Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Child Benefit: An Unnecessary Expense?

  • 14-07-2010 04:36PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,583 ✭✭✭✭


    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 :)


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,287 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,968 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    ... 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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,778 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭Count Dooku


    Agreed. But it would be relatively simple and inexpensive to tax it.
    Only for families who apllied for joint income....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 885 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56 ✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 327 ✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,179 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,434 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭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

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,778 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,123 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭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..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭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.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,778 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,778 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,826 ✭✭✭Speak Now


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,198 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭Count Dooku


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,778 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    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......


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    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)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,535 ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement