March for Child Benefit

cashew

Join a march on 19th September in Dublin to protest against any changes to child benefit!

Meet at 1pm at Parnell Square North, Dublin 1 on Saturday 19th September to save child benefit.

This march is being organised by Protest Against Child Unfriendly Budget (PACUB) in association with Alliance Against Cuts.

Bring partners, children, grandparents, aunts, uncles - all are welcome!

Visit www.childbenefit.info for further information

Redpunto

Good idea - first ive heard of it though

Agent Smith

How about if parents got The same in Vouchers for Childrens clothes/ food / eduction?

i never liked the idea of cash as a child benifit.

rannerap

il be there for this anyway!

Koloman

cashew wrote: »

Join a march on 19th September in Dublin to protest against any changes to child benefit!

Meet at 1pm at Parnell Square North, Dublin 1 on Saturday 19th September to save child benefit.

This march is being organised by Protest Against Child Unfriendly Budget (PACUB) in association with Alliance Against Cuts.

Bring partners, children, grandparents, aunts, uncles - all are welcome!

Visit www.childbenefit.info for further information

But with the country broke everyone is going to have to take a hit. There has to be some sort of overhaul in this area whether it's a system of means testing or taxing the payment unfortunately.

It can't be right that whether you are a millionaire or a pauper that you get the same allowance.

Redpunto

Koloman wrote: »

But with the country broke everyone is going to have to take a hit. There has to be some sort of overhaul in this area whether it's a system of means testing or taxing the payment unfortunately.

It can't be right that whether you are a millionaire or a pauper that you get the same allowance.

the high earners wont give a toss - its the middle income earners who always take the brunt of the governements "great" schemes.

Koloman

There was a report today in the UK about means testing or scrapping altogether the allowance over there so it's not just our government who are thinking along similar lines.

Can you imagine the uproar in this country if the report below was implemented here!

http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/report-calls-for-pound50bn-public-spending-cut/?no_cache=1

WaltKowalski

I am not a mother.

I will hopefully work my whole life and pay tax and prsi on my income. After 40 - 45 years of working, I will (hopefully) receive a contributory old age pension - which will be taxed (as it is at the moment).

Child Benefit was introduced at a time when mothers didn't work, when there wasn't the same status between men and women in relationships as there is now and when a lot of fathers could not be depended upon to give the mothers of their children financial assistance.

The Child Benefit system needs a total overhaul.

Greyfox

Koloman wrote: »

But with the country broke everyone is going to have to take a hit. There has to be some sort of overhaul in this area whether it's a system of means testing or taxing the payment unfortunately.

It can't be right that whether you are a millionaire or a pauper that you get the same allowance.

Couldn't agree more, well said!

Vanhalla

for **** sake. will ye quit striking. everyone has to take a cut. cop on.
i was in at my pharmacist the other day and was asking him is he dispensing now under the medical card scheme. he said yes , that he had to take a cut like everyone else.
this country is full of greedy ****ers!

blondie7

give me one good reason why people should get child benefit? why should my taxes pay for your kids?

Lockstep

I'm a filthy socialist and I see no reason why child benefit should be cast iron.



We should definetely have child benefit; it's part of the social contract in the society to ensure the state undertakes to promote children and make things easier on their families, achknowledging the importance of raising a child etc etc.


But it should definetely be taxed based on the families overall income (means testing would be too expensive), the CB is meant to be used to help rear the child, not used to pay for luxuries.

blondie7

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'm a filthy socialist and I see no reason why child benefit should be cast iron.



We should definetely have child benefit; it's part of the social contract in the society to ensure the state undertakes to promote children and make things easier on their families, achknowledging the importance of raising a child etc etc.


But it should definetely be taxed based on the families overall income (means testing would be too expensive), the CB is meant to be used to help rear the child, not used to pay for luxuries.

if you make the decision to have a child you should be able to support that child both financially, emotionally etc. im sick of people getting everything for nothing from the state (and im not refering to all people on the dole im refering to people who have always been a dolie, never working a day and getting everything handed to them) i say scrap single mothers allowance, child benefit and everything that goes with them!!

Lockstep

blondie7 wrote: »

if you make the decision to have a child you should be able to support that child both financially, emotionally etc.

