Child payments -cuts

sunnyside

Haven't heard many complaints about this yet. I agree with means testing childrens allowance, in my opinion if people choose to have children they should pay for them themselves.

Anyone else?

Redpunto

you say that to someone who has a few kids and they may suddenly be without child benefit?

BeanieBaby

The Early Childcare Lump Sum will be halved this summer and abolished by December.

What I'd like would be if they would stop paying the above and the children's allowance to those overseas. A significant sum of money is going overseas and there's no guarantee that the children being claimed for actually exist.

If my partner goes to work in the UK or France or whatever, I don't expect to be able to claim benefits for my kids if I stay home in Ireland with them.

jor el

Means testing children's allowance is a good idea, and far overdue, but Irish governments have a poor track record when it comes to setting the cut-off limit on means testing. I'll wait to see what figure they put on it.

The other thing he mentioned, was that they may choose to simply tax children's allowance, so it would be added to your income and then they'd take back maybe half of it in tax. This method would mean that those on a very low income may end up loosing a quarter of this allowance, where as those who have very high incomes (and don't even need it) would still keep half.

Cutoff limits have a tendency to absolutely screw the middle-income PAYE workers though, which is why I'd be against that method.

smelltheglove

I always treated the extra supplement as a bonus, I was shocked when it came in as I already felt like I got enough, and I was a single parent at the time. It has always been a bonus and I dont feel any loss at the cut even though our family need every penny we have.

I also would agree with the means test, child benefit is to help with the cost of children and if you dont need help you should not be getting it. There are many people who bank it for their children when they are older and it would be nice to be able to do that but at the end of the day if you can afford to be without it then you can mostly afford to give them a few quid when they are older.

Jamie-b

I agree with the posts so far but just to throw it out there, I thought extra payments for having children were to encourage people to have them? It might seem overly generous now, but when we are all pensioners some of the tax payers supporting us may not have been born without government support

Jamie-b

to clarify: (this was 2005)
Middle-class mothers in France could be paid up to €1,000 (£675) a month - almost the minimum wage - to stop work for a year and have a third child under a government scheme to boost the birthrate, already among the highest in Europe.

mamacita

Child benefit was originally introduced to guarantee some money in the purses of women who would ultimately guarantee the welfare of their children. For many, it is the only money they can be sure of getting. Most people I know use it to pay for child related stuff and nothing else. Having a negative attitude to giving this payment to families isn't very fair. You wouldn't ask smokers to supplement the cost of their inevitable healthcare.

JP Liz

Children's Allowance should have been means tested from the start.

I think condoms and birth control will have increased sales now in Ireland

I know many very wealthy people who claim childrens allowance and also people who dont live here who claim it

MonicaBing

A former employer of mine has a four yr old and a 2 yr old and both of their Child Benefit payments are paid into a bank account that mum & dad have NEVER touched, that i find fricking astonishing. They obviously are in no need of it whereas, i know people who juggle bills/put off buying kids shoes etc on the last week of the month as they know the Child Benefit's coming through the following week.

wolfpawnat

mamacita wrote: »

Child benefit was originally introduced to guarantee some money in the purses of women who would ultimately guarantee the welfare of their children. For many, it is the only money they can be sure of getting. Most people I know use it to pay for child related stuff and nothing else. Having a negative attitude to giving this payment to families isn't very fair. You wouldn't ask smokers to supplement the cost of their inevitable healthcare.

+1 Although I am not recieving any financial aid from my babys father (he's still in College and I have to take a year out) but I live in his family home, I cannot recieve the Single Parents Allowance so the only way I can finance nappies, colic medication, formula and tablets for his washing is to use the childrens allowance each month. I cannot afford to even waste a cent of it. I understand some parents are able to leave it to one side and thats great if you can do it but I can't. I would be in favour of the means testing.

smelltheglove

MonicaBing wrote: »

A former employer of mine has a four yr old and a 2 yr old and both of their Child Benefit payments are paid into a bank account that mum & dad have NEVER touched, that i find fricking astonishing. They obviously are in no need of it whereas, i know people who juggle bills/put off buying kids shoes etc on the last week of the month as they know the Child Benefit's coming through the following week.

