THE TAX authorities in the Netherlands have recommended to a young mother that she should divorce her seriously disabled husband if she wants to retain childcare benefits for her two children – advice that has caused a political row and been described as “inhuman”.
The woman, who has not been named, had queried a ruling that she was no longer eligible for child-benefit payments because her husband was not working – despite the fact that she had informed the tax office that he was totally paralysed and lived in a nursing home.
In a letter that has been described as “bureaucracy gone mad”, the tax office sent her a written reply in which it reiterated that her appeal was being turned down, but added: “If, in the future, you divorce your husband, then that would then be reason to grant you benefits.”
The woman said the recommendation did not appear to have been issued by accident or in error, because when she made a follow-up phone call a few days later, she was given the same advice.
The case was taken up last night by Christian Democrat MP Pieter Omtzigt, who described both the tax authorities’ ruling and their advice as “inhuman”.
He has tabled parliamentary questions to Dutch finance minister Jan Kees de Jager and social affairs and employment minister Henk Kamp – asking if the uncharacteristic decision not to allow the child-benefit payments in such difficult family circumstances was as a result of new budgetary cutbacks.
In last week’s budget, Mr Kees de Jager announced a controversial austerity package of €18 billion in cuts over the next four years in every area of public spending – including welfare benefits, which will cost local authorities €669 million this year, much higher than the €500 million anticipated.
“Our society should have the greatest respect for any couple who are caring for each other in this terribly difficult situation,” said Mr Omtzigt. “It is totally inhuman that anyone should suggest that it might be necessary or even beneficial for them to divorce or separate to secure payments that should be available to them under current social welfare rules.”