Belgium’s government plans to halve the marital quotient, a tax benefit for married couples and legally cohabiting partners, and to stop adjusting it for inflation.
The marital quotient allows part of the income of the higher-earning partner to be transferred to the lower-earning or non-earning partner for tax purposes, which usually reduces the couple’s overall tax bill because Belgium has progressive tax rates.
Starting with the 2026 tax year, the benefit will no longer be indexed to inflation. Over time, this means its real value will decline. The government plans to gradually reduce the marital quotient by half for non-retired couples by 2029, with a slower reduction for pensioners. For couples where one partner earns little or no income, this change will result in higher taxes in the future compared to today.
“This decision is a significant step backwards in terms of support for families with members who have little or no income,” says the League of Families.
The government says it wants to encourage the work of both.
What do yo think about it ?
English: https://www.belganewsagency.eu/government-to-stop-indexation-of-marriage-quotient-tax-benefit
Dutch: https://www.nieuwsblad.be/binnenland/indexering-huwelijksquotient-permanent-stopgezet/122230389.html
French: https://www.7sur7.be/belgique/le-quotient-conjugal-ne-sera-plus-indexe~abaaa521/
You have selected the [News] flair for your post. For your post to be valid, please keep in mind rule 3) the title of your post must match the title of the article that you link. Editing the title for your own opinion is not allowed.
Your post must contain a direct link to the news article, a screenshot is not allowed.
Articles that do not cover facts, but are opinions by the author, should be flaired as [Opinion] and not [News]
If your post does not match these rules, it will be removed by moderators.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Why not Pensioneers? Are they more important people? They 100 percent don't raise kids...
Classic boomer move. Marriage quotient for the boomerkes, maar niet voor de jonge mensen. Die mogen dokken voor de pensioenen.
Dit. Hoe lang gaan die boomers de andere generaties nog mogen uitpersen.
Geen klassieke boomer move is eerder de onwil van de regering om het structurele probleem in de begroting aan te pakken en de lasten te verschuiven naar de bevolking .
Wat is een bommer? En u doet alsof er geen niet-boomer singels zijn...
Boomer vrouwen werkten niet. Dit en het gezinpensioen zijn klassieke boomerzaken die voor de huidige generatie niet meer bestaat.
"Boomer vrouwen werkten niet." Wat een zever, mijn moeder was een gescheiden vrouw en die was lerares, ook als ze getrouwd was. Het gezinspensioen (en dat heeft zelfs niks te maken met deze maatregel) gelde ook voor andere generaties dan de boomer. Het lijkt alsof je enkel wat mode woorden nablaat...
Aangezien deze maatregel nu pas afgeschaft wordt en je over boomers praat, doet me denken dat je er werkelijk niets van weet.
"Marriage quotient for the boomerkes, maar niet voor de jonge mensen. Die mogen dokken voor de pensioenen."
Alle generaties mogen dokken voor het onderwijs van de jongere generaties en ze krijgen er niets voor terug.
Amaai nog nooit van statistiek gehoord? Precies niet veel naar dat onderwijs geweest zeg
Met statistiek kan je alles bewijzen. Dat heb ik geleerd in mijn onderwijs.
als ge denkt dat ge met statistiek alles kunt bewijzen hebde niet goed opgelet of pol & soc gedaan.
Alles is misschien niet maar statistiek is zeker en vast geen holy grail... En dat is zeker. Dat hangt af van de parameters die je gebruikt...
dat is zo van die prietpraat van mensen die statistiek niet begrijpen
als je dat zegt weet je werkelijk niets over statistiek.
Serieus?
They also silently cut, without telling anyone even the creche, the discount you get for creche price for having kids under 12 years old. Now it's only if you have kids under 30 months old. So our creche price went up by 5 euro per day.
It's a double fuck you to people with kids. It's not like our pensions rely on introducing more tax payers into the system, amirite. Who needs kids
Don't they start to mosey off to school slowly after 30 months? Mine is, well after 31 months but...
Yeah, but for creche price siblings used to be taken into account for a discount until 12 yo. Now only siblings until 30 months old
I don’t understand, what 12 year old is in creche?