And that is why the means test would be a good move. Today childrens allowance came in and i got shopping for the house as I hadnt the money with kids needing new shoes so badly, birthdays etc the last couple of weeks. I look at my nieces and nephews knowing that when they turn 18 they will get a nice chunk of money from all the childrens allowance that was saved, and what do I say to my kids, after spending 18 years struggling to give them what others take advantage of and then all of a sudden they are even more less off than their peers??? It is not fair at all, it should be for the kids that need it and not the ones in other countries.

MonicaBing

smelltheglove wrote: »

And that is why the means test would be a good move. Today childrens allowance came in and i got shopping for the house as I hadnt the money with kids needing new shoes so badly, birthdays etc the last couple of weeks. I look at my nieces and nephews knowing that when they turn 18 they will get a nice chunk of money from all the childrens allowance that was saved, and what do I say to my kids, after spending 18 years struggling to give them what others take advantage of and then all of a sudden they are even more less off than their peers??? It is not fair at all, it should be for the kids that need it and not the ones in other countries.

Too bloody right girl, i did the same thing, big shop in Aldi, got my eldest a new pair of trainers, he's a size bloody 9 at 14, got in some extra fuel and paid the refuse guys. Means testing would be the way to go, to ensure those who need it get it, and those who dont? Well yiz werent using it in the first place so what are ya bawbawing about!

Hobbes

sunnyside wrote: »

In my opinion if people choose to have children they should pay for them themselves.

I think I can safely say that you don't have any children. If you think that government subsidy somehow "pays for the children".

I know many very wealthy people who claim childrens allowance and also people who dont live here who claim it

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children/child_benefit

Those are the rules. I don't have an issue with the wealthy having children allowance if it is their right. The wealthy pay more taxes then you, so why not take money back for their children that is partly theirs to begin with? With the latter you mention I take it you actually reported them? If not your just as much part of the problem.

What people like the OP fail to realize is that our economy is linked to our population. It will be children now that will subsidize your pension when your old and gray. It will also be the workforce.

nesf

Child allowance should be means tested. The Early Childcare Supplement was never anything other than a boom-time excess. Honestly, I think the introduction of a year of free pre-school for kids as better for the kids than the ECS.


And yes I do have a kid and presently earn enough to lose Child allowance to means testing.

gcgirl

nesf wrote: »

Child allowance should be means tested. The Early Childcare Supplement was never anything other than a boom-time excess. Honestly, I think the introduction of a year of free pre-school for kids as better for the kids than the ECS.


And yes I do have a kid and presently earn enough to lose Child allowance to means testing.

Concerning the ECA Its a good way of avoiding having to pay for kids that live outside the state, We dont have any state run Platschools so i am intregue to see how it works?

meathstevie

nesf wrote: »

Child allowance should be means tested. The Early Childcare Supplement was never anything other than a boom-time excess. Honestly, I think the introduction of a year of free pre-school for kids as better for the kids than the ECS.


And yes I do have a kid and presently earn enough to lose Child allowance to means testing.

First of all, I think the meanstesting is a good idea provided that the limits set are realistic. Doing away with the ECS and replacing it with a years' subsidised pre-school is a good idea as well because the only thing that ever happened with the ECS was complete absorption by increased creche and pre-school fees.

carlybabe1

sunnyside wrote: »

Haven't heard many complaints about this yet. I agree with means testing childrens allowance, in my opinion if people choose to have children they should pay for them themselves.

Anyone else?

This kind of moronic crap really boils my piss. I am a mother I work and I have been working and paying MY taxes for the last twenty years. Your parents would have recieved this too until you turned 18, or 21 if you were in college. So tell me sunnyside, how many years have you been contributing to the countries coffers???? :mad:

sceptre

carlybabe1 wrote: »

So tell me sunnyside, how many years have you been contributing to the countries coffers???? :mad:

The way our tax system works, it doesn't particularly matter. It's not a mater of getting back what you put in, if we all did that we might as well just start building our own personal roads.

nesf

gcgirl wrote: »

Concerning the ECA Its a good way of avoiding having to pay for kids that live outside the state, We dont have any state run Platschools so i am intregue to see how it works?

