Child Benefit: An Unnecessary Expense?

cson

I feel this may warrant discussion outside of the Budget 2010 thread.

Perhaps someone can help with this as I haven't the time to verify figures until later on this evening but I think it's a ballpark €160 per child per month and that it costs the State in excess of €1bn per year.

In any case;

(i) How do those of you without children feel about effectively subsidising those who do with your taxes?

(ii) Do those of you in receipt of child benefit use it to the benefit of your children - i.e. clothes, food, shelter, education materials etc.

As I have said in the other thread, there is an argument that is certainly with merit for abolishing this benefit in its entirety. Why should the State favour those with children over those who choose not to have any? It could be seen as way of incentivising population growth but would €160 odd a month really make your mind up on such a big issue? I don't think so. Notwithstanding whether it should exist or not; surely it should be means tested? It's an perverse case of reverse socialism if you will when a family with an annual income of €1 will recieve the same as a family with an annual income of €1m.

Personally I think while I find it hard to argue against the above I do not think we should dispense with it entirely. Certainly means testing must become the judgement call on who receives this benefit but to my mind a crucial point is that the money be spent to the benefit of the child. The only way of policing this I can see is issuing vouchers for the specific food/shelter/clothing/education requirements. And I wouldn't agree with that. It's a very difficult one to retain with restrictions and not have it being spent on hairdressers at one end of the spectrum and cigarettes at the other [i'm not saying this happens across the board but it does happen].

Open to the floor

RichardAnd

First of all, my current situation is the following; I am a 23 year old man, I still live with my parent (though that will change soon), I'm employed in software support and I have a part time job playing music. My income for the year is less than 30k and I'm single and I have no children. I say this so no one can make assumptions as a particularly abusive poster has done in another thread.

My opinion is that child benefit should be scrapped. It's absence would force people to take responsibility for their sexual behaviours and it would influence their decision to have offspring. Going forwards, the huge cost of raising children means that large families will not be feasible and the absence of state support would discourage parents from having children they can't afford.

The culture of entitlement has to be dismantled in this county or we will face problems that will humble NAMA and the bail out. It's my belief that we are at a changing point in Irish history. the old system of starting work at 17, working 'till 60, getting your pension and passing away at 65 is gone. People live into their 80s now and to expect the state to pay for them long term is absurd. The future is simply going to have to be one where we look after ourselves.

ntlbell

Happy for it to be removed.

not sure about means testing as it can be costly.

Simply put it through revenue, quick, easy and cheap.

mikemac

If you scrapped child benefit it would not save as you think

Some families would get family income supplement to make up the difference, zero money saved unless you look at related schemes

Means testing is expensive, involves a lot of administration staff

Welease

cson wrote: »

I feel this may warrant discussion outside of the Budget 2010 thread.

Perhaps someone can help with this as I haven't the time to verify figures until later on this evening but I think it's a ballpark €160 per child per month and that it costs the State in excess of €1bn per year.

In any case;

(i) How do those of you without children feel about effectively subsidising those who do with your taxes?

(ii) Do those of you in receipt of child benefit use it to the benefit of your children - i.e. clothes, food, shelter, education materials etc.

As I have said in the other thread, there is an argument that is certainly with merit for abolishing this benefit in its entirety. Why should the State favour those with children over those who choose not to have any? It could be seen as way of incentivising population growth but would €160 odd a month really make your mind up on such a big issue? I don't think so. Notwithstanding whether it should exist or not; surely it should be means tested? It's an perverse case of reverse socialism if you will when a family with an annual income of €1 will recieve the same as a family with an annual income of €1m.

Personally I think while I find it hard to argue against the above I do not think we should dispense with it entirely. Certainly means testing must become the judgement call on who receives this benefit but to my mind a crucial point is that the money be spent to the benefit of the child. The only way of policing this I can see is issuing vouchers for the specific food/shelter/clothing/education requirements. And I wouldn't agree with that. It's a very difficult one to retain with restrictions and not have it being spent on hairdressers at one end of the spectrum and cigarettes at the other [i'm not saying this happens across the board but it does happen].

Open to the floor

It's a complex and emotive subject..

I don't feel your initial questions will get to the root of the issues though..