Circumstances change. Because you had a job at the time you had a kid does not mean you will always have that.

blondie7 wrote: »

im sick of people getting everything for nothing from the state (and im not refering to all people on the dole im refering to people who have always been a dolie, never working a day and getting everything handed to them) i say scrap single mothers allowance, child benefit and everything that goes with them!!

You make it sound as if there are vast swathes of people living off the dole and never contributing to it in their lives.

kumate_champ07

what about dropping the benefit payments and providing free school uniforms,free school meals, a tracksuit and pair of runners for sport.
would this work out cheaper?

SarahSassy

Koloman wrote: »

But with the country broke everyone is going to have to take a hit. There has to be some sort of overhaul in this area whether it's a system of means testing or taxing the payment unfortunately.

It can't be right that whether you are a millionaire or a pauper that you get the same allowance.

+ 1

I certainly dont agree that everyone should get child benefit. The bulk of people I know who get it put it in a savings account for the child i.e. dont need it.

I dont have kids but do have an issue with my hard earned €€'s going towards a holiday for a family and / or someone elses childs college education (my parents had to pay for mine)

This country makes it too easy for people to have kids and not to have to work to support them.

SarahSassy

blondie7 wrote: »

if you make the decision to have a child you should be able to support that child both financially, emotionally etc. im sick of people getting everything for nothing from the state (and im not refering to all people on the dole im refering to people who have always been a dolie, never working a day and getting everything handed to them) i say scrap single mothers allowance, child benefit and everything that goes with them!!

+1

dotsman

Why is this posted in the ladies lounge? Does the OP think that this subject only applies to women?

Back on topic, I think that Child benefit should be scrapped. It serves no purpose! The whole concept of taxes is that everybody contributes (proportionally) to pay for state-wide benefits that no one individual could provide such as roads, policing, education, health etc.

Why should peoples taxes be used to pay someone for getting knocked up? No one should ever plan to have a baby unless they can fully afford to provide for the child's upbringing. In reply to kickoutthejams point about personal situations changing, yes this may be the case, but a responsible person will have insurance/savings to cater for most unforeseen events. And with regards unplanned pregnancies, I think there would be far fewer teenagers pushing prams down Talbot street if they weren't receiving a salary for doing so.

One of the biggest problems with child benefit is that it is a cash payment with no conditions attached.

• Some receive who have no need for it. Does this mean they should get nothing? Hardly, why should they be punished/left out for being responsible?
• Some receive it who don't spend it on what it is intended and instead pays for the parents "social life".
• Others do find it very useful and use it as intended. But there is another way that these people, and society, can both benefit.

Rather than pay cash to people for having babies, this money should be spent on education, policing (primarily dealing with young offenders and trying to get them back on track), social services for children who are in terrible situations at home, health services for children etc. That way, it is all children who benefit and ultimately society benefits.

If the government are spending money on something that doesn't benefit society, then they should stop and return the money to the taxpayers.

Lockstep

dotsman wrote: »

Back on topic, I think that Child benefit should be scrapped. It serves nopurpose!
The whole concept of taxes is that everybody contributes (proportionally) to pay for state-wide benefits that no one individual could provide such as roads, policing, education, health etc.

It means the State achknowledges the impact having kids has on our future.

We have a pretty aging population and we need to start having more kids to work and pay taxes for our welfare state to continue to provide for us as we grow older.

Raising kids is tough enough and child benefit gives a helping hand to achknowledge this.

dotsman wrote: »

Why should peoples taxes be used to pay someone for getting knocked up? No one should ever plan to have a baby unless they can fully afford to provide for the child's upbringing.

I don't think childbirth should be something reserved for only the rich (as they have less kids anyway) but that's just me.

dotsman wrote: »

In reply to kickoutthejams point about personal situations changing, yes this may be the case, but a responsible person will have insurance/savings to cater for most unforeseen events. And with regards unplanned pregnancies, I think there would be far fewer teenagers pushing prams down Talbot street if they weren't receiving a salary for doing so.

We're in a recession now mate; it'd be impossible for someone to have planned for this, or for someone to have saved enough to raise kids on the long term just via savings.

dotsman wrote: »

One of the biggest problems with child benefit is that it is a cash payment with no conditions attached.

• Some receive who have no need for it. Does this mean they should get nothing? Hardly, why should they be punished/left out for being responsible?
• Some receive it who don't spend it on what it is intended and instead pays for the parents "social life".
• Others do find it very useful and use it as intended. But there is another way that these people, and society, can both benefit.

Rather than pay cash to people for having babies, this money should be spent on education, policing (primarily dealing with young offenders and trying to get them back on track), social services for children who are in terrible situations at home, health services for children etc. That way, it is all children who benefit and ultimately society benefits.

If the government are spending money on something that doesn't benefit society, then they should stop and return the money to the taxpayers.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying; child benefit should not be provided to those who have no need of it and should not be used to pay for holidays or dance classes. Which is why I favour it being taxed; those who need it get it and those who are wealthy enough already will have it added to their income to be taxed.

Max Power1

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You make it sound as if there are vast swathes of people living off the dole and never contributing to it in their lives.

Been to Ballymun lately?

Lockstep

Max Power1 wrote: »

Been to Ballymun lately?

Not since March. You?

c4cat

SarahSassy wrote: »

+ 1

I certainly dont agree that everyone should get child benefit. The bulk of people I know who get it put it in a savings account for the child i.e. dont need it.

I dont have kids but do have an issue with my hard earned €€'s going towards a holiday for a family and / or someone elses childs college education (my parents had to pay for mine)

This country makes it too easy for people to have kids and not to have to work to support them.

Your parents did not get any child benefit for yourself then? which helped to contribute to your own education............as a child, money was given by the then taxpayer for your benefit but you as today's tax payer disagree with paying towards todays children who will as future taxpayer will contribute to tomorrow's children.

I agree that high earners should not get child benefit and that it should be awarded based on income where it would really be a benefit

dotsman

kickoutthejams wrote: »

It means the State achknowledges the impact having kids has on our future.

We have a pretty aging population and we need to start having more kids to work and pay taxes for our welfare state to continue to provide for us as we grow older.

Firstly, I have no desire whatsoever for our Welfare state to continue. Secondly, not all kids grow up to contribute to society. In fact there will be some who, for their entire lives will be a drain in society. As can be seen today, many welfare kids grow up to be welfare parents. Rather than encouraging this, it should be made clear to prospective parents that they need to be the primary providers for their children - not the state.

I will be providing my own pension (not lucky enough to work in the public sector;)). I will be entitled to the state contributory pension, but I'll be damned if I survive on just that. I will work hard, earn my money, save my money, invest my money and take care of myself and my family. All the time, I will be paying taxes to support those who don't.

The 'I' in PRSI is for Insurance. That means it is there should a disaster happen to you. It should not be a planned livelihood. To be honest, it really needs to be privatised.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Raising kids is tough enough and child benefit gives a helping hand to achknowledge this.

I agree that it's tough enough. But throwing cash at the problem (the solution for everything according to our great socialists) is not going to help with anything. Instead, providing better schools, safer streets, more recreation/sports facilities will have a far bigger impact in raising educated, disciplined, ambitious kids.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I don't think childbirth should be something reserved for only the rich (as they have less kids anyway) but that's just me.

It's got nothing to do with being rich. As long as the parents have even a modest income, they can provide for their children if the state provide the proper education/justice/health services.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

We're in a recession now mate; it'd be impossible for someone to have planned for this, or for someone to have saved enough to raise kids on the long term just via savings.

Many people did plan for this. They didn't go throwing their cash around for the past decade and saved/invested it. Some chose careers that are safer, but less well paid, in the event of this happening. Others ensured that they were the best educated/skilled/experienced and enjoyed an high reputation in their profession to help prevent losing their job or taking a massive pay cut.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I agree with the gist of what you're saying; child benefit should not be provided to those who have no need of it and should not be used to pay for holidays or dance classes. Which is why I favour it being taxed; those who need it get it and those who are wealthy enough already will have it added to their income to be taxed.

You "agree with the gist of what I said" but then focused on one point whereby you went on a barrage of socialist "let's steal from the rich to give to the poor"!