I don't know, childcare costs vary a lot. It's something for working parents and something that could be extended later on if the economic situation improves.

carlybabe1

sceptre wrote: »

The way our tax system works, it doesn't particularly matter. It's not a mater of getting back what you put in, if we all did that we might as well just start building our own personal roads.

+1 thats exactly the point I wanted to make

gcgirl

If we look to other countries for example France You can actually sent your kids very affordable To playschool, The Closer to Dublin the Worse the price, Where my Youngest Is going costs 130 for 2 days a week per 4 week month! Where my son is going to they withdrew funding and finished in june and it was a brill playschool and i'd prefer that for my daughter!

DSN

MonicaBing wrote: »

A former employer of mine has a four yr old and a 2 yr old and both of their Child Benefit payments are paid into a bank account that mum & dad have NEVER touched, that i find fricking astonishing. They obviously are in no need of it whereas, i know people who juggle bills/put off buying kids shoes etc on the last week of the month as they know the Child Benefit's coming through the following week.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. to be honest we've never had to touch our sons CB to date we've put it away for his education or whatever, but by the same token will accept the means testing as money needs to be saved & people who need it & use it for the take care of their kids. I dont feel bad taking the CB & putting it away for my child, or for when we may need it (ie lose our jobs etc) we pay a hell of an amount on tax and far as i can see this is another way to get at the middle income paye worker and make them feel guilty for taking money off the state (never mind all those who were never off welfare & other benefits even through the boom times).

handsomecake

dont have childeren.
childeren are treated like attention getting post marriage accessories for some people.
then they crib when they have to pay for school/food etc.
the government didnt copulate with you.
as i said in another thread i would want to be on 140k a year combined with spouse minimum before i would consider a child
keep your knickers on for **** sake

MonicaBing

DSN wrote: »

Sounds like sour grapes to me. to be honest we've never had to touch our sons CB to date we've put it away for his education or whatever, but by the same token will accept the means testing as money needs to be saved & people who need it & use it for the take care of their kids. I dont feel bad taking the CB & putting it away for my child, or for when we may need it (ie lose our jobs etc) we pay a hell of an amount on tax and far as i can see this is another way to get at the middle income paye worker and make them feel guilty for taking money off the state (never mind all those who were never off welfare & other benefits even through the boom times).

Ferocious sorry to disappoint you there DSN but it's not sour grapes. I was merely stating a fact that was relevant to the OP and subsequent posts

gcgirl

England you buy a school uniform thats it ! Everything else is free,
Ireland should consider rejoining the Commonwealth!

foxy06

With regard to the early childcare supplement I was broke a few years ago and out of work and was able to send my son to a subsidised preschool for 15 Euro a week. It was government funded and my child was even fed while in the preschool.
I will now have to pay 80 euro a week and even though I am working now that is an awful jump. Instead of the early childcare supplement there should be subsidised preschools but not just for single mothers and unemployed people. People on lower incomes should be means tested for a preschool. I would be delighted to pay 40 or 50 euro a week but 80 is crazy and that seems to be the going rate in private childcare facilities.

tinner777

nesf wrote: »

Child allowance should be means tested. The Early Childcare Supplement was never anything other than a boom-time excess. Honestly, I think the introduction of a year of free pre-school for kids as better for the kids than the ECS.


And yes I do have a kid and presently earn enough to lose Child allowance to means testing.

funny that i thought it was brought in to make up for the piss poor provision of pre school creches etc..Helping out with the costs of baby sitters while parents returned to work. Just where will these pre-school places be? Its another easy target like the medical card but i suppose we wont be taking all our babies onto the streets to complain. I suppose most of you think we were spending the money on go faster stripes for the pram well like most of those above me mine was going on pampers, sudocream and bloody south doc!!!

i'm not happy, thats €3000 out of my pocket :mad::mad::mad:

dvpower

sunnyside wrote: »

Haven't heard many complaints about this yet. I agree with means testing childrens allowance, in my opinion if people choose to have children they should pay for them themselves.

So, would you do away with free primary and secondary education too?

JuliusCaesar

dvpower wrote: »

So, would you do away with free primary and secondary education too?

