A Grapevine service announcement Pay attention: Holuhraun, still spewing lava. Bárðarbunga, still sinking.

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(); ?>

‘You’ve Got To Be Firm With These People’

by

Against Container-Prejudices Eygló Harðardóttir, Welfare Minister on behalf of the Progressive party, wrote a blog post last week, titled ‘Container-prejudices’. Whereas the title might seem to involve an elaborate new metaphor, leading an optimist reader to hope that the Minister might finally publicly counter the xenophobic agenda of other party members, that is not the case. The title is quite literal: the post is about alleged prejudices against containers as a housing solution. Containers are already used as homeless shelters in Reykjavík and more will soon be placed at Landspítali, the National University Hospital of Iceland’s premises, accommodating new offices

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Hello! I Must Be Going!

by

To forge a synthesis: Last week, as evident in what follows, citizens of the volcano-plagued republic seem to have mainly wondered which things should be allowed entrance into their country and which should rather be kept out: should meat-products from elsewhere be allowed? How about people from elsewhere? How about only the best people from elsewhere? If locally produced people are supposed to stay, then who is supposed to accommodate them? How can the country attract all the best people and still get rid of all the ‘good people’? Should books stay or go? Last but not least: is there

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Letter To UNESCO

by

Dear UNESCO, It was a great honour when Reykjavik became a UNESCO City of Literature in 2011 and we Icelanders are very proud to be counted as one amongst seven amazing cities carrying this title. Realising this is not a temporary title, but a title for keeps which carries a certain recognition and prestige, we have become apprehensive about it and would therefore like to bring a few points to your attention. In a new budget proposal, the present Icelandic government has proposed to raise the sales tax (VAT) on books from 7% up to 12%. The immediate and obvious

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Everything Counts

by

Statistics Iceland (SI) raised a few eyebrows when the institution announced that it would as of September include estimates of various illegal activities when calculating Iceland’s GDP and balance of payments. Drug trafficking, smuggling and prostitution are now included among the more “traditional” industries in the state’s official GPD calculations, a move that SI claims will increase Iceland’s GDP by 0.47%. Understandably, the institution’s announcement generated a loud “whaaat!?!?” across social media, as people attempted to make sense of this unexpected addition to the Icelandic economy. It just made no sense! Why would the statistics bureau be interested in boosting

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

So What’s This Faroese Ship I Keep Hearing About?

by

The Faroese trawler ‘Næraberg’ was fishing for mackerel in Greenlandic waters when its engine suffered a malfunction. As the Icelandic Coast Guard was best situated to help, it sent a plane out to the trawler with spare engine parts, which it dropped in a parachute. The Faroese crew retrieved them in a dinghy and went to work repairing the engine. Another lovely story of cooperation in the North Atlantic Ocean, where hard men with soft hearts help each other survive. After the attempted repairs, the engine could only produce a fraction of normal power. The ship set course for Iceland.

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Nuke The Middle-East, Give Up On Iceland

by

Today, Monday, Professor Hannes Hólmsteinn Gissurarson, the Icelandic neoliberal experiment’s chief ideologue since the late 1970’s, recommends that the Icelandic right wing draw a lesson from the Swedish election results, as well as the rise of Britain’s UKIP, and uphold stronger xenophobic policies: “struggle against immigration and sever the ties to the EU”. Teacher, journalist and right-wing pundit Páll Vilhjálmsson wrote a blog post titled ‘Nuclear bombs are Christian‘ suggesting that the West nuke parts of the Middle-East to teach its inhabitants a lesson. “The rise in militant muslims in this part of the world will sooner rather than later

Show Me More!