(i) How do those of you without children feel about effectively subsidising those who do with your taxes?

I don't live in Dublin and I have never claimed SW, so my taxes already pay for sewerage systems, busses, LUAS lines, DART, Dole, Rent Allowances etc etc etc that I don't get any benefit from, but the payment is part of funding the costs of running this country. If we should only pay for what we benefit directly from, then I am due a large rebate

(ii) Do those of you in receipt of child benefit use it to the benefit of your children - i.e. clothes, food, shelter, education materials etc.

Absolutely.. Some today, and some for the future as we save it for their future schools costs. Is it wrong that we save some of it (as in we don't need it).. maybe, but then again we don't live on credit.. we plan our future and spending so that we go short on certain things now, so that we can pay for more important items in the future.. Should I be penalised because I don't piss it away on 42" plasma screens and XBox's?

It may be obscene to some that I own a large house in the country, I have no debts apart from a minimal mortgage, money in the bank and I get child benefit for 2 kids.

But I have worked for every damn penny of what I own, and paid (pretty much bar the remaining mortgage) every penny of what it costs out of my own pocket. Am I less entitled to some form of recompense that people who have continually mismanaged their lives and funds?

Now with that said.. The level of benefits paid in this country is far too high. We don't need the money, not having it wouldn't kill us, but getting it does make it easier to be more comfortable and to plan for the future.
So if it was taken away, you would hear no major moans from me, in fact as a minimum it should always have been means tested, but I personally am absolutely sick of people who believe everyone else who works hard should continually pay for their own failings..

Regarding the complete removal of child benefit (and maybe due to my lack of understanding of the benefits system this wouldnt happen), but would it be fair for a childless couple with no kids to be paid the same amount as a couple with 3 kids.. Surely if a family of 5 can live on 196 (plus rent etc).. then a family of 2 could live on 50% of that?

Just my honest 2c.

P. Breathnach

feelingstressed wrote: »

... Means testing is expensive, involves a lot of administration staff

Agreed. But it would be relatively simple and inexpensive to tax it. Those whose income is large enough to be subject to income tax would have to give some of it back.

Inquitus

The Child Supplement has gone already, this was 1,100 a year per child, couple that with the increase in Taxation, PRSI etc. and Middle Income families with kids have already lost more than most in recent budgets.

Whilst it is clear that we as a nation need to tighten our belts, moving the goalposts soo drastically for a certain sector of society can put them into difficulty. With a property tax likely to become a reality, coupled with the money already taken from middle income families as mentioned above, hitting them too hard again would be grossly unfair imo.

Not to mention we need to encourage people to have kids to balance the age of our population and ensure we have the tax base to pay future pensions, running costs etc. of the country.

johnnyskeleton

One thing that baffles me is that if you are social welfare you get additional payments per child plus child benefit per child. Surely if child benefit is there to help with the cost of children then people on the dole should get just child benefit per child and normal dole.

Moreover, there is a bizzare situation where the additional payment for the second child is greater than that for the first. However, the more children you have the lower the marginal cost as clothes, books, toys etc can be handed down and cooking for 4 is not 33% more expensive than cooking for 3.

Maybe a system whereby child benefit is a tax credit rather than absolute and untaxed payment would be a cheaper way of reducing the payment to the better off than means testing the whole thing.

Count Dooku

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Agreed. But it would be relatively simple and inexpensive to tax it.

Only for families who apllied for joint income....

eoinbn

Why should the State favour those with children over those who choose not to have any?

That's a very simplistic view. Let's leave emotions aside for a minute. Children are essential, not only for the survival of our race, but for the way our society works. They are the ones that will be paying the taxes that will be paying our pensions, providing healthcare and driving the bus to bingo! Money that is spent on children is an investment for our future as well as their own.

Welease

eoinbn wrote: »

That's a very simplistic view. Let's leave emotions aside for a minute. Children are essential, not only for the survival of our race, but for the way our society works. They are the ones that will be paying the taxes that will be paying our pensions, providing healthcare and driving the bus to bingo! Money that is spent on children is an investment for our future as well as their own.

imho Yes and No.. the problem is (and I'm not advocating a chinese style management) that we don't attempt to manage or control our requirements and encourage the correct behaviour (whatever that is deemed to be)

It's often touted that as our population gets older we need more and more children to pay for the upkeep (pensions etc).. true, but what about when they get older? At some stage, the problem of pension benefits, welfare etc. needs to be managed within a sustainable level.. we cannot keep churning out kids to fix a future pension issue without creating an infrastructure and more importantly employment whereby they can flourish and actually contribute to those funds.

Richiecats

Yea when you become an Adult you young pup tied to your mummy you real find out what life is like, 23 still living at home, what no girl friend ha ha ha

sombaht

RichardAnd wrote: »

absence of state support would discourage parents from having children they can't afford.

Trust me the existence of child benefit plays absolutely NO part in the decision to have children. You'll realise that in years to come when you have kids of your own!

Cheers,
sombaht

Max Power1

ntlbell wrote: »

Happy for it to be removed.

not sure about means testing as it can be costly.

Simply put it through revenue, quick, easy and cheap.

+1

An un needed expense imo. No idea why this is still being paid tbh.

doc_17

those massive infrastructure projects that your taxes are funding might not benefit you directly but they have massive benefits to the entire country which inevitibly will be good for the entire country.

But the question of child benefit is probablt the stickiest to answer. Still there should be some attempt to regulate it and save money.

silverharp

Welease wrote: »

It's often touted that as our population gets older we need more and more children to pay for the upkeep (pensions etc).. true, but what about when they get older? At some stage, the problem of pension benefits, welfare etc. needs to be managed within a sustainable level.. we cannot keep churning out kids to fix a future pension issue without creating an infrastructure and more importantly employment whereby they can flourish and actually contribute to those funds.

if you look at this on an individual level there really isnt a problem. If the average person understood that they may have 20 years where their income maybe minimal and that they may have increased medical or nursing home costs then the average 20 something has 40 odd years to plan for this. The only problem is that everybody expects everyone to look after them or put another way a plasma tv or granite top kitchen is a valid purchase when you can off load the important stuff to the next generation. It never ceases to amaze me how the State manages to screw with proples values

Inquitus

silverharp wrote: »

if you look at this on an individual level there really isnt a problem. If the average person understood that they may have 20 years where their income maybe minimal and that they may have increased medical or nursing home costs then the average 20 something has 40 odd years to plan for this. The only problem is that everybody expects everyone to look after them or put another way a plasma tv or granite top kitchen is a valid purchase when you can off load the important stuff to the next generation. It never ceases to amaze me how the State manages to screw with proples values

This is all well and good, old people follow your advice and look after themselves. However, even with an aging population that supports itself, the country still requires revenue to run itself, and requires an age balanced population in order to do this.

stepbar

sombaht wrote: »

Trust me the existence of child benefit plays absolutely NO part in the decision to have children. You'll realise that in years to come when you have kids of your own!

Cheers,
sombaht

For rational parents for sure. The culture of 'poppin a babby' for 'de welfare' is the real issue here. And believe me, many think like that. Having kids should be encouraged but with strict boundaries concerning social welfare.

Welease

Inquitus wrote: »

This is all well and good, old people follow your advice and look after themselves. However, even with an aging population that supports itself, the country still requires revenue to run itself, and requires an age balanced population in order to do this.

Absolutely it does!!.. but they key word is balance.. Too many problems by this generation, are being resolved by passing the buck to future generations.

Welease

silverharp wrote: »

if you look at this on an individual level there really isnt a problem. If the average person understood that they may have 20 years where their income maybe minimal and that they may have increased medical or nursing home costs then the average 20 something has 40 odd years to plan for this. The only problem is that everybody expects everyone to look after them or put another way a plasma tv or granite top kitchen is a valid purchase when you can off load the important stuff to the next generation. It never ceases to amaze me how the State manages to screw with proples values

People make their own choices, and sadly many choose to let the government make provisions for their future, and lets face it why shouldn't they?.. the government sets the tone.. their own employees (PS) and themselves get gold plated unaffordable pensions, so why shouldn't everyone else?

I don't subscribe to this mentality (having spend a lot of time and money to sort out my own provisions), but I can understand why others do..

silverharp

Inquitus wrote: »

This is all well and good, old people follow your advice and look after themselves. However, even with an aging population that supports itself, the country still requires revenue to run itself, and requires an age balanced population in order to do this.

