Doug PollardThe Rudd giveth and the Rudd taketh away
April 24th 2009 01:30
Image by Rowen Atkinsen
Despite the rejection of the 2020 summit recommendation that the government should legislate same-sex marriage, gay and lesbian couples are increasingly being treated as if they were married.
I’ve written a lot about how the same-sex couple equality reforms will make life tougher for some couples, because the benefit system will treat us like a married couple as from July 1. Until now, Centrelink was blind to same-sex relationships, so both partners could claim single person benefits.
From July 1, eligibility will be decided on the basis of their combined income and assets. Some claimants will suddenly find they will lose benefits and entitlements and must now depend on their partner: couples where both are claiming will receive the couple rate, which is lower than that for two singles.
We get equality – we lose benefits. What the Rudd giveth, the Rudd taketh away.
But same sex couples will now be treated “exactly” like married and oppsex de facto couples for taxation purposes, too: check out the Australian Tax Office website.
In tax year 2009/10 the higher earner will be able to claim the “dependent spouse tax offset” if they “maintain” their partner.
The tax office considers that you have “maintained” your partner if you “lived in the same house, gave your partner food, clothing and lodging, or helped them to pay for their living, medical and educational costs”.
That applies even if the partner worked, or you spent some time apart. Of course, the amount of the offset will vary according to how much your partner earned, but it’s well worth looking into.
A couple can also claim a tax offset of 20% – 20 cents in the dollar – for their combined net medical expenses over $1,500 a year. Net medical expenses are the medical expenses you have paid less any refunds you got, or could get, from Medicare or a private health insurer. There is no upper limit on the amount you can claim.
So it’s not all bad. What the Rudd taketh away, the Rudd also giveth.
I should say in passing that all this makes it abundantly clear, if it wasn’t already, that neither the tax nor the benefits system bear any relation to the reality of modern relationship arrangements and are in desperate need of wholesale reform.
Both are built on the assumption that in all couples, one partner works and earns, and supports the other, while the other stays home, or maybe does a bit of part-time work. Very few couples can afford to run that kind of setup any more, except the relatively well-off. And the offset doesn’t apply to them – anyone earning $150k plus per year is excluded.
Both also have their own vague and arbitrary rules and processes for deciding exactly who is a couple – unless you’re married, of course. Then the recognition of your coupledom is effectively automatic, making life simpler all round and cutting the number of civil servants necessary to police the system.
A government razor gang looking for ways to save a dollar or two might well conclude it would be simpler and cheaper to provide the same relationship options for all couples, regardless of sex. The recession might yet deliver what activism has not: genuine equality.
| 24 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