Siblings discount. For having siblings.
When you go to an income-based creche, you ask kind en gezin to calculate your creche price.
The system goes like this:
//checks your income. Then asks Is this a twin? Yes/no. Is this a child with siblings? Yes/no.
Depending on answers your price is calculated and you are issued an attest with a certain expiry date and price. After the expiry date you need to go through the calculation again to print out new attest with a new price.
So the sibling discount used to be for all siblings under 12 yo in the same house. Now it is only for siblings under 30 months old.
So if you have 1 child you get no siblings discount for the creche price.
You got 2 kids, 1 creche aged and one 3 year old, you used to get a discount for your creche price. But now they canceled it
This makes sense if you have more than 1 kid going to daycare at the same time since else those costs add up. Why would you get additional benefit if you only have 1 kid in the daycare and the other one out already?
It's a good measure honestly.
Obviously older kids have their own costs associated with it, but not ~€35/day.
Primary school is from 8:30 till 3:30, most people work 9-5 with both parents (or shifts which is even worse), with a commute on top. It’s not feasible for a lot of people to pick up kids straight from school for that reason, so they put their kids in creche/daycare after school (the creche will pick up their kids from school.
This has nothing to do with after school Care, only with crèche prices.
Then you should be f****d by your crèche somehow because the rule only applies if your child starts crèche after 2026. If you are already in a crèche, you counted on this discount and they cannot simply change that (it is a contract that you sign with the creche and if the discount is in there it is in there). FYI our third kid started in September 2025 and we still get the discounts in 2026.
We signed up for creche in December 2024, the soonest availability was January 2026. Again fucked by the government not providing enough childcare spots, so women cannot work, but also cannot receive the full HQ soon
Or the father could have stayed at home ... but yeah, I get it. Still, it's not just the governments' fault, is it? if daycare was such a nice job, more people would do it, don't you think?
Would still result in the loss of 1 income since SAHP do not get any form of income. Doesn't matter if it's mom or dad, we need both incomes to live above the poverty line these days
If you need both incomes to live above the poverty line, why would you have kids?
There are many instances where people lost their job while pregnant, where people became ill and lost their job and even healthier people who live beneath the poverty line. Be careful because it's not by choice people go without food and/or essentials, even in Belgium
The issue was with daycare prices. If one of the parents can't work, why would you need daycare? And let's be real, there are still a lot of people who get pregnant but don't put enough thought into whether they can actually afford it
Because presumably you are looking for a job. If you give up your daycare spot, you have to wait 1.5 years for a new spot to open up. So if you want a job, you keep your daycare spot paying 30 euro per day while living on 1 income.
Personal experience:
Lost my job because I was pregnant, wanted another one, didn't get hired because of said pregnancy, bills kept piling up, daycare spots were hard to find, started an education through VDAB, still needed the daycare but only 1 income until the education started.
It was a very difficult time financially.
It indeed sucks that they did this, but it was not silently at all. Has been in the news numerous times.
A quick Google News search for "kinderkorting opvang" shows loads of articles on different newssites.
Creche directeur told me they didn't receive any communication about it
Only have kids if you can afford them. And yes, that includes crèche prices if you cannot dump them anywhere else.
Good change
It’s a tax increase plain and simple. Another one.
All good things come to an end (after having served the boomers)
Our government is led by retards, there's no way around it.
We don't have enough houses and being alone reduces qualitative life expectancy, so we need to have more people living together. We also need more kids. But the policy is to make it harder and less affordable. Which is funny because a lot of divorce issues rely in money issues.
CD&V should be all pro kids and nuclear family. Where the fuck did this come from? NVA hates people now?
If you still have to work for a living you're not their target audience, though they won't directly tell you that.
They always did.
Yes, but it used to some people, like Walloons, foreigners or socialists. Now, it seems they even hate other NVA'ers.
They always hated poor people. Just so happens that their voters are getting poorer...
That’s a classic fascist pattern. And while we aren’t the USA in that regard, the tell tale signs are there. How else for example can the blatant incompetence and abuse of power of nva politicians be explained, if not for them ‘deserving’ it based on some irrational belief?
https://youtu.be/5Luu1Beb8ng
From the studies i read it is the man who lives longer when in a relationship, the woman does not have an increased life expectancy that comes with being in a relationship.
Have there been new studies that changed the conclusion?
The woman does not have an increased life expectancy in a relationship, but she's healthier.
"We don't have enough houses and being alone reduces qualitative life expectancy, so we need to have more people living together." Yeah because modern age people will keep living with their parents and grand-parents.... /s
The issue isn't having more kids, the issue is we need more working people... There is no garantee your (beloved) kids will work. On one side they say what you say "we need kids to work", the other side says " those immigrants/people with a background in migration make too much kids"...
So no... we need working people...
I know several married couples without kids so why would they get tax benefits? In fact, the reason to get married are tax benefits... Just because of legal status...
The issue is not the amount of working people. That's just what they want you to believe so you'll look away while they give loads of money to their corporate buddies.
0 backbone, just like Vooruit.
There is some irony in the typo in your first sentence, though.
So the boomers and everyone else got the benefits again and now the youth can't get the benefits anymore?
Either you abolish it for everyone (like woonbonus) or you keep it for everyone and accept the consequences.
Probleem: alleenstaanden worden te zwaar belast in dit land. Dat is niet eerlijk!
Oplossing: gehuwden meer belasten.
Gezinspartij CD&V lijkt ook niet veel in de pap te brokken in deze regering.
Het is eerder: gehuwden minder subsidieren.
Ja, dan kan je dus gewoon niet lezen hè knuppel 🤷♂️
Het betreft de mindering van een belastingvoordeel. Geen vermeerdering van belasting toch?
.... hark
Belastingvoordeel =/ subsidie.
Subsidies zijn een directe geldstroom.
Belastingvoordeel wordt weggenomen en dus wordt de belasting verhoogd. Ergo “gehuwden worden voortaan meer belast” klopt als stelling. Als je wil kan je neuzelen over de semantiek van die stelling en dat het wegnemen van een verlaging technisch gezien geen verhoging is maar het is objectief correcter dan de stelling “minder subsidiëren”, die is immers gewoon volledig incorrect. Er is geen sprake van subsidie in dit hele verhaal.
Tis even goed neuzelen om het een belastingverhoging te noemen he.
Het is wat het is, een stopzetting van de indexering van een belastingvoordeel. Daarom zei ik eerder een subsidie die wegvalt ipv het is zeker zo.
Dan snap je niet wat neuzelen wil zeggen.
De lijst met termen die je niet begrijpt wordt zo wel vrij lang hoor.
"Oplossing: gehuwden meer belasten." Nee, hun belastingsvoordelen worden eindelijk afgenomen.
Ja, maar als het punt van OP is dat alleenstaanden te veel worden belast dan is dit toch geen oplossing?
Dus als multinationals hun voordelen worden afgenomen tov kmo's is het geen oplossing? Misschien is de standaard belasting geldig voor iedereen wel de oplossing?
Lol so typical. I've worked for two decades and am now unemployed for the first time in my life - exactly at the time they're going to limit unemployment in time AND they start these kinds of shenanigans. Glad I paid into the system for 20 years, now that I need it due to circumstances out of my control: fuck you, drop dead. And fast please, we need the space.
Am I correct to understand this in the way they will cut it in half by 2029 and then stop indexing that amount?!
Way to make sure birth rates crater.
It is explained in the articles that indexation will end for the 2026 tax year.
Marital is not directly tied to children to be honest. Also a tax break should not be an incentive to have children. It should be some kind of a reward.
People having children just to get a tax break is indeed not the right idea (and honestly I think a rare mentality). People refraining from having kids because it's too expensive however, that's a large scale societal issue. And this type of policy will only make that more prevalent I imagine.
If you need a marital tax break to convince yourselves to have kids you’re better off not having any to begin with.
Let's discourage people from having children. It's true that we have too many kids in our country and that the population is getting younger every year
People have children when they have the right conditions, especially financial conditions. Not everyone is rolling in money
Its not the government's job to incentivise having children.
So let me get this straight. You guys wanna block immigration, but also don't wanna incentivize having kids. Do you just wanna die out and stop existing as a country, is that the goal?
And yes, in a country where the total country's budget is 300 billion euro, of which 65 billion euro goes straight to pensions, straight from current tax payers into the pensioners pockets, it IS government's job to incentivize having kids, or stop this ridiculous pension system.
"You guys"? Im completely pro migration.
And I agree that we should cut pensions, starting with the highest ones.
Except that it is. It's kids that keep you in existence. Not old people.
Creating prosperity keeps society going, not incentivising natality. You don't need an eternally growing population to prosper.
Prosper and existing are not the same thing.
We don't agree on that
Personally, when I see the economic damage caused by the constant aging of the population, the cost that this represents, and the declining birth rate, I think the government needs to help if we want a prosperous future.
The shape of the population age distribution is not something the government can control, it is the result of decades of prosperity.
We can and should control the cost of this aging population through pension and healthcare reform.
Government policies definitely have an impact on birth rates (and mortality rates, for that matter).
Even if the quality of healthcare or reimbursement for healthcare costs and pensions continues to decline, the economy will suffer due to aging populations. Look at Japan, for example.
I didn't say that they have no effect on mortality or natality. They dont have a (significant) effect on the age distribution. You can't govern your way out of an aging population.
And an aging population doesn't necessarily cause economic decline. The USA has an age distribution similar to Belgium and they have a high performing economy (although they of course have different issues), there are a lot more factors.
By increasing the birth rate or immigration, we can increase the future age distribution. So we can have an impact.
The US and Belgium have completely different age distributions. The US is much younger due to immigration (and to a lesser extent due to lower life expectancy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Belgium
They really are quite similar. Obviously they are not exactly the same but they are not completely different. USA is also aging but has more elderly (65+) and a slightly broader base caused by immigration, like you said and I agree.
To reiterate: I am also pro migration, the net effects on the economy are most definitely positive.
By the same logic, they should also not incentivise people to stop working. Especially not offer means to retire EARLY. Doubly so because we have too many old people to support.
Fully agree.
Having kids or not is purely financial for a lot of people. We need people to have kids or the system will collapse.
There are already a bazillion tax breaks and advantages for people with kids. You don’t need a marital tax break on top of that.
Also plenty of married couples are childless. What’s the reasoning for them to receive the tax break then?
Singles get squeezed like oranges so couples can get their cake and eat it too.
Then let it collapse
Great idea! Will you join the resistance and fight?
Resisting what ?
You're so right, the birth rates in countries like Turkey and Nigeria are so high because of all the benefits they have.
Ik werk veel meer dan mijn vriendin, maar mijn vriendin kan dan zorgen voor het huishouden, de kinderen, etc. Maar als mijn vriendin evenveel gaat werken als mij, dan worden we èn meer belast, èn is ons huishouden niet gedaan èn moeten we opvang betalen voor de kinderen. Kinderen zijn geen reden voor belastingvermindering, maar het is ergens maar menselijk om de lonen samen te gooien en dan te belasten, gezien het toch voor 1 pot is en er daardoor voor te zorgen dat er toch een beetje voor de kinderen gezorgd kan worden.
Why would someone who's married or officially be together get a tax cut compared to that same person who's single?
It’s a bit the bus vs car metaphor. A single person needs one house. A married couple only needs one house too. There are some economies of scale to a family, which are advantageous to the family, but also to all others.
If all couples that recently got together decide to keep their own place a bit longer (because there is no tax benefit anyway), this will impact the housing market. Which is also negative for singles.
And this goes for many other things as well.
Face it or not - families are good for the system as a whole. Isn’t it logical to give them at least a small advantage to be able to arrange their own way of working (e.g. someone works less for the kids, other earns money - saving a spot in the crèches).
And also - doing this again not for people in pension is ridiculous.
To encourage childbirth
If that's the goal, simply increase child money.