I dont disagree, demographics can effect the productivity of a country. However its no accident that the reproduction rate is falling below 2 in many european countries. If the productive part of the population has 40%+ of their income taken off them, that leaves little savings at the family formation stage hence smaller and delayed families, high personal debt.

Inquitus

Welease wrote: »

Absolutely it does!!.. but they key word is balance.. Too many problems by this generation, are being resolved by passing the buck to future generations.

Aye, but alot has already been taken from middle income families. A family with 3 young children has lost:

3,300 euro a year in the form of the Child Supplement.
2% of their Gross pay in the income levy.
Another 2% in the additional health levy.
Is likely to own a home and be hit with the Property Tax if it goes ahead.

What puts people into difficulty is when the goal posts are drastically moved, losing 10k or more of your takehome income is always going to adversely effect your circumstances, and if we continue to target this sector of society we may push them over the edge.

Inquitus

silverharp wrote: »

I dont disagree, demographics can effect the productivity of a country. However its no accident that the reproduction rate is falling below 2 in many european countries. If the productive part of the population has 40%+ of their income taken off them, that leaves little savings at the family formation stage hence smaller and delayed families, high personal debt.

I agree with your sentiment, but if people are given something, then it is relied upon, and to scrap child benefit could have a disasterous impact on those among us who are productive and hard working, but have young families. 5k odd a year for 3 kids in child benefit is going to hit hard if its taken away, especially in combination with the other factors I have mentioned above. You can't take 15k a year off a family over the space 3 years worth of budgets, in an awful economy, and not expect it to have dire consequences. If it is to be scrapped people need to be weaned off it slowly.

Welease

Inquitus wrote: »

I agree with your sentiment, but if people are given something, then it is relied upon, and to scrap child benefit could have a disasterous impact on those among us who are productive and hard working, but have young families. 5k odd a year for 3 kids in child benefit is going to hit hard if its taken away, especially in combination with the other factors I have mentioned above. You can't take 15k a year off a family over the space 3 years worth of budgets, in an awful economy, and not expect it to have dire consequences. If it is to be scrapped people need to be weaned off it slowly.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you (or silverharp)..

I make absolutely no apologies (as per my original post) for claiming child benefit, and would argue that I have far more rights to it than someone who never made a single provision for the future and has contributed sod all to the revenue.

Speak Now

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

One thing that baffles me is that if you are social welfare you get additional payments per child plus child benefit per child. Surely if child benefit is there to help with the cost of children then people on the dole should get just child benefit per child and normal dole.

Moreover, there is a bizzare situation where the additional payment for the second child is greater than that for the first. However, the more children you have the lower the marginal cost as clothes, books, toys etc can be handed down and cooking for 4 is not 33% more expensive than cooking for 3.

Maybe a system whereby child benefit is a tax credit rather than absolute and untaxed payment would be a cheaper way of reducing the payment to the better off than means testing the whole thing.

Not so.

drunkmonkey

cson wrote: »

I think it's a ballpark €160 per child per month and that it costs the State in excess of €1bn per year.

I've one major problem with it being scrapped, none of us will notice any difference the government will just squander it, sure isn't it 1 billion more we can give to anglo they'll say, or we can give it to the construction industry who will also blow it.

We all were kids once and there the ones who need the most help, I don't care if someone's earning 20 billion a year is collecting the 160 euro's a month because in fairness to the them they probably contribute enough tax to supplement 10,000 kids a year.

Count Dooku

Cut child benefit for what?
To subsidize inefficiencies in public sector and preserve living standards bankers and developers?

Head The Wall

Inquitus wrote: »

Aye, but alot has already been taken from middle income families. A family with 3 young children has lost:

3,300 euro a year in the form of the Child Supplement.
2% of their Gross pay in the income levy.
Another 2% in the additional health levy.
Is likely to own a home and be hit with the Property Tax if it goes ahead.

What puts people into difficulty is when the goal posts are drastically moved, losing 10k or more of your takehome income is always going to adversely effect your circumstances, and if we continue to target this sector of society we may push them over the edge.