Yes, and Sunnyside won't need anyone else's children as doctors and nurses to look after him in his old age either......:rolleyes:

MoominPapa

Why not introduce tax relief on creche fees? It would target relief at those who need it and help to keep these businesses viable and workers in this sector in employment.

K-9

MoominPapa wrote: »

Why not introduce tax relief on creche fees? It would target relief at those who need it and help to keep these businesses viable and workers in this sector in employment.

That was the original plan until the SAHM Lobby got all cranky and the Govt. bottled it.

Demonique

mamacita wrote: »

You wouldn't ask smokers to supplement the cost of their inevitable healthcare.

Smokers are already paying for their healthcare, in the form of the taxation imposed on tobacco products

Heineken Helen

sunnyside wrote: »

Haven't heard many complaints about this yet. I agree with means testing childrens allowance, in my opinion if people choose to have children they should pay for them themselves.

Anyone else?

so if you choose to have a lifesaving operation you should pay for it yourself? Or if you choose to be unemployed you should pay for it yourself?

Don't be ridiculous... for the record I've no kids and don't want any... but there's no denying they add SOMETHING to this world (not least a future) and they're expensive little feckers.

Heineken Helen

foxy06 wrote: »

With regard to the early childcare supplement I was broke a few years ago and out of work and was able to send my son to a subsidised preschool for 15 Euro a week. It was government funded and my child was even fed while in the preschool.
I will now have to pay 80 euro a week and even though I am working now that is an awful jump. Instead of the early childcare supplement there should be subsidised preschools but not just for single mothers and unemployed people. People on lower incomes should be means tested for a preschool. I would be delighted to pay 40 or 50 euro a week but 80 is crazy and that seems to be the going rate in private childcare facilities.

Not trying to be smart (honestly) but why should unemployed get subsidised preschools? If you're not working, you can preschool your child yourself surely? I'm sorry... if it's for 'mental break' reasons I can see that. BUT I think parents spend little enough time with their kids as it is (not referring to you obviously cos I know nothing about you... but in general). Parents should be encouraged to stay at home or at least work part time while the kids are young... just in my opinion of course:o

carlybabe1

foxy06 wrote: »

With regard to the early childcare supplement I was broke a few years ago and out of work and was able to send my son to a subsidised preschool for 15 Euro a week. It was government funded and my child was even fed while in the preschool.
I will now have to pay 80 euro a week and even though I am working now that is an awful jump. Instead of the early childcare supplement there should be subsidised preschools but not just for single mothers and unemployed people. People on lower incomes should be means tested for a preschool. I would be delighted to pay 40 or 50 euro a week but 80 is crazy and that seems to be the going rate in private childcare facilities.

80 euros?are ye havin a laugh??? If I could have gotten a place for my kids at that rate I could have kept up college. I was payin over 1000 euro a month for 2 kids, one of whom was in school

Darkbloom

sunnyside wrote: »

Haven't heard many complaints about this yet. I agree with means testing childrens allowance, in my opinion if people choose to have children they should pay for them themselves.

Anyone else?

You think every child out there was planned? You're having a laugh.

Abortion's illegal, and contraception can fail. These things happen to normal people all the time.

gcgirl

carlybabe1 wrote: »

80 euros?are ye havin a laugh??? If I could have gotten a place for my kids at that rate I could have kept up college. I was payin over 1000 euro a month for 2 kids, one of whom was in school

It really depends on the area The nearer to Dublin the worse! In Greystones my Friend is paying 450 amonth for 5 morning every 4 weeks! If i sent my DD 5 mornings it would cost me 320 per every 4 weeks in Wicklow Town!

gcgirl

Darkbloom wrote: »

You think every child out there was planned? You're having a laugh.

Abortion's illegal, and contraception can fail. These things happen to normal people all the time.

Your also Forgetting the Catholic Guilt part !!lol

Darkbloom

gcgirl wrote: »

Your also Forgetting the Catholic Guilt part !!lol

Incidentally, my boyfriend laughed pretty long and hard at your assertation that raising children in England is "free".

