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
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo: Part IX] Earlier this year, a free-trade agreement between Iceland and China took effect. Iceland is the first, and so far the only, European country to make such an arrangement with the People’s Republic of. No one knows what that means. Literally no one. Perhaps some politicians, administrative staff or business managers think they do: they probably have some rough estimates about the agreement’s effects on our GDP, and at some point may have read an article or two about whether or not China has any imperial ambitions in the arctic. By and large, they would seem

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo: Part VIII] Combined, these faults admittedly sound like the joke about that restaurant: two friends go out for dinner; one complains that the food tastes terrible to which the other replies: yes, and the portions are way too small. The like-button is probably the greatest invention since the billboard, and just as inattentive to thinking. Facebook is fast, whereas most sources seem to agree that depth is slow. If Facebook is the way we converse and, thereby, think, then yes, our culture is probably pretty shallow. Our, as in: yours too, wherever you are from. We are

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo: Part VII] Which brings us back to Facebook. You may or may not know that a government agency called Promote Iceland has based whole marketing campaigns on encouraging the country’s inhabitants to employ social media to lure visitors. If those plans received any criticism at all, most of that probably appeared as Facebook posts, which were then drowned in more life-affirming messages. Nonetheless, debates take place on Facebook. If an interesting article appears elsewhere, whether on Starafugl or in Fréttablaðið, Facebook is still where most of the following debate will take place. Facebook is a radically new

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo: Part VI] The most recent attempt to create a common venue for cultural commentary and debate is Starafugl, a website started and edited by author Eiríkur Örn Norðdahl. It’s been around since last winter. As I have been involved in various ways, I am liable to be considered biased when I claim that Starafugl has had a convincing first few months. I claim it, all the same. Starafugl ran into trouble a few weeks back, when it received its first ever invoice. The invoice charged Starafugl for a photograph, that had been used to illustrate an article

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo: Part V] Radio program Víðsjá, run by state broadcaster RÚV, is in fact a tower within Iceland’s cultural panopticon. Which might serve as a translation for the program’s name. It reports on events and publications, and leaves space for commentary, which at times has been among the best you’ll find: inspired and grounded, informed and enlightening, at times romantic, courageous when needed. Incidentally, if I’m not mistaken, radio host Eiríkur Guðmundsson, often credited for having made the program what it is, was also a student of the aforementioned Matthías Viðar. Notwithstanding repeated downsizing of RÚV programming, the

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Make Yourself at Home

by

Air-bnb has announced its future vision —and a new logo. Supposedly composed from a heart, a location marker and the letter A, the logo has already been the target of much ridicule, needless to repeat here. The logo is not the point. One of the its main virtues, according to the company’s announcement, is that it is easy to draw. This serves a function: people all over the world are offered to draw the logo on just about anything they are willing to share for a fee. As the company’s statement says, Air-bnb is not just about sharing spaces, but

Show Me More!