I don't see why my 60 year old father needs a tax benefit because he's married, while his 60 year old single neighbour has to pay in full.
Because the 60 year old single neighbor spends his money on 5 tv subscriptions and his hobbies or what not and rents a single bedroom flat and drives a small two-seater just because. The 60 year old father who is married supports his wife and children financially, rents a 4 bedroom house, needs a bigger car to drive everyone around, pays holidays for multiple people, etc etc, and in the end he doesn’t even have money left to do any of the things he would like to do himself. The amount of money you need to provide is huge. That little help of a tax reduction over 30ish % of the income, limited to minimum wage, is a huge help to be able to cover the costs of living.
The financial ‘burden’ singles complain about is nothing compared the costs of living for families. Especially when the partner can’t work since childcare for just one child is unaffordable, let alone multiple children.
No more tax reduction means more partners are forced to work means much less children means the end of the much needed growth of Belgium nationals.
Because one half of the married couple might not be able to work. Also, because their partner does have an income they then don't receive any benefits/welfare or if they do get anything it is a pittance. So life becomes insanely expensive for the couple.
They really just want everyone single, working, paying for their own car, home and utilities.
De "we moeten besparen, MAAR NIET OP MIJ" crew is gearriveerd.
Men kan discussiëren over de vraag of deze manier van bezuinigen rechtvaardig is of niet, zo gaat dat nu eenmaal in een democratie. Ik word (voorlopig?) niet geraakt door deze maatregel, maar ik vind hem onrechtvaardig.
Waarom zijn gepensioneerden niet betrokken?
Dit zou kunnen leiden tot een daling van het geboortecijfer, waardoor koppels die dankzij deze maatregel een kind hadden kunnen krijgen, dat nu niet meer kunnen, terwijl we juist een tekort aan geboortes hebben.
Het is de zoveelste belastingverhoging voor werknemers, en zeker niet voor de rijksten.
Ik kan nog tal van andere bezuinigingsmaatregelen voorstellen die ik rechtvaardiger vind, maar dat is niet het onderwerp van mijn bericht.
Sorry maar dit was een bullshit maatregel. Als je kinderen krijgen wilt steunen doe je dit via het kindergeld. Gelijk voor iedereen. Niet via een maatregel waarvoor je niet eens kinderen nodig hebt. Ik ken 3 koppels die dit doen. Twee ervan zijn kinderloos en de derde zijn ermee begonnen toen de kinderen 18+ waren.
De regering heeft de indexering van de kinderbijslag bevroren. Als zij enerzijds de huwelijksquotiënt had afgeschaft en anderzijds andere maatregelen had genomen om het geboortecijfer te stimuleren, zzou ik mij daar niet tegen hebben verzet, maar dat is hier niet het geval.
Wordt geïndexeerd, zelfs meer dan. Er is een minimum van 2% en geen maximum. Als er dus 1,5% inflatie is maak je winst.
Nu blijkt ook uit het buitenland dat financiële incentives niet werken om kinderen krijgen aan te moedigen.
Wat wel werkt is voldoende plek ik betaalbare kinderopvang en voldoende huisvesting.
Tis wel opvallend vaak op mij de laatste tijd, just saying.
Why? We need to encourage childbirth with higher priority. People need to be comfortable and stable to make babies.
"Why won't people have children"
The benefit is only worth if if your partner doesn't work or only earns less than 13.460 EUR a year.
To be honest if you want to make working more beneficial it's one of the measures.
As of now it's better for the partner to not work and gain 3,4K benefit.
My partner CAN'T work because their health is bad but apparantly not bad enough for benefits. People need to stop thinking that everyone who doesn't work is on benefits.
Unpopular opinion: eigenlijk had het per direct voor iedereen afgeschaft moeten worden zoals in het originele plan van Van Peteghem. Ik ben iemand die liefst alle belastingverminderingen op de schop ziet gaan IN RUIL VOOR een algemene belastingvermindering. M.a.w. een fiscale stroomlijning. Weg met alle koterijen in ruil voor een eerlijke, gestroomlijnde fiscaliteit die hetzelfde is voor iedereen.