My point is that the benefit should not be specific to the child/parent, but that all children and all society should benefit equally, regardless of whether the parents are rich or poor. By providing services/facilities to all in lieu of cash, this can be easily arranged.

Lockstep

dotsman wrote: »

Firstly, I have no desire whatsoever for our Welfare state to continue.

Ok, start up a Libertarian party.
Unlikely to have much impact though; the vast majority of Irish people vote for parties which guarantee a welfare state, albeit in different forms.

dotsman wrote: »

Secondly, not all kids grow up to contribute to society. In fact there will be some who, for their entire lives will be a drain in society. As can be seen today, many welfare kids grow up to be welfare parents. Rather than encouraging this, it should be made clear to prospective parents that they need to be the primary providers for their children - not the state.

Grand so; can you source this claim? Beyond saying "many welfare kids" of course.
While I agree there are those who will grow up to not work, I am sceptical that they exist in large enough numbers for your claim to be relevant.

dotsman wrote: »

I will be providing my own pension (not lucky enough to work in the public sector;)). I will be entitled to the state contributory pension, but I'll be damned if I survive on just that. I will work hard, earn my money, save my money, invest my money and take care of myself and my family. All the time, I will be paying taxes to support those who don't.

Yes but there's less and less kids being born (our fecundity rate in 2008 was 1.85) Added to this is that we are living longer and longer with a lower mortality rate so there will be increasingly fewer people working to support a society which lives increasingly longer.
You will still be likely to rely on the gardai, roads, fire brigade etc in the future but there will be far less people working to support this.

dotsman wrote: »

The 'I' in PRSI is for Insurance. That means it is there should a disaster happen to you. It should not be a planned livelihood. To be honest, it really needs to be privatised.

I'm curious; how would a privatised social insurance scheme work?
Sounds pretty dodgy as it would be hard to make profitable, meaning I'd be disinclined to trust it to be run equitably.

dotsman wrote: »

I agree that it's tough enough. But throwing cash at the problem (the solution for everything according to our great socialists) is not going to help with anything. Instead, providing better schools, safer streets, more recreation/sports facilities will have a far bigger impact in raising educated, disciplined, ambitious kids.

For a single child it's €41.50 per kid, per week. Which increases if you have more kids (fair enough really; increasing the number of kids you have is a great way to raise the fecundity rate)
I'd hardly see such a contribution as throwing cash at the problem (especially if it gets taxed onto the parent's income ensuring that it doesn't go to those who have enough money already)

dotsman wrote: »

It's got nothing to do with being rich. As long as the parents have even a modest income, they can provide for their children if the state provide the proper education/justice/health services.

Fair enough; but it does penalise those who are poorer. I'm really sceptical of the idea that even a significant minority of poor people live off nothing but the dole and making things harder for them to raise their kids.

Another factor is that wealth can have a factor in having less kids; for example if a woman works full time, her family will have more money but she would be less likely to have kids. On top of this, a larger family reduces the resources parents can spend on each individual child.

Child benefit isn't about throwing money at the problem; it's the State making an effort to help in the raising of kids and providing some cash to offset the costs, knowing how important kids are to the future of our state.

dotsman wrote: »

Many people did plan for this. They didn't go throwing their cash around for the past decade and saved/invested it. Some chose careers that are safer, but less well paid, in the event of this happening. Others ensured that they were the best educated/skilled/experienced and enjoyed an high reputation in their profession to help prevent losing their job or taking a massive pay cut.

We're in a recession which by all accounts is going to last a long time and with people being laid off left right and centre; with the sheer amount of people who are now on the dole, I find it hard to believe that they will be capable of sustaining themselves on savings and investment for long owing to the harshness of finding jobs comparable to the cost of raising their own families in the current climate.
Savings get eaten up fairly quickly.

At any rate, I don't believe in making things harder for kids because of the sins of the parents.

dotsman wrote: »

You "agree with the gist of what I said" but then focused on one point whereby you went on a barrage of socialist "let's steal from the rich to give to the poor"!

