Should child benefit be taken from those earning above 40,000?

Hollyg'lightly

Should child benefit be taken from those earning above 40,000?

Surely it might save a few pence, afterall i've known people to say they never use it weekly, as it goes striaght into the savings.

gurramok

Yes, i'd even lower that limit a fair bit. It should only be going to the needy, not those with a good disposable income.

lmimmfn

gurramok wrote: »

Yes, i'd even lower that limit a fair bit. It should only be going to the needy, not those with a good disposable income.

i dont think a couple earning 20,000 each would have much disposable income

The_Conductor

Hollyg'lightly wrote: »

Should child benefit be taken from those earning above 40,000?

Surely it might save a few pence, afterall i've known people to say they never use it weekly, as it goes striaght into the savings.

If you're earning above 40k- and have kids- you likely have a mortgage and a rake of child related expenses- but not be in a position to claim any social welfare assistance (with the possible exception of the school book rental scheme, which is a godsend). Its entirely possible that your disposable income is significantly less than someone who doesn't have a mortgage (or has it paid for them) and is in a position to claim the various benefits that are out there.

A gross salary of 40k in a family with kids who have to pay for their own accommodation and don't have a medical card or any other benefits- really is very tough going- sit down and do the sums, they really don't add up........

gurramok

lmimmfn wrote: »

i dont think a couple earning 20,000 each would have much disposable income

Thats mortgage dependent. I didnt say 20k each by the way as 20k is only a few thousand off min wage.
We all know who the people who receive this payment and don't need it as they can afford childcare.
And we all know it gets abused by career welfare recipients whose only job is to keep pumping out babies to stay on generous welfare.

heavyballs

gurramok wrote: »

Thats mortgage dependent. I didnt say 20k each by the way as 20k is only a few thousand off min wage.
We all know who the people who receive this payment and don't need it as they can afford childcare.
And we all know it gets abused by career welfare recipients whose only job is to keep pumping out babies to stay on generous welfare.

+1
I'll give you an example of a guy i know
He plays semi-pro football in Ireland,he earns €300 in the paw pw,he works in a bank,quite good job circa €45k,
He lives in a council estate with his girlfriend and 3 fatherless(yeah ok) kids.I'd say his gf needs the mickey money ok.
The system is so wrong,things like this are rife,this is just 1 example.

lmimmfn

gurramok wrote: »

Thats mortgage dependent. I didnt say 20k each by the way as 20k is only a few thousand off min wage.
We all know who the people who receive this payment and don't need it as they can afford childcare.
And we all know it gets abused by career welfare recipients whose only job is to keep pumping out babies to stay on generous welfare.

nah, i was only pointing out the OP's ambiguity. Personally i think welfare payments should have some form of cap, i know a lot of people riding the system, actually some dont want to but they get so much in welfare they'd need to walk into a job that would pay 60,000euro+ a year( to cover rent + medical expenses )

For the rest of the people, well i dunno, its hard to find a happy medium, if a married couple are both working and are okish financially they're paying for their kids to be in a creche( of course only until a certain age ), if you tax them too much it would mean one parent would be better off at home all the time but that's counter productive.

Maybe in that scenario, the tax on the childrens allowance should increase once a child attends primary school.

RealityCheck

Hollyg'lightly wrote: »

Should child benefit be taken from those earning above 40,000?

Surely it might save a few pence, afterall i've known people to say they never use it weekly, as it goes striaght into the savings.

Means testing or taxing is arguably the fairest option. This however, will prove troublesome and costly so I think it will just be cut for many.

lmimmfn

Social welfare cap and a license to breed would sort this , sounds extreme but any more extreme that getting locked up in china for having more than 1 kid? simple population control.

nesf

lmimmfn wrote: »

For the rest of the people, well i dunno, its hard to find a happy medium, if a married couple are both working and are okish financially they're paying for their kids to be in a creche( of course only until a certain age ), if you tax them too much it would mean one parent would be better off at home all the time but that's counter productive.

Maybe in that scenario, the tax on the childrens allowance should increase once a child attends primary school.

It would be far simpler to just give a tax deduction for creche fees than messing around with multiple tax rates.

lmimmfn

nesf wrote: »

It would be far simpler to just give a tax deduction for creche fees than messing around with multiple tax rates.

i agree, i wrote the above in haste, however it being Ireland, creche fees would just increase in cost, lol, you just cant win here.

nesf

lmimmfn wrote: »

i agree, i wrote the above in haste, however it being Ireland, creche fees would just increase in cost, lol, you just cant win here.

Well if you subsidise something that's exactly what will happen. Same as if you gave a lump sum to someone buying a new car for whatever reason. Mortgage interest relief causes the exact same problem as does rent relief and rent allowances.

When families on welfare are as well off as a lot of families where both parents are working, you would have to wonder how long average working people will be happy to subsidize the "less fortunate" at ever increasing expense..

nesf

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

When families on welfare are as well off as a lot of families where both parents are working, you would have to wonder how long average working people will be happy to subsidize the "less fortunate" at ever increasing expense..

Such comparisons usually forget to account for the Family Income Supplement Scheme that increases the take home wage for poorer working families.

Tipp Man

I have mentioned this a few times but surely the time has come for every adult citizen in this country to complete an annual tax return whether they be self employed, PAYE, on the dole, whatever. That way then you simply apply the child benifit in the tax return and pay your necessary tax on it. do away with all the levies (and PRSI for that matter) and just have 2 rates and make sure that a lot more people are actually contributing to the tax take.

I would say with a fair degree of certainty that there are people on social who should be paying tax when all their "perks" are taken into acccount, i have to pay tax on my company car, why shouldn't they?/

Plenty of countries enforce a tax return on all citizens, USA and Belgium to name 2.

dodgyme

I find this whole debate interesting from a purely policy point of view.

2 girls:
17 year old in a possible first relationship and having children e.g 2 children and gets the childrens allowance and full benefits since she has no job or qualifications, trys for a council/affordable/free house. By 34 she has a 17 years of potentially living off the state to some degree even if she goes back to work. she also has 23 years of fertility so she will probably have more than say 2 children. At this stage her oldest will be repeating her cycle and possibly having a child and no job etc etc.

2nd girl
Waits until she has a good job after going to college. Gets married/or a commited partner because she wants a secure relationship, dated numerous fellas in her 20's to achieve this. Is now 35 and has her own house which she bought with bf during the boom. She has some saving and after trying for possibly longer then one might at 17 - has a child. Possibly may have another one before she hits the 40's.

Which one of these examples costs the tax payer less, is better for society and the children and encourages people to stand on their own two feet. This needs to be looked at when saying that the 2nd girl who has been paying in effect for the first girl now is told she has too much money to get a childrens allowance??

Policy encourages one over the other. Cutting it from the 2nd girl in the example is purely wrong in this context. No?

I actually know somone who is a granny and isnt even 40 yet! Has taken everything she could from the state and never worked! This can only happen when the rest of society is paying for it. ?

Gurgle

gurramok wrote: »

We all know who the people who receive this payment and don't need it as they can afford childcare...

Childrens allowance goes towards the childcare. It certainly doesn't cover it.

Childrens allowance for 3 kids is €535 per month, or €6,240 per year.
A couple earning €40k between them are on the lower rate of tax, 20% + 2%income levy + 9% PRSI = 29%.

That €6,240 is the equivalent of earning €8k.

That is a massive difference to a family with a gross income of €40k.

You want half the country trying to get themselves sacked because they'd be much better off on the dole?

This is the way to go about it.

irish_bob

dodgyme wrote: »

I find this whole debate interesting from a purely policy point of view.

2 girls:
17 year old in a possible first relationship and having children e.g 2 children and gets the childrens allowance and full benefits since she has no job or qualifications, trys for a council/affordable/free house. By 34 she has a 17 years of potentially living off the state to some degree even if she goes back to work. she also has 23 years of fertility so she will probably have more than say 2 children. At this stage her oldest will be repeating her cycle and possibly having a child and no job etc etc.

2nd girl
Waits until she has a good job after going to college. Gets married/or a commited partner because she wants a secure relationship, dated numerous fellas in her 20's to achieve this. Is now 35 and has her own house which she bought with bf during the boom. She has some saving and after trying for possibly longer then one might at 17 - has a child. Possibly may have another one before she hits the 40's.

Which one of these examples costs the tax payer less, is better for society and the children and encourages people to stand on their own two feet. This needs to be looked at when saying that the 2nd girl who has been paying in effect for the first girl now is told she has too much money to get a childrens allowance??

Policy encourages one over the other. Cutting it from the 2nd girl in the example is purely wrong in this context. No?

I actually know somone who is a granny and isnt even 40 yet! Has taken everything she could from the state and never worked! This can only happen when the rest of society is paying for it. ?

one is OFFICIALLY vulnerable , the other is not , that said , we cant afford to pay people child allowance for being socially responsible , what we should do is not over burden such people with tax but then again middle ireland has a lot less of a voice than the wellfare class

JackieT

Why not just get rid of child benefit altogether? I think ireland has one of the highest birth rates in europe anyways, so I dont' see the point really in a policy which gives a monetary incentive for having a big family.

In Sweden the creches are heavily subsidised, I think it costs approx €150/ month to have a kid in a creche over there. This type of scheme seems to work out well, it makes it easier for mothers to go back to work, which means more taxpayers. I'm not sure, but I would guess that this would result in a net benefit for the state.

cianor

Indeed there is a need for Serious Change in Child Benefit. I know a couple who both are in full-time employment with a Gross Annual Wage in excess of 140K. They currently have 2 children under the age of 5 and she is pregnant.

Currently they receive 1992euro pa for each child in Child Benefit. As both Children are under the age of 5 they also receive 498 for each child. That is a total of 4980euro. This money is currently going into a Savings Account.

Lets be honest, if the Child Benefit and Early Childcare Supplement are going into Savings, they should not be receiving it. Their income should cover the cost of them having children.

Also - the more Children you have the More it goes up!! If you have 1 Child you get 1992, but if you have 3 children you get 2140 for each child!!! So the more children you have the more the state will give you.

As Tipp Man mentioned, I too think that we all should have to complete a tax return each year.

This Tax return should be used as a basis for determining whether you should get a means-tested Child Benefit. The maximum number of children you should be allowed to claim on should be 2. Why should the state pay money for people to have large families??? Somepeople out there are making a career out of it. Maybe the benefit should not all be cash, but vouchers for items like Nappies etc.

dodgyme

irish_bob wrote: »

we cant afford to pay people child allowance for being socially responsible

I think the opposite - can we afford to keep paying people for being socially irresponsible. Responsibility costs less and policy should be an attempt to create such.

Hitting people who may have a good job more then those who dont - from a policy point of view, rewards dependancy? Hardly what we need now when there are more peopel dependant on the state then ever.

However I do take your other points and the contexts.

gurramok

Gurgle wrote: »

Childrens allowance goes towards the childcare. It certainly doesn't cover it.

Childrens allowance for 3 kids is €535 per month, or €6,240 per year.
A couple earning €40k between them are on the lower rate of tax, 20% + 2%income levy + 9% PRSI = 29%.

That €6,240 is the equivalent of earning €8k.

That is a massive difference to a family with a gross income of €40k.

You want half the country trying to get themselves sacked because they'd be much better off on the dole?

This is the way to go about it.

What are they doing with the other 25k+ net take home pay(what is exact figure?)?

Bringing a child into the world is their choice and financial responsibility comes with it.

Lets face it Gurgle, half the country would be better off on the dole considering also the medical benefits it brings with bringing a child to the doc loads of times in its lifetime.

irish_bob

dodgyme wrote: »

I think the opposite - can we afford to keep paying people for being socially irresponsible. Responsibility costs less and policy should be an attempt to create such.

Hitting people who may have a good job more then those who dont - from a policy point of view, rewards dependancy? Hardly what we need now when there are more peopel dependant on the state then ever.

However I do take your other points and the contexts.

sorry , i phrased that very badly ,what i was trying to say was , the country is not wealthy enough right now to reward people financialy for being socially responsible , i didnt intend to suggest that i therefore believe irresponsible behaviour should be rewarded which is why i said those who are responsible should not be over burdened with tax so as to fund the irresponsible , a less opressive tax system is the responsibles reward

any clearer

97i9y3941

the system is rotten,as i said so many times before,you could be a rich farmer or a rich business man,live in a mansion with acres of land,fiddle with the books to undeclare your income since the welfare only looks into your income not what you own so your daughters can get the allowance...

Gurgle

gurramok wrote: »

What are they doing with the other 25k+ net take home pay(what is exact figure?)?

~€2k per month:

€800 rent or mortgage for an average 3 bed semi (assuming it wasn't bought anywhere near the peak).

€600 food for 5 people

Leaves €600 per month for transport, clothes, books, uniforms, heating, ESB, phone, childcare....

It doesn't go very far.

gurramok wrote: »

Lets face it Gurgle, half the country would be better off on the dole considering also the medical benefits it brings with bringing a child to the doc loads of times in its lifetime.

Exactly, and cutting child benefit will make working a waste of effort for tens of thousands more people. This will drive up the salary requirements for any potential employers, and fùck up our economy even further.

97i9y3941

well in this country,you are nearly better off to go on the dole,look at some of the things you are entilted to

Darragh29

This is one of my gripes... I think NOBODY should get child benefit automatically, you should have to apply for it and if you need it then and only then you should be given it...

Just think about the insanity of this for a minute, Michael O' Leary is an extremely wealthy man, he runs an airline, he has shares in the airline, he is probably worth hundreds of millions of Euro... If his wife had a baby in the morning, she is automatically entitied to child benefit?!?!?!?

This is insanity... Just take a look at the cars picking up kids outside school on any given day, BMW's, Mercs, high value vehicles. If you can afford a car worth 50K plus, then I can't see why you need child allowance...

greendom

Yes it does need to be income related. It shouldn't just be a blanket removal at 40k though. It needs to be done on a sliding scale so you would not suffer too much if your income was in the environs of 40k and there should be consideration for number of children etc.

Universal child benefit was hardly justifiable when times were good, but in today's climate its almost criminal.

97i9y3941

you hit the nail on the head there darragh,its well known that the well off get the allowance,but of course those in power wont say it infear of causeing an uproar..

dodgyme

Fred83 wrote: »

the system is rotten,as i said so many times before,you could be a rich farmer or a rich business man,live in a mansion with acres of land,fiddle with the books to undeclare your income since the welfare only looks into your income not what you own so your daughters can get the allowance...

Fraud and being entitled to childrens allowance are 2 different debates

dodgyme

Darragh29 wrote: »

This is one of my gripes... I think NOBODY should get child benefit automatically, you should have to apply for it and if you need it then and only then you should be given it......

In my example above this just encourages proliferation of dependancy and costs more.

Darragh29 wrote: »

Just think about the insanity of this for a minute, Michael O' Leary is an extremely wealthy man, he runs an airline, he has shares in the airline, he is probably worth hundreds of millions of Euro... If his wife had a baby in the morning, she is automatically entitied to child benefit?!?!?!?......

That is an extreme example which is why you used it. Most people are somewhere between the extremities I highlighted above.

Darragh29 wrote: »

Just take a look at the cars picking up kids outside school on any given day, BMW's, Mercs, high value vehicles. If you can afford a car worth 50K plus, then I can't see why you need child allowance...

ok you are on about lucan again. I did think some of the yummie mummies were way over the top here also. I used to see this one leaving the estate in the CT years with a 06/07/08 tourag. Now she has a 04 ford - big come down- Alot was simply that they were on the cheap credit and keeping up with the jones. I'd say in 2 years time they will not have a new car and the sales of new cars are already bearing this out.

However most of these are older mothers and have not being taken CA from the state for the past 20 years for X amount of children. Infact they have probably being paying for other peoples CA in the 'give us a free house' brigade.

97i9y3941

wonder do sharon ni bheolain and miriam o'callaghan claim child allowance...

Absurdum

Darragh29 wrote: »

Just think about the insanity of this for a minute, Michael O' Leary is an extremely wealthy man, he runs an airline, he has shares in the airline, he is probably worth hundreds of millions of Euro... If his wife had a baby in the morning, she is automatically entitied to child benefit?!?!?!?

You're overlooking the fact that he is personally paying a hell of a lot of tax, why should he (and his spouse/offspring), as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen of this state, be denied something just because he is successful?

So what if "wealthy" people put their child benefit into savings. It's probably their child's college fund. That to me is called being a responsible parent and citizen. It's better than putting it on a horse or drinking it.

What about getting rid of the thing entirely and people being responsible for their own children

irish_bob

is child benefit for wealthy parents any less crazy than medical cards for wealthy pensioners

Gurgle

irish_bob wrote: »

is child benefit for wealthy parents any less crazy than medical cards for wealthy pensioners

No, its completely crazy.

What seems to be off kilter is the idea of €40k meaning wealthy.
Cut children's allowance for families where the parent's combined income is €100k* plus. Its still an effective 8% pay cut for them, but at least they're left with enough income that its still worth their while going out to work.

* €100k gross for 2 working parents with 3 kids isn't wealthy either btw, its just about comfortable.

Trampas

Should be got rid off.

Instead of giving money to x or y to bring up kids.

Money should be use for education and healthcare.

If people can't afford a child then they shouldn't have them.

dresden8

Trampas wrote: »

Should be got rid off.

Instead of giving money to x or y to bring up kids.

Money should be use for education and healthcare.

If people can't afford a child then they shouldn't have them.

Those kids will end up working to pay your pension some day.

If there no kids......

greendom

Trampas wrote: »

Should be got rid off.

Instead of giving money to x or y to bring up kids.

Money should be use for education and healthcare.

If people can't afford a child then they shouldn't have them.

That's a good shout actually; if all the child care money went into education perhaps schools wouldn't have to ask parents to pay for books and schools could even set up canteens

Darragh29

dodgyme wrote: »

That is an extreme example which is why you used it. Most people are somewhere between the extremities I highlighted above.

You see this is where we are going wrong with regard to the whole social welfare system. There should be no automatic entitlement to anything... The only test that should be used I think should be, "do you need this benefit???"

If the answer is no, and in the example I've given above, the answer is clearly, "no, you do not need state support for your children!", then there is no way it should be given. I've a funny feeling Michael O' Leary would agree with me on this one, state support is a valuable resource and it should not be handed out to people who clearly don't need any state support.

It's this notion of entitlement that has us handing out money to every Tom, Dick and Harry on a Thursday at Post Offices up and down the country, it's absolutely insane I think.

Absurdum wrote: »

You're overlooking the fact that he is personally paying a hell of a lot of tax, why should he (and his spouse/offspring), as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen of this state, be denied something just because he is successful?

So what if "wealthy" people put their child benefit into savings. It's probably their child's college fund. That to me is called being a responsible parent and citizen. It's better than putting it on a horse or drinking it.

Wealthy people do not need child benefit to rear their children, so they should not be allowed to claim "child benefit", for children that they have. Why would you give someone who practically owns one of the worlds largest airlines, a state support????

irish_bob

Gurgle wrote: »

No, its completely crazy.

What seems to be off kilter is the idea of €40k meaning wealthy.
Cut children's allowance for families where the parent's combined income is €100k* plus. Its still an effective 8% pay cut for them, but at least they're left with enough income that its still worth their while going out to work.

* €100k gross for 2 working parents with 3 kids isn't wealthy either btw, its just about comfortable.

i consider it well off but thats not to say i think they should be paying 62% income tax like jack o connor wants

dodgyme

Deleted User wrote: »

What about getting rid of the thing entirely and people being responsible for their own children

Possibly because the children born now will be paying for the health system you will use when you are old and decrepid
or
why not get rid of the whole welfare state then.

dodgyme

Darragh29 wrote: »

You see this is where we are going wrong with regard to the whole social welfare system. There should be no automatic entitlement to anything... The only test that should be used I think should be, "do you need this benefit???":

There is no automatic entitlement. To get CA you need first to produce a child. For many people it is the first tangable thing they ever get back from the state after years of working. For others its the first tangable thing they get from the state after not working atall.

Darragh29 wrote: »

it should not be handed out to people who clearly don't need any state support

I think a 19yrs old with 2 kids probably needs support. ?? My problem is that she knows this because it is well known in the sub-culture of sponging.

Darragh29 wrote: »

Wealthy people do not need child benefit to rear their children, so they should not be allowed to claim "child benefit", for children that they have. Why would you give someone who practically owns one of the worlds largest airlines, a state support????

As i said already my examples were more realisitic in what they represent then choosing MOL or Mother Theresa or whoever. You just want to find a rich extreme and say 'there I am right'. What about a poor extreme should they be entitled to it?

dodgyme

dodgyme wrote: »

Possibly because the children born now will be paying for the health system you will use when you are old and decrepid
or
why not get rid of the whole welfare state then.

lets.......

People had kids before child benefit was invented

greendom

Deleted User wrote: »

lets.......

People had kids before child benefit was invented

And Child poverty and a million other things we've thankfully seen the back of. That's no argument at all really is it?

dodgyme

Deleted User wrote: »

lets.......

People had kids before child benefit was invented

I suppose your mother gave it back?

MaceFace

Well, many would consider my household to be in the "well heeled" category, and I get child welfare. I use it to pay my mortgage.
Why? Because I have nothing better to do with it.

Completely wasted on someone like me and it is a sham that it is a universal payment.

My opinion - give notice that it is being scrapped in 10 years and start the wind down process asap.

I understand some people rely on it today to pay bills but thats no excuse - how did they get into a state where they needed this money to pay the bills?
By not spending the money in this way we can really put it to work helping people who really need it - not people like me!

The_Conductor

MaceFace wrote: »

Well, many would consider my household to be in the "well heeled" category, and I get child welfare. I use it to pay my mortgage.
Why? Because I have nothing better to do with it.

Completely wasted on someone like me and it is a sham that it is a universal payment.

My opinion - give notice that it is being scrapped in 10 years and start the wind down process asap.

I understand some people rely on it today to pay bills but thats no excuse - how did they get into a state where they needed this money to pay the bills?
By not spending the money in this way we can really put it to work helping people who really need it - not people like me!

Why take 10 years to wind it down?
It is very obvious that its supposed to be assistance towards expenses associated with children- why not give universal childcare in one foul swoop- and meals for all children at primary school level- and abolish the payment.

MaceFace

smccarrick wrote: »

Why take 10 years to wind it down?
It is very obvious that its supposed to be assistance towards expenses associated with children- why not give universal childcare in one foul swoop- and meals for all children at primary school level- and abolish the payment.

The reason I say 10 years is that there are many people who are relying on this to keep their head above water and removing it will cripple many of them.
By slowly winding it down, it will allow time for those that need it now to work their way out of it while not allowing a new generation of parents to fall into the trap.

Gurgle

smccarrick wrote: »

why not give universal childcare in one foul swoop- and meals for all children at primary school level- and abolish the payment.

Universal childcare - why?
The only children who need childcare are those whose parents are both working.
Besides, child benefit is about 1/4 the cost of full time childcare.

Meals in schools, organized by the Department of Education and Idiocy- are you joking?

The_Conductor

MaceFace wrote: »

The reason I say 10 years is that there are many people who are relying on this to keep their head above water and removing it will cripple many of them.
By slowly winding it down, it will allow time for those that need it now to work their way out of it while not allowing a new generation of parents to fall into the trap.

The reason I was suggesting doing it immediately- is because in politics 10 years is an eternity- and you will get some hippy do-gooder in at some stage who will halt or even reverse any intended changes.