Bartje will probably travel around a bit and make a show of himself everywhere with that money. We have to save.
Yeh, my gf and i have been thinking about a kid. Been looking at it financially and administrative. This deffinitely doesn't help and might be the nail in the coffin for my gf's child dream. I'm saying my gf's dream since even tho i would like to have a family, i'm not looking forward to a future stuck with a mortgage and kids we can't pay for.
You know this adjustment does not affect the majority of people with kids? Of both work (or each earning more than 13k a year) you will not get this tax reduction but could perfectly have children. We both work and have 2 children, working will in the end result in more money than this tax reduction.
If this makes you not want to have kids you are not yet ready anyway.
Having kids is pretty easy, paying for them too. It's just the amount of stuff you give them that can be limited but enough poor people have kids anyway.
If you don't think having kids requires financial independence and a sense of stability, you're a horrible horrible parent.
A lot of people just aren't ready to make choices, and if they can't 100% choose a kid that's a sign they're not ready. And not every parent can give their kid an iphone every year that's just reality, we're not all top 40% earners. You don't calculate based on your current earnings, you scratch off because you also won't have the time to spend money on stuff you do now when you don't have kids such as eating out, your own hobbies. Especially the first 2-3 years you wonder what the fuck you used to do with your time before you had kids.
Doesn't make me a horrible parent, stop with the retarded assumptions. According to your logic 90% of belgium should stop having kids since they're not financially independent. You'll understand the above paragraph and the sentence in my above comment when people around you start having kids.
Name-calling seems to be the way to go for you, apparently.
That's my opinion btw. You wanna bring kids into this world and offer them a sub-par life, be my freaking guest. 😘
And people will keep voting for the same parties in 2029 :)
Felt like an unfair tax advantage. Be single or get divorced, well, obviously you deserve to be taxed more than your married colleague. /s
I see you have fallen for the great propaganda of 'us against them' the media have been using to get tax news views. Singles are taxed too much. Increasing tax burden on couples only benefits the government. What they should do to make it 'fair' is decreasing tax burden for singles. Like others have mentioned, this will further decrease the appeal of having children. While it isn't the governments job to 'pay for our children ', we do need them to have a steady stream of new people to tax in the future :)
I have never heard someone say they wanted children because there is some financial incentive.
Other countries with very low number of children (hello South Korea) have huge incentives (like reimbursing your mortgage if you have 3 children !), but still, people don't have children.
I think you have kinda answered your own question. They are increasing the incentives because finance does play a huge role while planning kids. The argument that poors countries have huge birth rate can be tied to the low cost of living + not enough need to have two people working at the same time like BE.
But have you heard people saying children are expensive? :)
Well then it's better to have two incomes with both parents working, no ?
Excuse me? Unfair? I benefit from this tax advantage as my partner is unfortunately unable to find a job in this shit economy. Because we are legally cohabiting, she isn’t entitled to any kind of benefits/welfare because I supposedly already earn enough.
Would you rather have we both split up again as singles and that she would get welfare instead? It would probably end up costing the state more than it does now.
Listen to this podcast of de Tijd: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0apj0vzt4GjUCJvYxPMnRl?si=hCROP0VCR2SrxTiMKRDqRQ&context=spotify%3Ashow%3A2kxQycgj2E6jJpnrQgGpig
The idea that people with children pay less taxes due to the discount is total bullcrap. In short, people with kids contribute way more than childless couples and the tax discount they now receive is even too low.
What a load of crap. They also consume WAY MORE societal benefits than those without kids. I pay obscene amounts of taxes each months so all your crotch goblins can go to school for free.
You should not blame that the taxes on people with kids are too low, the ones on singles are just too high. The solution is not to tax people with kids more but people without less.
Any couple can become legally cohabiting. This tax advantage makes it easier for one of the two members of the couple to take a career break to raise children. Removing the family quotient prevents people from having children, whether they want to take a career break or are already living on a single income
You do realize that if you are single or divorced you are missing a 2nd person who needs food, clothes, showering water, etc?
You do realize that a lot of costs in Belgium are fixed to the house and not the consumption? Meaning if there is one person or two living, you pay the same.