Three lines summarising my viewpoint is a barrage?
Righto.
I agree with the gist of what you say; that the state should focus on schools, sports clubs etc/that some who recieve it have no need for it (I agreed child benefit should be taxed)

I refer you to my point above; we, like many industrialised countries have an increasingly aging population.

dotsman wrote: »

My point is that the benefit should not be specific to the child/parent, but that all children and all society should benefit equally, regardless of whether the parents are rich or poor. By providing services/facilities to all in lieu of cash, this can be easily arranged.

As nice as sports centres and shiny schools are to kids, far more important are food, shelter and parents who are able to spend time with them without needing to run to a second job. Child benefit goes in this direction.

metrovelvet

When did child benefit start in Ireland?

Would it be fair to say that most people here on this thread growing up benefited from it?

Stheno

metrovelvet wrote: »

When did child benefit start in Ireland?

1944 for the third qualified child initially

See http://books.google.ie/books?id=_-9KW6PrbM8C&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=when+was+children's+allowance+introduced+in+ireland&source=bl&ots=jDyLeAY9Gz&sig=UmRuez9jIrQMoNVAeXhgpCpEdR0&hl=en&ei=DR6sSonkK-KhjAeD-LTZBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Would it be fair to say that most people here on this thread growing up benefited from it?

It would be fairer to say that the parents of any people on here who were born post 1944 recieved the allowance, current rates can be found here

Max Power1

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Not since March. You?

Yes actually. I was last there visiting friends a week ago. The amount of dole scroungers getting rent allowance/a free house, and also child benfit, the dole, lone parent allowance and also the basic JA, is sickening. Its enough to show anyone why the dole should be cut and also subject to more fraud random checks.

Lockstep

Max Power1 wrote: »

Yes actually. I was last there visiting friends a week ago. The amount of dole scroungers getting rent allowance/a free house, and also child benfit, the dole, lone parent allowance and also the basic JA, is sickening. Its enough to show anyone why the dole should be cut and also subject to more fraud random checks.

Strange, when I was there, it seemed much more modernised.
I was doing a fair bit of volunteer work when I was living in Ireland, never saw enough scroungers to make things harder on everyone.


Any stats to show how many dole scroungers there are?

Because you saw a few dole scroungers on the streets doesn't seem like enough evidence to cut it for everyone (same way that a few bogus asylum seekers doesn't mean we should shut them all out)
Especially now that this is a time when jobs are going across the board.

Guy:Incognito

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Circumstances change. Because you had a job at the time you had a kid does not mean you will always have that.
.

But yet the payment is made from day 1 regardless.

Lockstep

Stekelly wrote: »

But yet the payment is made from day 1 regardless.

Aye; but he was compaining about people having kids without having the resources to raise them.

You'll hardly be able to rear a kid on €41.50 a week.

Guy:Incognito

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You'll hardly be able to rear a kid on €41.50 a week.

No, but a lot could be done for €41.50 x the amount of kids in the country


If 10,000 people dont need childrens allownace for their kids thats 415,000 every week.

Lockstep

Well I have said repeatedly that I favour children's allowance being taxed with the parent's income.

Dyr

Max Power1 wrote: »

Yes actually. I was last there visiting friends a week ago. The amount of dole scroungers getting rent allowance/a free house, and also child benfit, the dole, lone parent allowance and also the basic JA, is sickening.

Awesome that you managed to gather all that from just visiting your buddies.

Atwork

SarahSassy wrote: »

+ 1

I certainly dont agree that everyone should get child benefit. The bulk of people I know who get it put it in a savings account for the child i.e. dont need it.

I dont have kids but do have an issue with my hard earned €€'s going towards a holiday for a family and / or someone elses childs college education (my parents had to pay for mine)

Your parents may have paid for your college education but they probably also received child benifit payments on your behalf.

cch

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Well I have said repeatedly that I favour children's allowance being taxed with the parent's income.

How do you suggest that's done without discriminating against married couples? The SW consider cohabiting couples together, the Revenue don't. So say there's two families with two kids and similar salaries, and the only difference is that one set of parents aren't married to each other, should they get more Child Benefit because only one salary is taken into account for means testing, not two?? Seems like a total logistical nightmare to manage anyway, would lead to loads of people working the system ("no, we don't live together, honest!") and they're not going to change to rules as that would remove the "special" tax breaks married people get.
Need a third alternative, just not sure what that could be...

seahorse

I have always thought that CB should be paid on a downward sliding scale. e.g. €125 for the first child, €100 for the second etc, €75 for the third etc. The fact that it's paid on an upward scale is the reason, I believe, why some women make a career out of single-parenthood. I'm not talking about impressionable teenaged girls here; I'm talking about grown women (including one I know) pushing out their fifth and sixth kids well into their late thirties.

I'm a parent but I wouldnt dream of going on that march because I feel the CB system is badly in need of reform.

Lockstep

cch wrote: »

How do you suggest that's done without discriminating against married couples? The SW consider cohabiting couples together, the Revenue don't. So say there's two families with two kids and similar salaries, and the only difference is that one set of parents aren't married to each other, should they get more Child Benefit because only one salary is taken into account for means testing, not two?? Seems like a total logistical nightmare to manage anyway, would lead to loads of people working the system ("no, we don't live together, honest!") and they're not going to change to rules as that would remove the "special" tax breaks married people get.
Need a third alternative, just not sure what that could be...

Presumably, the child benefit would go to the parent who has legal custody of the child.

In the case you gave, assuming the unmarried couple have joint custody then they'd get the same child benefit as the unmarried couple.

seahorse wrote: »

I have always thought that CB should be paid on a downward sliding scale. e.g. €125 for the first child, €100 for the second etc, €75 for the third etc. The fact that it's paid on an upward scale is the reason, I believe, why some women make a career out of single-parenthood. I'm not talking about impressionable teenaged girls here; I'm talking about grown women (including one I know) pushing out their fifth and sixth kids well into their late thirties.

I'm a parent but I wouldnt dream of going on that march because I feel the CB system is badly in need of reform.

AFAIK, the reason being to encourage having more kids, like most European countries, we're facing the problem of an aging population. We traditionally had a high fecundity rate and we certainly wouldn't be facing the same kind of problem Italy does, but are facing the problem of having less kids being born to work and support more people who are retired and living longer.

Agree with you on the need for child benefit reform.

cch

kickoutthejams wrote: »

In the case you gave, assuming the unmarried couple have joint custody then they'd get the same child benefit as the married couple.

(Fixed the second last word)
Then that would mean that unmarried couples are jointly assessed for tax purposes which doesn't happen at the moment (if one half of an unmarried couple is unemployed they can't transfer their tax credits to the other, unlike married couples) and would probably require a referendum to remove the special status of the family from the constitution to allow it, which is never going to happen as there's no way any politician would ever suggest it.

Lockstep

cch wrote: »

(Fixed the second last word)

Pedantic, but ok. You were aware of what I meant.

cch wrote: »

Then that would mean that unmarried couples are jointly assessed for tax purposes which doesn't happen at the moment (if one half of an unmarried couple is unemployed they can't transfer their tax credits to the other, unlike married couples)

Well we are talking theoretics at the minute; taxation of CB doesn't happen at the moment either.

cch wrote: »

would probably require a referendum to remove the special status of the family from the constitution to allow it, which is never going to happen as there's no way any politician would ever suggest it.

Article 41 refers to "the family", we have a pretty updated view on what constitutes a family these days.

It does note that the family is founded upon marriage but this would be easy enough for judicial intepretation to get around, given that it's obvious that today's Irish society includes single parent families.

cch

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Article 41 refers to "the family", we have a pretty updated view on what constitutes a family these days.

It does note that the family is founded upon marriage but this would be easy enough for judicial intepretation to get around, given that it's obvious that today's Irish society includes single parent families.

I am not a lawyer, but I wouldn't be confident it would be that simple! Surely someone would have challenged the tax credit transfer issue by now if it was. They can't even get the finger out for civil partnerships or the proposed referendum on childrens' rights (details escape me at the moment, was a long weekend ) as they know any public debate on these issues is devisive and gets ugly as it brings the loonies out on all sides, so the head-in-the-sand, isn't-everything-grand approach continues. Look at the Irish "solution" to abortion as a prime example.

Max Power1

Bambi wrote: »

Awesome that you managed to gather all that from just visiting your buddies.

Its amazing - this art that we have developed called communication! It allows us to interact with others to obtain information.

Lockstep

cch wrote: »

I am not a lawyer, but I wouldn't be confident it would be that simple!

You'd be surprised how much leeway judges have in interpreting the Constitution.
The Irish Constitution is stuck in the past in many ways, so judicial interpretation is part and parcel of ensuring we're not lumped with a document from 1937 without needing expensive referendums every few months.

For example, there is nothing expressly underlining that we have the right to privacy, however, it was interpreted that it is indeed a right, even if not clearly stated within the document.

cch wrote: »

Surely someone would have challenged the tax credit transfer issue by now if it was. They can't even get the finger out for civil partnerships or the proposed referendum on childrens' rights (details escape me at the moment, was a long weekend ) as they know any public debate on these issues is devisive and gets ugly as it brings the loonies out on all sides, so the head-in-the-sand, isn't-everything-grand approach continues.

Because something has yet to be challenged should not be taken as proof that it is impossible.

cch wrote: »

Look at the Irish "solution" to abortion as a prime example.

The "solution" we have is as a result of a fair few referendums. Not judicial interpretation.

Lockstep

Max Power1 wrote: »

Its amazing - this art that we have developed called communication! It allows us to interact with others to obtain information.

You've commnicated with the majority of the people in Ballymun?

Impressive.

Redpunto

blondie7 wrote: »

give me one good reason why people should get child benefit? why should my taxes pay for your kids?

because those kids are the ones who will be paying your pension when you're old and wrinkly

SarahSassy

Atwork wrote: »

Your parents may have paid for your college education but they probably also received child benifit payments on your behalf.

They really needed it. My Dad worked all day and then did deliveries at night to get by but he was honest about it all and declared all their income. My Mam took in kids to help out and did peoples books at night and then we earned 'too much' to get grants for college. The bottom line is that the same honest people for everything and seldom get the full benefit of it back... I have never claimed the dole and have always payed my taxes and bills. I dont sponge but have to pay, like my parents did for spongers... The system is all wrong.

SarahSassy

Redpunto wrote: »

because those kids are the ones who will be paying your pension when you're old and wrinkly

No they wont they will be studying (free eduction) til they are 90...

raven136

Stekelly wrote: »

No, but a lot could be done for €41.50 x the amount of kids in the country


If 10,000 people dont need childrens allownace for their kids thats 415,000 every week.

if we cut out half the td's and stopped crazy expenses it would be better no?

Im not saying it shouldnt be taxed at all or looked at but some of the stuff being said here is unreal.Not everyone here lived the life of luxury and rolled around in money during the celtic tiger.Anyone under 28 or so hasnt really seen much benefit if they decided to settle down and buy a house that is no longer worth anything near what their mortage is.

I have 2 kids(4 and 6months)and we got by fine,i work security as a full time job and doors at weekends but last week my wife lost her job and there are many more young families in the same boat.
The childrens allowance doesnt pay for holidays or new cars in most cases,it puts the kids to playschool and food on the table.

Its all well and good saying dont throw money at the problem and then we ca have better facilites etc but this government has kids in prefabs and lack of decent buildings and huge class sizes in most primary schools.

I find something distateful when i am told to prepare to see the childrens allowance cut by the same politicians that claim upwards of 100k expenses and are driven around race courses.:mad:

themadchef

SarahSassy wrote: »

... I have never claimed the dole and have always payed my taxes and bills. I dont sponge but have to pay, like my parents did for spongers... .

Exactly what are you implying? Not everyone on the dole is a sponger.

I have 4 children and i work full time. I have never been on the dole in my life and also pay my taxes and bills. How's the View from your pedestal? I hope everything stays fine for you and the day doesn't come where you depend on some sort of benefit and have to listen to people calling you a sponger. I know lots of decent people who simply have no other choice.


You say your parents needed it. How would you feel if it was today and you were in your parents shoes with young kids living an honest life and just getting by, then the government decide you dont need it after all. Think about it.

Dyr

Max Power1 wrote: »

Its amazing - this art that we have developed called communication! It allows us to interact with others to obtain information.

You did a poll of the locals? Share with us how this information was obtained, I'm fascinated. I'm from ballymun and you don't see many deicide fans out there asking questions, enlighten me