The majority of people working are paying all those levies, the only difference is people with kids collect more. It's not a valid point really

Inquitus

Head The Wall wrote: »

The majority of people working are paying all those levies, the only difference is people with kids collect more. It's not a valid point really

No you miss my point, 2 single people earning the same as 2 married people with 3 young kids will have lost, through the budget adjustments of the last couple of years, far less than those with kids. And as has been noted above in this thread, we do need people to have kids, simple fact......

Welease

Head The Wall wrote: »

The majority of people working are paying all those levies, the only difference is people with kids collect more. It's not a valid point really

True, but they haven't lost the reduction in child supplement..

(and in fairness if the PS can complain about losses in paying for their own pensions, then parents can claim the reduction in child supplements as an equal cut)

astrofool

Scrap it, but give the child's tax credits to it's parents, who are working in lieu of them.

Unemployed parents can get family income supplement.

Idbatterim

Give tax relief to those you want having kids! Atleast that way one or both parents have to work. Think of the cost to the state of a lower class person having a kind, v a middle or upper class person! Then think of the lower class kids future contribution v middle or upper class again! I honestly dont mean this as a joke, things have gone to such an extreme with the sense of entitlement and political correctness, its a joke!

nesf

astrofool wrote: »

Unemployed parents can get family income supplement.

They can't. Only working families get FIS.

Klingon Hamlet

What if they replaced child benefit with free childcare for toddlers and free schoolbooks and materials for children? Something practical.

I used to hear mothers in post offices talk about how they were "gonna get LOCD" with their child benefit. Plenty of good mums out there too but there's a growing number of scroungers out there ruining the whole point of the system. So let's redivert the money directly to the needs of the children, without risk of scroungers handing the dosh over to the barmen.

Zynks

This debate reminds me of a woman at work that a few years back used to say "why should MY taxes subsidise YOUR children's expenses"... now that she has a child, her view point has changed so much...

On the same level are short-sighted young people who don't realise that these children are essential for their own old-age quality of life.

We live in a system that tries to address some inequalities via taxation, rebates and other mechanisms. Almost anyone can find an angle under which they feel at a loss, but that is how it goes. I doubt many will complain about having gone to schools funded with tax money from all, including people who had no children.

Greyfox

Zynks wrote: »

On the same level are short-sighted young people who don't realise that these children are essential for their own old-age quality of life.

I think it's naive to call these people short-sighted, not all these children will be helping fund the old age pension as many of them will be on the dole been a drain to society, also you have to consider the cost to the taxpayer of educating these children through school and college befor they get their first job. What's the benifit in their been a baby boom when theirs a real possibility that their may be no jobs out their for them when they reach adulthood? I accept the fact that some of my taxes go to things I would rather not pay towards but I can live with this because the amounts of money don't seem as riddiculous as child benefit, for example €35,000 incl rent all a year to a loan parent because they have 3 kids, that to me is an incentive for some to have kids and claim benifits rather then getting a job

K-9

Greyfox wrote: »

I think it's naive to call these people short-sighted, not all these children will be helping fund the old age pension as many of them will be on the dole been a drain to society, also you have to consider the cost to the taxpayer of educating these children through school and college befor they get their first job. What's the benifit in their been a baby boom when theirs a real possibility that their may be no jobs out their for them when they reach adulthood? I accept the fact that some of my taxes go to things I would rather not pay towards but I can live with this because the amounts of money don't seem as riddiculous as child benefit, for example €35,000 incl rent all a year to a loan parent because they have 3 kids, that to me is an incentive for some to have kids and claim benifits rather then getting a job

Yes, many will be on the dole, some for an eternity, some for a short while, the majority for short periods in their life.

Consider the cost of education? Are you serious? Education until 3rd level is a right. It isn't perfect but what is your alternative?

As for 3 kids, about 88% odd of single parents are 1 or 2 child families. Of the 12% odd, many would be divorcees, widowers, not single parents.

RichardAnd

Zynks wrote: »

This debate reminds me of a woman at work that a few years back used to say "why should MY taxes subsidise YOUR children's expenses"... now that she has a child, her view point has changed so much...

On the same level are short-sighted young people who don't realise that these children are essential for their own old-age quality of life.

