Sir, - It is easy to understand the justifiable offence taken by Margaret Moore (December 11th ) at any implication that a parent in paid employment is less worthy than a non-paid working parent. But those of us opposed to tax individualisation would be less sympathetic to her justification of Mr McCreevy's policy.
The extra tax benefits awarded to dual-income families are not intended to help offset childcare costs. To suggest so is to support an economic instrument of quite staggering inefficiency. Individualisation has its roots in the booming economy of two years ago, and the lament from the business lobby at the pool of labour in non-wealth-creating employment in homes. This resulted in the creation of the extremely efficient economic tool of individualisation, which is so disadvantageous to the one-income family that a shift will occur in favour of paid employment and away from non-paid employment in homes. This is simple economic theory at work.
Like your previous correspondents I remain enraged at the manipulation of homemakers in the charge towards an additional 1-2 per cent annual GDP growth. I intend to practise my own particular brand of individualisation at the ballot box next year. I am pleased to see that I am not alone as I sit patiently in the long grass. - Yours, etc.,
Declan Ronayne, Keatingstown, Co Wicklow.