Children's Allowance

maracork

Who funds the children's allowance in Ireland? Is it taxpayer's money?

ei.sdraob

the way we are continuing to borrow money

a large part of welfare & PS is funded by future obligations put on top of the existing taxpayers (whose numbers are dwindling), and these very same children in their future will have to pay for our debt

yes rather perverse


i posted figures for income vs expenditure here >
the difference between the two is being borrowed, 20 odd billion a year or so which will have to be payed back + high interest


so to answer your question all expenditure (such as children's allowance) is funded by taxpayer AND borrowing

/

problemchimp

maracork wrote: »

Who funds the children's allowance in Ireland? Is it taxpayer's money?

why do you ask?

maracork

The reason I ask is that some people don't have children so their tax should not support people who do have kids. Also some people are very well paid in this country, anyone earning over €60,000 should not receive any children's allowance, what a joke. At the very least it should be reduced to a very small figure.

maracork

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the way we are continuing to borrow money

a large part of welfare & PS is funded by future obligations put on top of the existing taxpayers (whose numbers are dwindling), and these very same children in their future will have to pay for our debt

yes rather perverse


i posted figures for income vs expenditure here >
the difference between the two is being borrowed, 20 odd billion a year or so which will have to be payed back + high interest


so to answer your question all expenditure (such as children's allowance) is funded by taxpayer AND borrowing

/

Thank you, I just think the country is gone nuts, I am down my mortgage payment practically in pay cuts and pension levies etc. It is most annoying what goes on here. Children's allowance is money for sauce for individuals on a high salary, certainly anything over €60k

problemchimp

maracork wrote: »

The reason I ask is that some people don't have children so their tax should not support people who do have kids. Also some people are very well paid in this country, anyone earning over €60,000 should not receive any children's allowance, what a joke. At the very least it should be reduced to a very small figure.

it's called social inclusion. I don't drink or smoke or drive too fast. should I stop funding hospitals with my taxes? there maybe a case for very wealthy people losing the benefit or maybe reducing it but maybe your parents got it to help your family. I'm not getting personal.

maracork

problemchimp wrote: »

it's called social inclusion. I don't drink or smoke or drive too fast. should I stop funding hospitals with my taxes? there maybe a case for very wealthy people losing the benefit or maybe reducing it but maybe your parents got it to help your family. I'm not getting personal.

Of course hospitals should continue to receive funding because it something EVERYONE will need at some point. Not everyone has kids so why should those who don't supplement does who do. What's the pay off for them? Nothing. We are already paying enough tax. if my family received children's allowance it's because they had them. But the tax should only come from other taxpayers who also have children.

Taxipete29

maracork wrote: »

Of course hospitals should continue to receive funding because it something EVERYONE will need at some point. Not everyone has kids so why should those who don't supplement does who do. What's the pay off for them? Nothing. We are already paying enough tax. if my family received children's allowance it's because they had them. But the tax should only come from other taxpayers who also have children.

This is nonsense. When you retire and get the state pension who do you think pays for it?? The taxpayers of the day who are children now.

maracork

Taxipete29 wrote: »

This is nonsense. When you retire and get the state pension who do you think pays for it?? The taxpayers of the day who are children now.

It's not nonsense, most of my pension is now paid by me, through levies etc.

danman

maracork wrote: »

It's not nonsense, most of my pension is now paid by me, through levies etc.

And the rest is paid by us in the private sector.

Perhaps we should only pay tax towards government departments that we use.
Those without children don't pay towards schools, child welfare, pediatrics etc,
those of us that are working shouldn't pay towards social welfare...... Oh, I can see a problem with this theory.......

problemchimp

Judging by your name Maracork you maybe from Cork. I wasn't affected by the floods in Cork because I live in Dublin, so should I complain about the money the government gave to help people and businesses? Even people who bought or built houses on flood plains? of course I shouldn't complain because these people need help. should I complain about my taxes going to projects to assist people with special needs just because thankfully my family don't have special needs. of course not. I repeat SOCIAL INCLUSION.

Taxipete29

maracork wrote: »

It's not nonsense, most of my pension is now paid by me, through levies etc.

On what planet do you actually contribute enough to pay the full cost of your pension at retirement age?? You are living in fantasy land if you think you are??

problemchimp

maracork wrote: »

It's not nonsense, most of my pension is now paid by me, through levies etc.

