Family Write-Offs

Published September 13, 2012

Icelandic legislators have been particularly kind to a certain social class of Icelanders. Its members, often associated with year 2007, don’t have to pay their debts, are able to practice bankruptcy and tax fraud without adverse consequences or, indeed, interference. They drive their luxury vehicles to and from their luxury mansions, the cost of their luxury lifestyle borne by their private “corporations,” which quietly roll into bankruptcy after they’ve been milked of funds supplied by the Icelandic private-friend-ised banks.
Most members of this privileged class are males, 25–50 years of age. It need surprise no one that the laws enabling their lifestyle have largely been produced by members of the same demographic group in Iceland’s Parliament.
WRITING OFF FAMILIES IS EVEN EASIER
Since the 2008 bank collapse, debts worth billions of ISK have been written off, overtly and shamelessly, for the privileged classes. Rarely mentioned, however, is the ease with which they are able to write off their families.
A “single” child support payment, as determined by the Icelandic Social Insurance Administration is now 24,230 ISK, or about 200 USD. Meanwhile, the average monthly cost of living for a family of four in the Reykjavík area is 617,611 ISK or 5,370 USD, according to a recent Ministry of Welfare report.
Local District Commissioners rule on child support payments if parents cannot agree on the amount. To “ensure consistency and equality in child support rulings,” the Ministry of the Interior provides a tablet based on a few monthly income categories, from about 395,000 ISK to 700,000 ISK. Support payments then vary from a ‘single’ support payment (i.e. 24,230 ISK) up to one and a quarter, half, double etc., according to the various income categories.
Common sense dictates that in cases of monthly incomes higher than the tablet lists (higher than ISK 700,000) commissioners should calculate what percentage of the monthly income the child support payments amount to, and such math reveals the tablet’s percentages range from 12%–15%.
HIGHEST EARNERS PAY LOWEST SUPPORT
In practice, however, the calculations are quite different. According to an assistant district commissioner in the Reykjavík area, commissioners don’t determine support amounts “proportionally to the payer‘s income” and it is “very rare that [commissioners] award a triple support payment” (i.e. award an amount equal to three times the base child support payment).
Your name doesn’t have to be Einstein to discover what this formula means. Yes, those with the highest incomes—the privileged classes—pay, proportionally, the lowest support payments. Thus a parent of two, for example, whose monthly income is two million ISK, pays about 4% of their salary in child support, while the average Joe/Jane pay pays 12–15%.
Whatever happened to ensuring “consistency and equality in child support rulings?”
Is it because the support payment sums in the calculation tablet are never higher than amounts to a double base child support payment? Could commissioners possibly believe that even if the tablet’s authors had listed twenty different income categories up to ten or twenty million per month, that the monthly support amounts would still never have been higher than what amounts to a double base support payment?
Perhaps the commissioners believe that the privileged classes need all the money they can get. After all, being rich is expensive. One must pay the cleaning lady, the gardener, maintenance for the swimming pool, the summer house, ski chalet etc. etc. Enough already!
How a civilized society can consider it just that the monthly financial obligations of its richest members toward their children not exceed 48,000 ISK per child is incomprehensible. But an Icelandic family lawyer had a ready reply to that speculation: “…of course there is much more public assistance for single mothers* here than where you are [the USA].”
Ahh. That fits the Icelandic modus operandi. It is considered completely logical that the taxpayers pay the cost of supporting the families of the country’s richest individuals—just like their debts.
THE SYSTEM REWARDS THE FAMILY WRITE-OFFS
This area of Icelandic family law is shameful. For a certain class of fathers* walking away from spouse and children is literally to their financial benefit. The financial consequences for them of breaking up their families are that they have more money than ever before to spend on their new family-free lifestyle. Poverty, on the other hand, awaits the family left behind if the mother is left without good job prospects.
A spouse should have the right to leave marriage and children, but he should have to pay for it, and he—not the taxpayers—should bear the responsibility for his family’s financial welfare.
Dissolution of families comes at a great cost to society. People should not be better off financially if they decide to leave spouse and children and begin a new life somewhere else. The law should not reward people for writing off their families.

*Statistics Iceland 2008 study of children’s legal residences: 90.7% of single Icelandic mothers all had their own children living with them, compared to 11.8% of single Icelandic fathers.



Mag
Opinion
Don’t Ask Nanna

Don’t Ask Nanna

by

Dear Nanna I’m confused about the Icelandic practice of using the -dottir and -son suffix instead of last names. Does that mean you guys change your last names for every generation? How do you keep track of who’s who?  Thanks, Son of Question Mark Dear Son of Question Mark, We manage. Nanna   Dear Nanna, An Icelandic friend of mine says he is considering going into rehab. I’ve been trying to tell him about some alternative holistic therapies I found to help him with his recovery but he just brushes me off. I feel like he’s acting really unappreciative and

Mag
Opinion
For The Record

For The Record

by

The Holocaust remains incomprehensible in its totality. The goose steps taken towards it, while horrendous on their own, can seem less other-wordly. The photograph accompanying this article is taken in Vienna in 1938. The women are put on display on a public square, wearing a sign that says: I have been expelled from the people’s community. The young men behind the women are preparing to shave off their hair, as a crowd watches. Such displays were not uncommon. The reasons could involve being Jewish, communist, gay, lazy, or —as in this case— having sexual relations with Jews. At a symposium

Mag
Opinion
Hope In Dangerous Times

Hope In Dangerous Times

by

The year 2014 has left me asking what it really means to be Icelandic, and whether that might be something I should feel embarrassed about. Because looking back, I kinda do. For Iceland, last year was marked by a plethora of major scandals, especially in the fields of politics and law enforcement. We witnessed our politicians and oligarchs make sickening attempts to shut down any and every attempt at investigative journalism. We were subjected to the nature pass, attempts to militarise our police force, Biggi the cop, Hanna Birna, livestock farmers’ systematic mistreatment of animals, a corrupt dairy monopoly, the

Mag
Opinion
We Need 1,000,000 Humans, Stat

We Need 1,000,000 Humans, Stat

by

At the end of 2014, we find ourselves inhabiting a Western welfare state, a pretty good one thank you very much. However, we need about a million more people to make things more interesting and fun. The coming year will bring endless nagging about our horrible government and the garbage Progressive Party. This will ultimately prove inconsequential, because the bourgeoisie will inevitably fall for whatever new hocus pocus tricks our rulers will come up with for the next elections. The year’s optimal outcome—since it’s not very realistic to imagine we’ll get an extra million people to Iceland by the end

Mag
Opinion
Shattered Conceptions

Shattered Conceptions

by

In 2014, we saw that politicians are not afraid to attack institutions and ideals that some of us had—naïvely, I admit—come to take for granted. We thought we all agreed to keep public radio alive; we thought we all wanted lower taxes on culture and healthy foods and a higher asking price for natural resources; we thought we were forever free to roam our own country; we thought we were kind and tolerant and peaceful and welcoming; we thought we had agreed to fight inequality and safeguard the communal; we even thought our politicians—also those we disagreed with—were mostly intelligent

Mag
Opinion
No Authority

No Authority

by

Unfortunately, I fear that 2014 will be remembered as the year when Iceland took a turn from being a Nordic welfare state, towards becoming a society marked by neoliberalism and harsh individualism. Iceland’s right-wing government is currently engaging in a full-scale attack on the foundations of the welfare system that has served as the backbone and unifying force of our society for decades. Our healthcare system is in grave danger, so much so that it may take years to repair the damage. Our upper secondary school system is further undermined by being closed off to those over the age of

Show Me More!