single parents would benefit too, and marrieds could transfer that credit to their partner if it made sense tax-wise for them. The credit would be per child, not per adult if you know what I mean.

Why do people only talk about marrieds and lone parents. There are plenty of us dual-income families who CANT transfer credits because we are not married. And when they are a family with children, they should be able to transfer and pool their resources, wedding or no. SW assesses co-habitants jointly for any benefits one of them applies for, so why cant Revenue?

meeeeh

iguana wrote: »

And how many of those were pensioners?

Yeah, no... Here is the more current stuff:

This is added to by the fact that, although it has been broadened in recent years, we continue to have a very narrow tax base with large sections of income earners (38%) functionally exempt from income taxation.

Source, page 8:

http://www.ibec.ie/IBEC/Press/PressPublicationsdoclib3.nsf/vPages/Newsroom~new-ibec-report-debunking-income-tax-myths-28-09-2014/$file/Debunking+Irish+income+tax+myths.pdf

firefish

Joint assessment means that if a married single earner is earning €42000 then a tax rate of 20% applies, an unmarried person will be paying 40% on pay above €33k. So there is a financial benefit - in the uk, tax bands are the same whether married or not.
Re child tax credits these are pretty complex though I understand they depend on actual childcare costs, as well as household income. Income tax comes in at a much lower rate in the uk (approx €5 or 6k I think rather than approx 17k here) so these credits would definitely be needed for those on lower salaries!

pwurple

USC is liable on your very first euro earned, not from 17k.

I've no idea where your figures are coming from, but it's not reality, that's for sure!

firefish

Pwurple, I said income tax, not usc. Usc is 1.5% up to €12,012 - that's low compared to 20% income tax rate.

meeeeh

pwurple wrote: »

USC is liable on your very first euro earned, not from 17k.

I've no idea where your figures are coming from, but it's not reality, that's for sure!

No you are liable for USC if your gross income is over 12k. If your yearly earnings are less you can request rebate.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/income_tax/universal_social_charge.html

pwurple

meeeeh wrote: »

No you are liable for USC if your gross income is over 12k. If your yearly earnings are less you can request rebate.

I know that, but as soon as you earn say... 12001 euro, it's charged on the whole lot. ie. there is no Tax free allowance. firefishy said that the first 17k were tax free. Not true.

Pwurple, I said income tax, not usc

I see. So, USC isn't income tax at all, except that it's tax, on your income?


Anyway, this thread has veered off topic and is currently stuffed full of blatant inaccuracies and outright lies.

That's enough for me I think.

Sligo1

Prime time on now regarding this

LegacyUser

lazygal wrote: »

Not everyone wants to stay home. I and my husband grew up with two working parents and we appreciate the benefits this gave us. Neither I or my husband have any inclination towards being stay at home parents, and I wouldn't want to be put under pressure to feel I had to stay home. I know I'm a better parent because I work outside the home and I don't know how parents stay home full time-I take my hat off to them because I don't think I would be able for it. A year of maternity leave was enough for me.

If it's a choice you're making because you couldn't hack being a SAHM, I don't see why you should have any benefit given to you.

LegacyUser

lazygal wrote: »

....I don't know how parents stay home full time-I take my hat off to them....

You didn't exactly give them credit earlier in this thread:

lazygal wrote:

there is a strong 'women in the home' lobby who are very vocal and will cause a lot of hassle

lazygal wrote:

There's a lobby group who have the time and inclination to lobby tds and senators on the position of women in the home in the constitution.

ted1

With high unemployment rates the country wants more SAHP it would suit them better to have. 100 families with one income than have 50 families with 2 incomes and 50 families with 0 income.

We did back off the envelope calculations and if she was to go back to work she would have to earn at least 45k to break even to where we are. And also it would require us to out source the rearing if our kids which we would not like to do

meeeeh

ted1 wrote: »

With high unemployment rates the country wants more SAHP it would suit them better to have. 100 families with one income than have 50 families with 2 incomes and 50 families with 0 income.