Max Power1

i cant see any logical reason that people would be opposed to child benefit being means tested. this is how it should have been since its inception (pun intended). It is ridiculous that everyone regardless of income recives the same benefit amount.

tinner777

Darkbloom wrote: »

Incidentally, my boyfriend laughed pretty long and hard at your assertation that raising children in England is "free".

not free but not having to pay €50 for every trip to the dr is a great start

Darkbloom

tinner777 wrote: »

not free but not having to pay €50 for every trip to the dr is a great start

True, but the cost of childcare more than makes up for it.

gcgirl

Darkbloom wrote: »

Incidentally, my boyfriend laughed pretty long and hard at your assertation that raising children in England is "free".

I am going off what a parent where my son goes to playschool and her experience was compaired to over here, You do got to hand it to the English !!

Darkbloom

gcgirl wrote: »

I am going off what a parent where my son goes to playschool and her experience was compaired to over here, You do got to hand it to the English !!

Wow, what a great basis to form a generalisation on!

Clearly these facts are false.(link)

Welease

MonicaBing wrote: »

A former employer of mine has a four yr old and a 2 yr old and both of their Child Benefit payments are paid into a bank account that mum & dad have NEVER touched, that i find fricking astonishing. They obviously are in no need of it whereas, i know people who juggle bills/put off buying kids shoes etc on the last week of the month as they know the Child Benefit's coming through the following week.

Why is it so astonishing?

We do that for our kids.. sad to be losing the college saving plan we had for them (or if they didnt go to college then a decent amount of cash to get them started in life), but hey..

I do think it should be means tested, but lets not go overboard on the "people who don't need it".. The people who "don't need it" are more likely to have gotten off there arses, than a lot of the people in this country, they are more like to have taken education seriously and worked hard to earn that money, and a result pay a lot more tax than those who "need" it. Given the vast majority of middle incomes should'nt need it and the majority of tax would come from middle incomes, it's their money that is funding this.. hardly astonishing that they should be able to keep some of what they worked hard to earn..

gcgirl

Darkbloom wrote: »

Wow, what a great basis to form a generalisation on!

Clearly these facts are false.(link)

She lived there for the best part of her life in London and over here your talking 300/400 before they even set foot in the classroom in September then there is Art/craft materals money has to be in the first week of september then you have to hand up a small amount of money each week!!

Quartet

mamacita wrote: »

Child benefit was originally introduced to guarantee some money in the purses of women who would ultimately guarantee the welfare of their children. For many, it is the only money they can be sure of getting. Most people I know use it to pay for child related stuff and nothing else. Having a negative attitude to giving this payment to families isn't very fair. You wouldn't ask smokers to supplement the cost of their inevitable healthcare.

I was raised by an abusive mother who never once spent a penny of childrens allowance (Benefit) on any of her children...what guarantee is there that parents dont use this payment for drinking or otherwise spending it on themselves. I believe child payment should be in the form of redeamable vouchers not cash....

KittyeeTrix

gcgirl wrote: »

She lived there for the best part of her life in London and over here your talking 300/400 before they even set foot in the classroom in September then there is Art/craft materals money has to be in the first week of september then you have to hand up a small amount of money each week!!

Tell me about it

I had 4 kids in primary school at one time together and each september I had to hand in 40 euro per child for arts and crafts.....160 euro for bloody painting...
Christ almighty, they should have a wing of the National Art Gallery dedicated to their work by now:D

esharknz

Max Power1 wrote: »

i cant see any logical reason that people would be opposed to child benefit being means tested. this is how it should have been since its inception (pun intended). It is ridiculous that everyone regardless of income recives the same benefit amount.

All I hope is that the limit doesn't get set too low in that deserving families don't miss out on much needed payments.

My parents (I'm not from Ireland) were in receipt of a universal child benefit for 5 children, and ended up being cut by the government as apparently my parents were "too rich" to receive it (laughable).

All I can say is that it wasn't exactly easy financially for my family (eg. often enough we'd be served scones for dinner as there just wasn't any money left in the kitty, few pieces of clothing etc). I was often the target of other children's cruel jokes as well as my parents simply couldn't afford what theirs could.

TheQueen

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

Tell me about it

I had 4 kids in primary school at one time together and each september I had to hand in 40 euro per child for arts and crafts.....160 euro for bloody painting...
Christ almighty, they should have a wing of the National Art Gallery dedicated to their work by now:D

:):)