Use water as an example, in my commune, for every house, you pay €50 fixed rate for water and €30 for sewer. Then you get a discount of €10 / €6 per domicile. So a married couple pays €30 fixed rate for the water and €18 for the sewer. So they pay less, meaning they pay €15/€9 per person. An unmarried person gets the discount once, so they pay €40/€20.
Anyway, the cost of being single compared to being married in Belgium is a hard fact. Eliminating the quotient is one step to making the system more fair.
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2024/03/18/in-belgium-being-single-costs-you-more/
Sure, but being single with one income cost less than being two with one income.
If both partners have an income, this discussion is irrelevant because the marriage quotient tax benefit doesn't apply, or only in a limited fashion only if there is a large discrepancy of income between the two partners with one of them earning very little.
Tell me more how 1 person eats the same amount of food as 2 people, uses the same amount of clothing, etc. Lmao. How delusional do you have to be to argue against having a 2nd person means more costs
Holy shit you can’t be this stupid. Actually setting a new standard here.
This person doesn’t know. Bless him.
Wow you are so edgy and cool
Having 2 people also means you have more income, so even if you eat double the amount, you're still paying less for heating, electricity, 'vaste kosten' for gas and water, insurances...
Did you miss the title of the thread? HQ is for people where the spouse/cohabitant doesn't work or earns very little
"lower earner" doesn't mean you're not employed.
Up to 30% of total family income.
If the spouse has any notable income, like 30%, the HQ has an impact close to 0, because the spouse is then using their own lower tax bracket. So again people with a working spouse, not really relevant to HQ discussion
A second person who earns a salary and with whom you can divide dozens of expenses that are irrelevant of how many people inhabit your home.
Are we REALLY going to pretend that being single is cheaper than a couple living together?
Hq is for people whose spouse doesn't work or earns very little lol. So no, not a second person earning a salary
You do realize that if you're single, you need to buy shareable stuff for your own? A car, rent, insurance,... . What's your point?
Great. After increasing VAT on school lunches we get this...
If we don't get the tax benefits for being married then hopefully they'd stop the statut cohabitant too, but nope.
ok dan laten we het structureel probleem in de belgische begroting gewoon doorschuiven naar de bevolking ipv het aan te pakken.
Een schande deze regering kost ons echt duizenden euro’s per jaar
Ja maar er is geen geld en we moeten besparen mannekes! - Bart
Insert applaus van de gepensioneerden die rustig verder kunnen leven, lachend naar de hardwerkende en overbelaste mens.
My spouse can't work because of health reasons but isn't disabled enough to get an income. This is the kind of thing that helps us stay afloat. I'm starting to take this shit personal. It's like every fucking thing they come up with is especially designed to fuck both of us over.
Hupla nog minder kinderen. En zeker bij mensen die de boel een beetje plannen en wat angstig zijn voor het financiële aspect.
My wife has been looking for a job for the past 2 years. Not a matter of encouragement. What a hot mess.
As a single, i can only applaud it.
That sucks for me and my family.
Tax on tax on tax, meanwhile we spend a fuckton of money on bullshit and on "not our people/country"
Amazing.
Very good. I still don't understand why my wife & I are supposed to pay taxes for these husbands and wifes that decide to "Netflix & chill" all day.
I don't think your description is accurate.
The marriage quotient tax benefit is a tax reduction, not government assistance.
Couples who benefit from this tax reduction and who will no longer benefit from it are very often those where at least one member works, and usually only one of the two. They do not receive any government assistance. For example, a couple where one partner works and the other takes care of the children.
Those who benefit from it and no longer work, i.e., retirees, are not directly affected by the elimination of the tax reduction.
If you are on welfare, you are generally not eligible for this tax break. And eliminating this tax break will not reduce welfare payments.
Welfare (OCMW) didn't used to impact huwelijksquotiënt, but any other social security benefit (unemployment, sickness) pretty much excludes you from using huwelijksquotiënt, yes. But fear not! Our bottomlessly genius government has decided to equate welfare with other income so now it will be taxable just like any other income!