We did back off the envelope calculations and if she was to go back to work she would have to earn at least 45k to break even to where we are. And also it would require us to out source the rearing if our kids which we would not like to do

I presume you will homeschool them too. Or is rearing done only till the age of five? But I can understand how it suits you, after all it is your wife who is taking all the risk and becoming dependent again.

ted1

meeeeh wrote: »

I presume you will homeschool them too. Or is rearing done only till the age of five? But I can understand how it suits you, after all it is your wife who is taking all the risk and becoming dependent again.

No the 5 year old is in junior infants. As a married couple we work as a unit. How is she taking all the risk? I'm as much dependant on her as she is me. I'd love to stay at home while she worked. Not all women are bra burning feminists, she enjoys her life and the time she spends with the kids.

meeeeh

And that is fine but she is taking a risk to make herself a lot less employable. You could die, you might be controlling and keeping the money away from her, or you might be the nicest person ever but she is dependant on you. I never heard of running away money before I moved to Ireland.

The parents who both work are not outsourcing kids upbringing, they are just doing what they think is best for them and their kids. Btw the kids turn out just fine, there are whole nationalities that are doing well despite vast majority of parents outsourcing kids upbringing to people that are trained in the area of child care and development.

Oh and I think your solution for lower unemployment already existed in Ireland. I might be wrong but as far as I know Ireland was a lot poorer then and treated women appallingly. But hey it did lower unemployment stats for the state.

ted1

meeeeh wrote: »

And that is fine but she is taking a risk to make herself a lot less employable. You could die, you might be controlling and keeping the money away from her, or you might be the nicest person ever but she is dependant on you. I never heard of running away money before I moved to Ireland.

The parents who both work are not outsourcing kids upbringing, they are just doing what they think is best for them and their kids. Btw the kids turn out just fine, there are whole nationalities that are doing well despite vast majority of parents outsourcing kids upbringing to people that are trained in the area of child care and development.

Oh and I think your solution for lower unemployment already existed in Ireland. I might be wrong but as far as I know Ireland was a lot poorer then and treated women appallingly. But hey it did lower unemployment stats for the state.

I'm not controlling, I'm not keeping money locked away, if I die the mortgage is paid and she gets at a lovely pay out. I've took out a good insurance policy to look out for herself and the girls should something go wrong. She was self employed for years and had her own shoe and bag boutique but closed it when the recession started to take effect. I'm sure when the time is right and if she wants to she'll go back to being self employed. It's her choice

My kids are more important to me than money so I see myself far more dependant on her than she is of me.

As regards to you thinking that the country is in a better financial state now, I can tell you that it's not. Personal debt is much higher.

evolving_doors

ted1 wrote: »

With high unemployment rates the country wants more SAHP it would suit them better to have. 100 families with one income than have 50 families with 2 incomes and 50 families with 0 income.

We did back off the envelope calculations and if she was to go back to work she would have to earn at least 45k to break even to where we are. And also it would require us to out source the rearing if our kids which we would not like to do

while thats an immediate reality of having to earn 45k , the usual situation is that you are beginning to invest in your new employment situation whilst breaking even. Once they hit secondary then your income should have risen above the 45k if you had gone back to work earlier and broke even for a while.
If you stay at home till they are in secondary then you are re-starting(starting) your career later.
Of course thats a basic analysis, but just to counter the 'its not worth it/breaking even' position. Breaking even can be investment..

Thats also leaving the 'family v's other people raring our kids' debate aside.

I think each family is different so to my mind its like the breast vs. bottle debate.. the last thing families need is to be chosing sides against other families.

Btw: Indo=govt advisors= former journos=denis o brien=FG
Don't play their game, it serves them well to have infighting on what 'appears' to be the issue.

meeeeh

And it is fine because it works for you. But you will not solve unemployment with making childcare expensive enough to force parents out of work. Neither are those who put kids into creches outsourcing kids or abandoning them like another poster you thanked seems to suggest. It might not fit into your worldview but some professional early childcare seems to benefit kids so drop the smugness.

Edit: I was replying to Ted1.