We live in a system that tries to address some inequalities via taxation, rebates and other mechanisms. Almost anyone can find an angle under which they feel at a loss, but that is how it goes. I doubt many will complain about having gone to schools funded with tax money from all, including people who had no children.

It never ceases to amaze me how changeable people are. That woman's attitude is just typical short sighted selfishness that seems to be awash in our little island.

Anyway, the reason I bolded that paragraph is because I believe we're reaching the end of the old way of doing things here. By this I mean working for 40 years, retiring at 60-65 and getting your pension until you keel over. State pensions are something that will have to go eventually because we simply will not be able to afford them. There are simply too many people getting older and too few younger people getting into to work to pay for their pensions.

A baby boom is not the answer to this problem at all because jobs, going forwards, will be more scare. Manual labour is not needed to the extent it once was and, believe it or not, we can't all be engineers and computer programmers so the result is that recession or not, there are too many people and too few jobs.

So your statement that the young generations are needed is not as true as it once was. Certainly, we need young people getting work and keeping us afloat but we must have no illusions. At 23, I am absolutely certain that I will not be getting a pension when I reach my 60s. In fact, I would further say that I will probably be working (if I have a job) well into my 70s.

What will I live on when I'm too old to work? Well that's the reason why I save 60-70% of every cent I earn so that I will have money to see me through my final years in peace. This might sound rather morbid but going forwards, we as a people need to start looking out for ourselves and stop expecting the state to do it.

As to my views on children. Well, considering that there could very possibly be no jobs for any children I could have I am somewhat hesitant to even consider having offspring. If I had a child tomorrow, it's possible he/she could face unemployment and despondency when he/she reaches adulthood. Perhaps it's a high and mighty thing to say but if that is a possibility then I do not believe I have the right to bring someone into the world only to be faced with that.

We live in interesting times, though to be frank, I would rather live in dull times.

mikemac

Idbatterim wrote: »

Think of the cost to the state of a lower class person having a kind, v a middle or upper class person! Then think of the lower class kids future contribution v middle or upper class again!

That's some class system we have in Ireland
Here was me thinking this was a Republic

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

zielarz

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

donegalfell, this IS your money, it was robbed by the government first and then a fraction of it kindly returned to you..
I'm personally against any kind of benefits because they always favour some group at expense of others. The most logical solution is to get rid of them all and reduce taxes at the same time. You have to do it gradually though to avoid public protests. For example 10% cut every year so after 10 years they are completely gone.

RichardAnd

zielarz wrote: »

donegalfell, this IS your money, it was robbed by the government first and then a fraction of it kindly returned to you..
I'm personally against any kind of benefits because they always favour some group at expense of others. The most logical solution is to get rid of them all and reduce taxes at the same time. You have to do it gradually though to avoid public protests. For example 10% cut every year so after 10 years they are completely gone.

That's not how percentages work. You could take 10% away from 100 a million times and never reach 0. We can't have no benefits though because whilst I agree that the current system of benefits is insane, we can't just let people starve. My solution would be to give poverty stricken people food and clothing rather than money.

dvpower

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

What if they replaced child benefit with free childcare for toddlers and free schoolbooks and materials for children? Something practical.

That would work for me. It doesn't matter how I get the benefit, as long as I do.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I used to hear mothers in post offices talk about how they were "gonna get LOCD" with their child benefit. Plenty of good mums out there too but there's a growing number of scroungers out there ruining the whole point of the system. So let's redivert the money directly to the needs of the children, without risk of scroungers handing the dosh over to the barmen.

Every parent in the country gets CHB (well, except donegalfella). I don't think the fact that some parents are bad should be allowed to dictate policy.

zielarz

RichardAnd wrote: »

That's not how percentages work. You could take 10% away from 100 a million times and never reach 0. We can't have no benefits though because whilst I agree that the current system of benefits is insane, we can't just let people starve. My solution would be to give poverty stricken people food and clothing rather than money.

10% from 160€ = 16€
year 0, 160€
year 1, 144€
year 2, 128€
year 3, 112€
year 4, 96€
year 5, 80€
year 6, 64€
year 7, 48€
year 8, 32€
year 9 16€
year 10 the impossible has happened! we've reached 0!!