As you say yourself "most" of your pension is paid by you, do you think the tooth fairy pays the rest?

murphaph

If we don't have children now we will have an even bigger pensions crisis. The birthrate has to be 2 kids per couple average, just to maintain the population. I agree however that wealthy people should have this allowance removed as they will have kids regardless if they want to.

problemchimp

problemchimp wrote: »

it's called social inclusion. I don't drink or smoke or drive too fast. should I stop funding hospitals with my taxes? there maybe a case for very wealthy people losing the benefit or maybe reducing it but maybe your parents got it to help your family. I'm not getting personal.

what about responsibility

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

If we don't have children now we will have an even bigger pensions crisis. The birthrate has to be 2 kids per couple average, just to maintain the population. I agree however that wealthy people should have this allowance removed as they will have kids regardless if they want to.

How about we get the cost of living down so people can have children without state subsidies far better aim

Taxipete29

Deleted User wrote: »

How about we get the cost of living down so people can have children without state subsidies far better aim

Most countries have some form of state subsidy for having kids.

problemchimp

Deleted User wrote: »

what about responsibility

i don't understand what you mean. expand

The_Honeybadger

The early childcare supplement has been removed and replaced by the free pre-school year, which I am sure they will discontinue once they can get away with it. Childrens allowance was reduced this year and really should be means tested in fairness. I personally know couples that simply save the money for the childrens college fund, it will be quite a lump sum once their kids reach college age, this is not what the payment is intended for and these people do not need this state assistance. However I am sure that other couples would be in deep trouble if this payment was stopped, as they need it for food & clothes etc, we should not begrudge anybody who uses and needs it for this purpose.

pah

Maracork your argument is a non runner. As has been pointed out Social Inclusion is what covers this and all the points raised in relation to other monies paid out by Govt that are not claimed by all of the population completely rebutt your point.

It's like me saying I don't wan't to contribute any of my tax to the widows pension because my wife is still alive. Rubbish.

maracork

pah wrote: »

Maracork your argument is a non runner. As has been pointed out Social Inclusion is what covers this and all the points raised in relation to other monies paid out by Govt that are not claimed by all of the population completely rebutt your point.

It's like me saying I don't wan't to contribute any of my tax to the widows pension because my wife is still alive. Rubbish.

Pension is different to children's allowance, we've paid in to that fund for later on, people will get a return on that, again some people because of the size of their salaries do not deserve any children's allowance. I stand over that.

maracork

If floods happened in Dublin the whole country would be sorting that too.

ardmacha

Quite simply people are paying children's allowance now as those children will be providing for them later on, economically and socially. The fact that Ireland has a replacement birthrate is one of the positive things that the country has going for it (and I don't personally have children).

maracork

ardmacha wrote: »

Quite simply people are paying children's allowance now as those children will be providing for them later on, economically and socially. The fact that Ireland has a replacement birthrate is one of the positive things that the country has going for it (and I don't personally have children).

Birthrate alone will cover pensions, we don't have to cover everything for people. what about means testing the whole children's allowance?

Taxipete29

maracork wrote: »

Birthrate alone will cover pensions, we don't have to cover everything for people. what about means testing the whole children's allowance?

It ends up costing as much as it saves.

problemchimp

maracork wrote: »

If floods happened in Dublin the whole country would be sorting that too.

of course they would just like anywhere in the country. when we retire we also get free bus and rail travel, free phone line rental' medical card at 70. you must be paying some amount of tax the cover all of this. maybe we should ask the people of Haiti for our money back as we didn't cause the earthquake. on the point of the very wealthy I agree with you as I stated in my first post.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

problemchimp

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

thanks for calling me a 20 something. made my day. never really thought about the line rental in 40 years but my very earlier point about social inclusion without people taking the piss still stands.

ardmacha

I'm enjoying watching 20-somethings speculating about all the "free" things they will get when they reach their late 60s. The state clearly doesn't have the funds to cover all of this, which is why they are already raising the retirement age and mandating that people make pension contributions.

Raising the retirement age in line with life expectancy makes a lot of sense. But if there remain a substantial number of yourger people in the economy, then reasonable pensions can exist.

Nody

murphaph wrote: »

If we don't have children now we will have an even bigger pensions crisis. The birthrate has to be 2 kids per couple average, just to maintain the population.

2.5 if I remember correctly to account for deaths etc. while growing up (this was for a Western world country).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gurramok

The 'high' birthrate only counts if those babies in 20+ years time do not emigrate. This country has a tradition of emigration which is tied to the economic performance so relying on birth rate alone to support our pensions is a high risk.

astrofool

Pensions is run as a current account, what we pay in today goes to the pensioners of today. Those pensioners paid taxes towards childrens allowance to encourage and benefit the upbringing of children when they were working.

If we were to get rid of children's allowance, then we should also get rid of the state pension completely, without children, nothing will pay for our retirement. The childless lot will literally be living off the backs of those who have families today.