Taxes are lower for those couple then. Fine. Who will pay for the difference in taxes ? Spoiler: the overall population (incl. myself). So, I have been paying more taxes to compensate for those couples that decided to Disney+ and chill with their children if you prefer.
And it's worse than you think. If these people were going to work (i.e. the partner that is currently not working thanks to this tax discount), they'd actually pay taxes on their income. It really makes a lot of sense if you want 80% of active people (which we all want, right?)
Note: also it applies regardless of children you may have. So it's not like the law change is targeting parents only.
I was responding to this passage. " my wife & I are supposed to pay taxes for these husbands and wifes that decide to "Netflix & chill" all day". Which gave the impression that your taxes were going to the people who benefited from this reduction. Your first message was unclear.
I don't think the representation of Netflix & chill is correct, especially since it's usually something you do with someone else. This terminology is used to refer to dates in general.
People who don't work may have many reasons for this: caring for children, being sick, undergoing training, etc. There are also couples where one person works part-time. For example, I know someone who benefits from this and whose wife has cancer, but she hasn't applied for sick pay. I think you're falling into a cliché.
Your last sentence is interesting. This reduction could have been restricted in a fairer way. Personally, I find it unfair that pensioners are spared from the elimination of this tax reduction, but that couples with children or where one person is sick or in training or otherwise are not spared. After that, there is always the problem of administrative complexity. Our tax system is already so complex.
I am in favor of increasing the employment rate, but not at any cost. On the one hand, increasing the employment rate—and I don't think this measure will increase it that much—and on the other hand, preventing many people from having children. I'm not sure that in the medium to long term it's worth it or even fair.
The retirees are not part of the change, probably because it is assumed that they have built their whole life on that advantage. And the government would assume active people can still change their habits,.which is probably not going to happen. I would never hire someone that hasn't worked in the last 15 years, especially if I have alternative candidates that have been working.
I think bringing more people to work is exactly what should be done. If you like taking care of children, why not make it your job, even part time. Why not open a childcare with 3-5 children, including some of their own children. This brings the satisfaction they are looking for, and solving a lot of planning issues that other parents, that currently work, have. We are talking about 7000€ per year to be compensated, by working. This isn't huge. With 300€ per month per child, it's a done deal (Very high level computations). And parents that don't want to work part time will be very happy to only pay 150 each to keep working full time.
I see mainly electoral reasons for the NVA, which has a rather elderly electorate, to spare pensioners. And I understand your point of view, but I still find it unfair.
You describe what you think people should do. But what is actually happening in reality is that women often take a career break or switch to part-time work to look after their young children. Removing the tax benefits for women who do not work or work part-time will mean that many will decide that taking a break or working part-time is not financially viable, and they will postpone having children or decide not to have any (more). Many couples who have already made this choice or are going to make it will become poorer and continue to do the same thing.
I think it makes women even poorer actually. Because of this system, it gives them the possibility to stop working and still "earn" something... but on one condition: to remain married. If something goes wrong in the couple, it all breaks down. Then she will loose the tax benefits, have a hard time finding a job, and probably end up in welfare.
Even without the tax break, a lot of women will take career breaks or work part-time.
However, I agree that women's economic dependence on their husbands is a problem. We should live in a society where women can work as much as possible.
En binnenkort zeggen ze weer dat we niet genoeg kinderen maken en nog een half miljoen Pakistanen moeten importeren
It shouldn’t even exist in the first place.
Yes it should, there should be more incentives to get people to live together and live as a nuclear family with children. Being alone is not an efficient or healthy lifestyle. It literally shortens your life.
I know some people are too difficult and can't live with others (those people generally blame that "all partners they had are difficult" and lack self reflection), but the amount of single households is growing way too fast for our housing market and health system.
Why ? What is your view on fair taxation in this area? Given the problem of an aging population and declining birth rates, shouldn't we have tax measures that help those who want to start a family?
disgusting tax increase for the working class. Solution is simple: everyone divorced or single.
Quite the contrary; for a couple where both people work, this does not have impact. It is another incentive to work.