I completely disagree with you. People would be better off if they didn't have to pay the bureaucracy cost associated with any kind of benefit. The current system is extremely inefficient and every tax payer has to pay for this inefficiency.

dvpower

zielarz wrote: »

The current system is extremely inefficient and every tax payer has to pay for this inefficiency.

How so? I filled in one form when each of my children were born. I get paid monthly by bank transfer. Seems pretty efficient to me.

amen

married parent with two children and one working parent.
We use the child benefit for school books, school clothers, tours, school arts/crafts etc.

For all those advocating abolition of child benefit I assume you are all also advocating
1: removal of tax relief on private pension schemes
2: charge smokers more for doctor/hospital/visits
3: stop the transfer of tax euros from regions such as dublin to poorer regions in the west ?

Nijmegen

I can't get over the "can't do" attitude in Ireland.

Socialism is about providing to each what they need, right?

I've got kids. I don't need child benefit. Why do I get it? Because the government was trying to buy off people pre-elections, like every other little gift. When they used to give you 3k when you got married, plenty of people saw it as essential funds. And plenty bought a honeymoon in St. Lucia.

Give people what they need, by having a proper tax and benefits system that's linked up and looks at what you earn and what you need!

I do, however, buy the argument that middle income families have come to rely on it as a part of their budget, too many shocks to the economy are bad, etc. But in general, any state benefit should be given to those in need!

ntlbell

amen wrote: »

married parent with two children and one working parent.
We use the child benefit for school books, school clothers, tours, school arts/crafts etc.

For all those advocating abolition of child benefit I assume you are all also advocating
1: removal of tax relief on private pension schemes
2: charge smokers more for doctor/hospital/visits
3: stop the transfer of tax euros from regions such as dublin to poorer regions in the west ?

What has tax relief on pensions got to do with anything?

surley encouraging people to take care of themselves in old age is a _good_ thing no?

Why would we charge smokers more?

Are all their visits to doctors hospitals related to smoking?

do they not pay into the same pot like everyone else?

people in poorer regions pay the same rate of tax as dublin people but don't get most of the benifits of the expenditure.

You're not making any sense.

if people can afford to take of their kids without the payment, they don't need it.

The_Honeybadger

ntlbell wrote: »

What has tax relief on pensions got to do with anything?

surley encouraging people to take care of themselves in old age is a _good_ thing no?

Why would we charge smokers more?

Are all their visits to doctors hospitals related to smoking?

do they not pay into the same pot like everyone else?

people in poorer regions pay the same rate of tax as dublin people but don't get most of the benifits of the expenditure.

You're not making any sense.

if people can afford to take of their kids without the payment, they don't need it.

The point was that most of those calling for the abolition of CB are probably childless. Same as those without a mortgage wouldn't be bothered if mortgage interest relief was abolished etc. We can't pick and choose what taxes we pay and what they are spent on based on our own personal situation.

zielarz

dvpower wrote: »

How so? I filled in one form when each of my children were born. I get paid monthly by bank transfer. Seems pretty efficient to me.

Is it??
Who paid the public worker's salary who processed your form?
Who paid the postal costs?
Who paid the salary of the people who decide how much to spend on child benefit?
Who pays the person who is maintaining the system i.e. transferring you the right amount every month?
The answer for all of those questions is you - the tax payer. My point is that in order to get the 160 euro you have tax somebody at least 200 euro in order to pay for those things. Why not stop taxing people so much and leave them with extra 200 euro? People know best how to spend their own money.

dvpower

zielarz wrote: »

Is it??
Who paid the public worker's salary who processed your form?
Who paid the postal costs?
Who paid the salary of the people who decide how much to spend on child benefit?
Who pays the person who is maintaining the system i.e. transferring you the right amount every month?
The answer for all of those questions is you - the tax payer. My point is that in order to get the 160 euro you have tax somebody at least 200 euro in order to pay for those things. Why not stop taxing people so much and leave them with extra 200 euro? People know best how to spend their own money.

My post was in response to you complaining about the efficiency of the system, not of the existance of the system. If you wan't a good efficient system to distribute CHB then I think we have one.
But now I understand that you were attacking the efficiency of the system as a proxy for attacking the concept of CBH itself.