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

Pensions is run as a current account, what we pay in today goes to the pensioners of today. Those pensioners paid taxes towards childrens allowance to encourage and benefit the upbringing of children when they were working.

If we were to get rid of children's allowance, then we should also get rid of the state pension completely, without children, nothing will pay for our retirement. The childless lot will literally be living off the backs of those who have families today.

In other words pensions are a pyramid scheme. . .. .

We need to remove things like childrens allowance and focus on making the cost of living cheaper here so we dont need things like childrens allowance

astrofool

Without pensions, we would need to make the cost of living free.

It will always cost more to have children for an individual than not, the rational conclusion is for people not to have children, but then we won't have anyone working to pay for us.

WalterMitty

I always laugh when our people say the kids today will pay your pension. Its so flawed. If a person pays tax for his state pension all his life then the government has received enough to finance this person's pension if the invested it straightaway in low risk pension funds but our gov use it to fund everyday expenses.
To follow the logic of kids today will pay the pensions of the older folks would require ever increasing proportions of young taxpayers paying ever increasing amounts as theres more and more old people living longer and longer. If a taxpayer isnt paying enough for his state pension through his lifetime tax contributions then other will have to pick up the tab through higher taxes or a greater number of people paying tax .
In other countries the money you pay in social insurance tax goes into a specific fund so it becomes clear that the fund is paying for your state pension and not taxes of those paying tax when you are a retiree.

Taxipete29

WalterMitty wrote: »

I always laugh when our people say the kids today will pay your pension. Its so flawed. If a person pays tax for his state pension all his life then the government has received enough to finance this person's pension if the invested it straightaway in low risk pension funds but our gov use it to fund everyday expenses.
To follow the logic of kids today will pay the pensions of the older folks would require ever increasing proportions of young taxpayers paying ever increasing amounts as theres more and more old people living longer and longer. If a taxpayer isnt paying enough for his state pension through his lifetime tax contributions then other will have to pick up the tab through higher taxes or a greater number of people paying tax .
In other countries the money you pay in social insurance tax goes into a specific fund so it becomes clear that the fund is paying for your state pension and not taxes of those paying tax when you are a retiree.

That was the purpose of the pension reserve fund

Fighting Irish

maracork wrote: »

The reason I ask is that some people don't have children so their tax should not support people who do have kids. Also some people are very well paid in this country, anyone earning over €60,000 should not receive any children's allowance, what a joke. At the very least it should be reduced to a very small figure.

Maybe if we didn't help the people who don't try, then they'd start trying

astrofool

WalterMitty wrote: »

I always laugh when our people say the kids today will pay your pension. Its so flawed. If a person pays tax for his state pension all his life then the government has received enough to finance this person's pension if the invested it straightaway in low risk pension funds but our gov use it to fund everyday expenses.
To follow the logic of kids today will pay the pensions of the older folks would require ever increasing proportions of young taxpayers paying ever increasing amounts as theres more and more old people living longer and longer. If a taxpayer isnt paying enough for his state pension through his lifetime tax contributions then other will have to pick up the tab through higher taxes or a greater number of people paying tax .
In other countries the money you pay in social insurance tax goes into a specific fund so it becomes clear that the fund is paying for your state pension and not taxes of those paying tax when you are a retiree.

This is why they are raising the retirement age and reforming the state pensions to force people to contribute more, but, it will still be reliant on the children of today working for us to receive our state pensions. It's far cheaper for the state to pay people €150 a month to have a child who will pay it back multiple times in tax over their working life, than to not have the child at all. The maths here is simple enough.

smokingman

Isn't it very easy for those without kids to give out about those that do. :rolleyes:

I've never been on the dole in my life but I don't want the help that money does to stop going to those who are legally entitled to it.

OP; please stop clogging up forums with nonsensical rubbish.

MaceFace

smokingman wrote: »

Isn't it very easy for those without kids to give out about those that do. :rolleyes:

I've never been on the dole in my life but I don't want the help that money does to stop going to those who are legally entitled to it.

OP; please stop clogging up forums with nonsensical rubbish.

While the OP question was nonsensical, the question on the validity of the welfare payment is valid.

I get something like €150 a month from the government for having a child. I don't need the money as I am well off.

There is absolutely no justification for the payment to higher earners and I would think most higher earners would agree with that.
The problem though is that any time it is discussed, you have all the mammys who don't have jobs giving out saying it is the money they need to run their household. Completly stupid argument.

conorhal

problemchimp wrote: »

"What about responsibility" - I don't understand what you mean. expand

What I think he means is that we all support social inclusion, but are infuriated at the waste of taxpayers money.
When you see the billions poured down a sinkhole of inefficiency, bureaucracy and universality regardless of need or merit, people get annoyed at the lack of value we seem to get for our tax revenue and the absence or any accountability by those that spend it so wastefully, all for the want of serious reform in the way the public sector spends our money.

astrofool

MaceFace wrote: »

While the OP question was nonsensical, the question on the validity of the welfare payment is valid.

