Referendums March 8 on 1 family and 2 carers

Started by seafoid, February 12, 2024, 10:15:32 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

seafoid

"Durable relationship" and "strive" were what sunk the proposals.

Catherine Connolly called it from the start

https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1766528405036581142
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

bennydorano

Quote from: seafoid on March 10, 2024, 10:40:17 AM"Durable relationship" and "strive" were what sunk the proposals.

Catherine Connolly called it from the start

https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1766528405036581142
Personal victory for Ewan by the looks of it, tweeting non stop since yesterday about it. He's called every single minor anti establishment victory event ever since he's joined twitter tbf. Most of them retrospectively and without any actual evidence of having done so, but still...

armaghniac

Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 13, 2024, 03:42:13 PMFamily section of Bunreacht na hÉireann

Referendum information

The Family Amendment (White Ballot Paper)
•    Article 41.1 – referendum on proposed changed wording
•    Article 41.2 – see proposal to delete this article under Care Amendment below
•    Article 41.3 – referendum on proposed changed wording

The Family Amendment to a certain extent mirrors the Marriage Equality referendum held in 2015. There were then and there are now sincerely held views on both sides. Rossfan's post above re. "Nazifascists" is plain childish.


The Care Amendment (Green Ballot Paper)
•    Article 41.2 – referendum on proposal to delete this article entirely (41.2.1 and 41.2.2)
•    Article 42B to be added to the CHILDREN section of Bunreacht na hÉireann

Individualisation was introduced into the Irish Income Tax system over 20 years ago. The purpose was to base the tax system on individuality rather than family relationships. The effect was that a one-income married couple pay more tax than a two-income married couple on the same earnings.

Many would argue that this change to the tax system effectively made Article 41.2.2 redundant and many women were actually obliged, by economic necessity rather than choice, to get a job outside the home. Removing Article 41.2 now is merely window dressing and the new Article 42B is airy-fairy.


This can be overstated. Invidualisation is very limited and reflects the fact that there is a real cost to going to work so some recognition of that is appropriate.In reality the whole thing could have been reorgansed to reflect care, I see no particular reason why a woman with no children or whose children have grown up should get support from the tax system to stay at home.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

seafoid

It's quite interesting to read over the thread now
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU