Want to save on taxes? Divorces
In a married couple were advised to separate from Milan to save the balance familiaredi Carlo Lottier situation known to those widows who, to be entitled to survivor's pension linked to her dead husband, decided to get married only in church, joining in marriage before God, but still a single life to the State, in order not to lose the annuity. But now you are coming to terms with a new case, since - as explained yesterday, "IlSole24 Hours' - a divorced couple was advised to improve its balance sheet.
The story is as follows. A Milanese lady of 64 years who has worked only 15 years and then be entitled to a minimum pension, in fact, does not receive the 500 € that it would be, but only 192 euro, as the husband has an income of over € 17 000 per annum . Moreover, it is not even considered entirely dependent on the spouse as more than a hundred euro minimum threshold of € 2,840 per year. For this reason, the couple undergoes a handicap of about € 800 plus tax, without being able to benefit from free medicines and even the opportunity to deduct these costs from the statement. The overall picture has all the elements of a trap, because we have people who are worse off than they would have been if they had lower revenue. If the spouses have earned a little 'less, would get a number of advantages that, on balance, would have improved the situation. It seems absurd, yet it is the predictable outcome of that process of over-legislation is intended by nature to lead, sooner or later, unintended consequences: it is almost always unpleasant consequences.
According to news reports, the woman will not leave her husband, even if it cost you dearly. But of course the story should open their eyes to how the continuous production of more end up screwing up themselves.
Consider the plight of people get a minimum increase in income that leads him, however, to lose the benefit of certain health services free of charge, to pay a higher straight to the asylum of the child, and so on. Who has prepared the individual rules acted with the conviction to help the weakest, by introducing different prices, but did not realize how this triggers perverse mechanisms. In this
welfare standards chaotic mixing of very different backgrounds can happen - as in the case mentioned - that is convenient to earn less. And they know very well that those artisans trace in early December when a maximum budget of their business they realize that it is appropriate to stop producing: in order to avoid penalties.
face of what is righteous indignation, but do not be surprised, since the legislature is a "planner" determined to organize society according to its own design, but has a limited understanding of reality, nor could it be otherwise. In addition any rule builds on the existing regulatory system and of great complexity, so it is difficult for those who work in Parliament to have control over all the implications of choices being made. At the end of each new rule is involved in under a cumbersome and is approved by people unaware of how it s'innesterà overall legal order.
There is only one way out: to ask the Parliament and the thousand others in the web of rules in which we live simply. If the chains of our time are made with the card of bureaucrats and legislators, it is good to ask them to refrain as much as possible.
Furthermore should the welfare system is simplified. If you really want to keep alive a redistributive system, use a lever and out of it. Give more money to those who did not, but then there must be no other benefits when you have to take a tram to the subscription, purchase a medication and so on.
If you do not do so, we will continue to surprise in front of a couple thrusts to separate not because it ended a love, but because the legal system has gone crazy. And it makes us even more mad.
From The Journal, October 8, 2010
The story is as follows. A Milanese lady of 64 years who has worked only 15 years and then be entitled to a minimum pension, in fact, does not receive the 500 € that it would be, but only 192 euro, as the husband has an income of over € 17 000 per annum . Moreover, it is not even considered entirely dependent on the spouse as more than a hundred euro minimum threshold of € 2,840 per year. For this reason, the couple undergoes a handicap of about € 800 plus tax, without being able to benefit from free medicines and even the opportunity to deduct these costs from the statement. The overall picture has all the elements of a trap, because we have people who are worse off than they would have been if they had lower revenue. If the spouses have earned a little 'less, would get a number of advantages that, on balance, would have improved the situation. It seems absurd, yet it is the predictable outcome of that process of over-legislation is intended by nature to lead, sooner or later, unintended consequences: it is almost always unpleasant consequences.
According to news reports, the woman will not leave her husband, even if it cost you dearly. But of course the story should open their eyes to how the continuous production of more end up screwing up themselves.
Consider the plight of people get a minimum increase in income that leads him, however, to lose the benefit of certain health services free of charge, to pay a higher straight to the asylum of the child, and so on. Who has prepared the individual rules acted with the conviction to help the weakest, by introducing different prices, but did not realize how this triggers perverse mechanisms. In this
welfare standards chaotic mixing of very different backgrounds can happen - as in the case mentioned - that is convenient to earn less. And they know very well that those artisans trace in early December when a maximum budget of their business they realize that it is appropriate to stop producing: in order to avoid penalties.
face of what is righteous indignation, but do not be surprised, since the legislature is a "planner" determined to organize society according to its own design, but has a limited understanding of reality, nor could it be otherwise. In addition any rule builds on the existing regulatory system and of great complexity, so it is difficult for those who work in Parliament to have control over all the implications of choices being made. At the end of each new rule is involved in under a cumbersome and is approved by people unaware of how it s'innesterà overall legal order.
There is only one way out: to ask the Parliament and the thousand others in the web of rules in which we live simply. If the chains of our time are made with the card of bureaucrats and legislators, it is good to ask them to refrain as much as possible.
Furthermore should the welfare system is simplified. If you really want to keep alive a redistributive system, use a lever and out of it. Give more money to those who did not, but then there must be no other benefits when you have to take a tram to the subscription, purchase a medication and so on.
If you do not do so, we will continue to surprise in front of a couple thrusts to separate not because it ended a love, but because the legal system has gone crazy. And it makes us even more mad.
From The Journal, October 8, 2010
0 comments:
Post a Comment