I get something like €150 a month from the government for having a child. I don't need the money as I am well off.

There is absolutely no justification for the payment to higher earners and I would think most higher earners would agree with that.
The problem though is that any time it is discussed, you have all the mammys who don't have jobs giving out saying it is the money they need to run their household. Completly stupid argument.

Rich people are also entitled to the state pension, should this be taken away too?

parsi

mickeyk wrote: »

I personally know couples that simply save the money for the childrens college fund, it will be quite a lump sum once their kids reach college age, this is not what the payment is intended for and these people do not need this state assistance..

That argument gets my goat - how do you know it's the children's allowance that is being saved ? Maybe they are scrimping and saving and have decided that if they save x per month then they will be able to afford to pay for an education for their child.

MaceFace

astrofool wrote: »

Rich people are also entitled to the state pension, should this be taken away too?

Just my opinion, but only those that require a handout from the state should get one.
If the rumours about Sean Fitzpatricks pension of half a million a year are true, I don't see why he should also get a state pension.

Why not have a cut off that anyone who has a pension that pays more than 100k a year doesn't get the state pension.

Anyway, this is about Childrens allowance. Why should the tax payers pay me for the priveledge of having a child?

Jip

mickeyk wrote: »

I personally know couples that simply save the money for the childrens college fund, it will be quite a lump sum once their kids reach college age, this is not what the payment is intended for and these people do not need this state assistance.

That's a great use of childrens allowance, that's what I'm planning on doing with it. Is there some clause that specifies that it can only be used for certain purposes ?

I'd rather see people do this than go spend it in the pub or on themselves.

AlekSmart

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/thousands-of-dads-not-on-birth-certs-avoid-child-payouts-2102883.html

Anyway, this is about Childrens allowance. Why should the tax payers pay me for the priveledge of having a child?

Very True MaceFace,and the Indo article gives a good inkling of why it`s the Taxpayers that will always be expected to do so,rather than those who merely wish to sow their seed with impunity....:)


Two quotes are worth further perusal.....

In 1,032 cases where a father owed child maintenance, the State could not oblige him to pay up as his name did not appear on the birth certificate. Over 13,191 non-resident fathers or "liable relatives" were reviewed by the Government last year for child maintenance.

Followed by.....

Those earning less than €18,000 annually or those living on social welfare benefits are exempt from the payment.

Ms Hanifin does not venture to suggest WHY this should be the case....?

Is this some form of NAMA for deliquent sperm,whereby the State will accquire responsibility for it`s consequence and store it for 21 years until maturity in the hope it will make something of itself and pay back the costs of it`s upbringing ?

Sleepy

I personally think it should be scrapped and replaced with corresponding increases in welfare allowances for dependents and tax credits. The savings in admin staff alone would make it worthwhile.

The problem is, suggesting that leads to outrage from the feminazis who argue that including childrens allowance in the "husband's" dole would lead to women and children starving and further outrage from PS unions at the horrific notion of redundancies.

The_Honeybadger

Jip wrote: »

That's a great use of childrens allowance, that's what I'm planning on doing with it. Is there some clause that specifies that it can only be used for certain purposes ?

I'd rather see people do this than go spend it in the pub or on themselves.

Its a great use if you are the benificiary, but not a great use for the taxpayer IMO. CA costs billions each year, billions that we now have to borrow. IMO it should be means tested, and maybe as Sleepy suggested replaced with tax credits or some other scheme. Apparently the admin costs of changing the system would outstrip the savings involved though so it's a bit of a catch 22

Welease

The problem for me really is about how the money is used even if it is means tested.. It should be paid in a non cash type format which can only be used for the benefit of children.

Are people who can afford to save the money any worse than those breadline folks who seem to be able to afford 50" flatscreens? It should be means tested, but it should also not be able to used for non essential non child related purchases.

(and I am one of those folks who save the CW for our childrens educational costs)

Jip

mickeyk wrote: »

Its a great use if you are the benificiary, but not a great use for the taxpayer IMO.

Are parents not tax payers now ? Myself and my wife have been paying the top rate for god knows how long, will we be due a big fat refund cheque when the child is born refunding all the taxes we paid ?


I do agree however it should be means tested, but there's the attitude of some people out there wondering why they should be paying for someone elses child who are seemingly ignorant of the fact that probably the majority of parents are paying taxes.